Power consumption of CRTvsLCD

I have been researching a lot on power consumption of crt vs lcd these last years (TV technician) . I have reached this conclusion: energy saving companies (ex. Energy Star, energysavers.gov) grossly overrate the power consumption of crt monitors. (and lcd monitors)
For example:
HP p930 CRT monitor 19"
rated +- 120watts
TRUE watts (tested with amp meter. watts=Volts x Amps)
122.8V(line ac) x 0.4A(average) (0.3A Min - 0.5Amax (dark scenes, white raster) = approximately 50 watts average
Cost per year at 5 hours a day 70 days a year (8.5c per kwH example)
=1.48$

These companies rate these monitors at 150 watts average. Thats triple the average true watts. That would add up 4.46$ a year.
To compare:
LCD Monitor Generic 19 inch
true wattage 0.2A x 122.8VAC = average 28 watts
that amounts to 0.833$ per year.
So you save 0.647$ per year (if you pay 8.5c per KwH)
Are the companies trying to make us change monitors or something? Is there really a need to change to LCD just for a drop of less than a dollar per year. OR are the people who test these monitors just incompetent. Just to compare an average samsung 32inch LCDTV takes a wallop of 200W constantly on your electricity (at max backlight, where people usually watch the TV)
A 32 inch CRT TV (sanyo) takes an average of about 120watts ( from 70watts to 140 watts max (bright scenes, etc))

^ This was more about crt monitors vs lcd.
Also, the test was done with complete black and complete white at max settings.
This was to show how much companies/organisations overrate CRT to sell more LCD. Of course, seeing how little HDTV CRT's there are, most people change to LCD because of 1: Trend 2: Slightly less place taken on desk (not really a lot, do you put things behind your monitor?)
HDTV or not does not apply to CRT monitors since they have a much better quality than most LCD in any size, especially in lower resolutions and color reproduction/contrast)
Also, I was just pointing out that most companies/organisations that say that to save energy when building a computer you take a LCD monitor and show a comparison of like 150W average CRT to like 30W LCD. This is totally not realistic. These companies don't even test wattage, they just check the back sticker that give the max rating. True, a CRT monitor at startup can consume more than 150W, but only for a second or less. The degaussing coil is a necessary part of any crt. That doesn't mean that the monitor consumes 150W.

I didn't understand that part at all....
LCD (not LED LCD) has so much more mercury considering some have up to 12 mercury lamps.... and most CRT's were leadless from 2000 on. Ever changed mercury lamps on a LCD? I've changed lamps in a lot of LCD monitors and believe me, they will not last as long as rated. Most LCD's will have inverter and lamp problems within the first 10 years. You can't even throw away a LCD monitor without 'disposing of it accordingly to law'.

At least LED TV's have no mercury. That's a first in ecologically sound TV's. The change from CRT to LCD(lamp) was the same as the freaking change from Incandescent bulbs to (mercury) fluorescent bulbs. Save electricity but dispose of them and you're polluting....

^hoffo, the reason CRT can be efficient is because of good regulation more than because of the high voltage. When the TV is not emitting, power consumption is at a minimum but heater, and high voltage (horizontal deflection) is still drawing current. When the raster is white, that is when the TV draws the most current. A good regulation in the power supply means lower consumption. The same thing applies to plasma TV's. They draw much more current when raster is white than in dark scenes. LCD, on the other hand (Lamp), can not dim the backlight during dark scenes unless you lower the setting in the menu. But then, backlight is lowered in all scenes. Higher-end led lcd's can cut partial illumination for the panel and draw much less current but the lower end led can only cut a array (black bars, etc.) and not the whole panel independantly of other leds.