Plasma energy consumption

It would depend on the power consumption of each specific display you're comparing, your hours of use each day and the KW-Hr rate of your local utility to calculate an exact number. I recently compared a Samsung 52" A650 LCD with a 50" Panasonic plasma PX80, and with my local utility rate and usage, it came out to $73.00 per year.

Same, maybe a slight drop.

Energy consumption is not constant for plasmas. There are lots of variables. That said, some of the newer and recently announced panels are sporting Energy Star ratings. FWIW a few of the professional reviewers do include energy consumption figures in their reviews.

See for example Pete Putnam's reviews of recent Panasonic and Samsung plasmas ( The power consumption figures are at the very bottom. )

http://www.hdtvexpert.com./pages_b/2ofAKind.html

Hope this helps.

Wes

The power consumption should be listed on a label on the back of your CRT. It will be listed in amps or watts. If you can find this value or if you can tell me the model number of your CRT, I will be glad to calculate how your CRT might compare with one of the Panasonic Plasmas. This would only only be an approximation, but it would give you some idea. I only gave the other comparison because I actually ran through that calculation about 10 minutes before I read your post.

It should be. The panny's are typically the WORST plasma in terms of power consumption.

I crunched the numbers a while ago from a web site that had pre/post calibration consumption values (maybe even cnet?). I recall the pioneer 5080 being somewhere around the 250-300W level.

Okay, I had to do some additional research but here goes. I used the CNET article/test for HDTV power consumption which can be found here: http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-...3.html?tag=nav

Using the test results, I compared your Toshiba 32A60 with a Panasonic TH-42PX60U (720P) and a Panasonic TH-42PZ700U (1080P). Actually, it lists the TH-PX700U in the report, but I think that is a typo. (Based on the power consumption, I believe it should have been listed as the TH-42PZ700U 1080P model and not the TH-PX700U model which is 720P.) The 80U and 85U were not listed on the report, but the power consumption for these should be comparable to last years 720P and 1080P models respectively. Their test measured the average power consumption based on watching a 1 hour program and using a power meter. These values should be comparable to the average power consumption listed on your Toshiba.

I found the average cost per KW-HR per US household here: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri.../table5_3.html
This value turned out to be 10.64 cents per KW-HR for the year 2007. Your power rate may be more or less than this power rate.

Here are the results assuming 8 hours of use each day:

Toshiba 32A60 = $32.31 per year
Panasonic TH-42PX60U = $76.13 per year
Panasonic TH-42PZ700U = $144.18 per year

From the results, it looks like a 1080P plasma panel costs about twice as much to operate as a 720P plasma panel.

Wow, is a CRT really that efficient? Took me by surprise - it's a big high voltage electron gun.

Edit: Something must be wrong...the CRT annual consumption is less than LCDs?

You have to remember that I was comparing 42" tvs with one that was 32". I looked on the back of my 32" JVC tube tv and it listed power consumption as 133 watts. That would be comparable with other 32" LCDs on the CNET list.

Why not include other plasmas besides panny?...the worst offender for power consumption. CNET has the data for pioneer and others.

I was just answering viper37's original question. He wanted a comparison between his tube tv and two of the new 42" Panasonics. My posts were not meant to be a slam on plasmas. In fact, I have a Panasonic TH-50PX80U which would probably rank among the worst on the list. The annual costs of other plasmas are listed in the CNET article. The only difference is that they use a power rate of 10.4 cents per KW-HR and I used 10.64 cents, so the difference is only negligible.

FYI, Crutchfield is testing and posting both the standby and average (powered on) wattage of all TVs they are selling these days (and last year's models). I've posted this info in a few spots already, but the new PZ85U uses almost half as much power as the previous PZ700u (and PZ77U) panels. You will end up finding the PZ85U to be more energy efficient than the previous generation's 768p sets (60U/600U).
To find the information, go to the Features and Specs tab for each TV.

I just checked the Crutchfield site and they list the measured power consumption with the tv "on". It didn't say that they measured the power consumption while watching a program. Looking at the the Crutchfield's numbers for the 42PZ85U, I find it odd that its maximum wattage is almost identical to last years model yet the average power consumption dropped from 464 watts (with last years PZ700U) to 173 watts. I don't see how that is even possible. My guess would be that the average power consumption would be much greater while watching programming than it is by simply having the tv "on". Panasonic lists a maximum wattage of 573 watts for the 42PZ85U. Crutchfield lists the power on wattage to be 173 watts. This number seems extremely low compared to the maximum wattage.

The Crutchfield numbers may very well be correct and if so, Panasonic should be applauded for lowering the power consumption 63% over last years model. I am just skeptical of their numbers without knowing how they conducted their tests.

I remember reading this data when I decided to go with plasma from XBR4..the 52 inch XBR4 really didn't score much lower than the 50" kuro...307W vs. 330W in normal use. On the other hand, for some bizarre reason the 5080 sucks up 22W in standby....which is quite poor compared to other plasmas/LCD...many of which are less than one watt. Whatever the 5080 does in standby to eat up 22W is beyond me.

The 65" sharp 90u LCD uses a full 76W in standby....thats a whole lot of nothin' for 76W.

Yes

AFAIK the 42PZ85U is not the upgrade to the PZ700, rather it's the upgrade to the PZ77U, therefore it wouldn't be fair to make a direct energy usuage comparison. Although the 2008 line is supposed to be more energy efficient, keep in mind it has a much higher contrast ratio then did the 77U (or 700/750 series for that matter) and with higher contrast comes more energy usage (which is why it's said that over the life of the set, an ISF calibration will generally pay for itself as most owners keep their Picture settings too high). Power consumption also depends on how much HD programming you watch as it will be considerably less with more SD than HD programming. On average power consumption on my PZ750 generally runs about 65%-75% of maximum with about 70/30 HD/SD programming.

The subject of power consumption by plasmas has been discussed here many times. The power consumption of a plasma TV dynamically varies with the brightness & whiteness of the displayed scene. The power consumption listed in the spec is the MAXIMUM power consumption or worse case with the brightness cranked to maximum for an all white screen or scene. Many of us have directly measured the power consumption of our plasmas over time. The Kill-A-Watt device is handy for this and for measuring power consumption of appliances & electronic devices. In general, the real world power consumption comes in at average of 40% give or take maybe 10% of the rated max in the spec.

The power consumption of the 2007 1080p plasmas is higher than the 768p models because the 1080p models are driving twice as many pixels. So you have to be careful that you are looking at measurements for the 768p models versus the 1080p models. I have not looked at the power numbers for the 2008 models. I'm hoping that the 2008 1080p Kuros will be more efficient than the 2007 models.

My bad on confusing the model numbers. All the different model numbers on the Panasonics are dizzying at times. With this new info, on the Crutchfield site, the 42PZ85U is listed as 172.78 watts "power on", and the 42PZ77U is listed as 457.45 watts "power on". This is still a huge difference between this years and last years model. The 42PZ85U has a contrast ratio of 30,000:1 and the 42PZ77U has a contrast ratio of 5,000:1. If a higher contrast ratio translates into higher power consumption, that would make Crutchfield's numbers even more suspect.

The Crutchfield numbers are with programing on and its much the same as what CNET did.
http://www.crutchfieldadvisor.com/S-.../TV-power.html

The reason the PZ85u is so much lower is because the 85U series is a more efficient panel that is capable of being so much brighter at the same power usage. Once you take it down from torch mode (by calibration), it is using a fraction of its max power.

The PZ77/700u draw the same power and they (along with all the 7xx series 1080p TVs) are power hogs. Not surprising since it was the first year of that panel design. They are not very bright (even compared to the previous 768p panels) and they need to be adjusted to a level that is much closer to their max output, hence higher power usage.

Increasing the gap between peak power and average power is more than likely a function of an ABL adjustment. And given the evidence I would say plots 3 and 4 combined here LINK are what has happened. The result is a lower average power with no change in peak power.

Although I would agree that the 700/750 series power consumption is considerably higher then the 2008 line, it can also be said (as was with the 85U) that with calibration the PICTURE setting can also be reduced on the 700/750 series to roughly 50% of max (especially in a dimly lit room), thus reducing it's power consumption considerably as well. More directly, calibration (especially ISF) done on any set will generally result in considerably lower settings as most people prefer a higher contrast picture then calibration would suggest.

I stand corrected, it does look like Crutchfield used a valid method of measuring power. At first glance, their numbers appeared to be out of whack if they are compared to last years numbers. This is odd because I don't remember Panasonic touting the reduced power consumption. Reducing the power consumption more than 50% from one generation to the next is astonishing.

i have a meter that can measure power consumption and my 5080 uses around 250-300W as stated earlier

I would agree...after all, measuring power consumption with a meter (pre/post calibration, with a variety of content...or whatever) is hardly rocket science.

Over a year ago i borrowed a friend's Kill-A-Watt meter and my TH42PX50U averaged 220 watts over a week's period even though the specs said it draws 400 watts, and i had the picture settings cranked almost all the way up.

This TV replaced a 32" HD Tube TV and my electric bill only increased a few bucks a month, and that may be due to the fact that i started watching more HDTV

I haven't checked the consumption of my newer 42PZ700U because frankly i don't care how much it draws.

I'd suggest that there is a typographical error on the page. That amount of reduction would be remarkable.

As mentioned, the 2008 series of panels are designed to be considerably more energy efficient than previous years panels. With Randy's example of using an average of 55% of maximum rated power consumption on his 42PZ50U, it's not unrealistic to see a drop to 30% on the 42PZ85 (and 38% on the 50PZ85U). The important point to remember is that Panasonic publishes the MAX power consumption and not an AVERAGE stat. I checked with Crutchfield, and they run a DVD at 1080i for the Power On testing to come up with those numbers.