Interestingly, I was reading about power consumption of TV types recently. Unfortunately I tossed the mag already. California, as usual, is planning to implement new *requirements* (not suggestions) for energy efficiency for all TVs sold in the state. They can really afford something like this right now, but anyway... They typically set the North American standards for crap like this due to their large market etc. Naturally manufacturers are fighting it, like they do for all "standards" that they don't invent themselves.

Their findings are: CRT-based are most efficient by far, then plasmas, then LCDs (other types weren't mentioned much). On average, etc. etc. LCDs and plasmas were not even that close, nor were CRTs and plasmas. Surprised? Well here's how they determined efficiency, and in some ways it's quite a fair way: they based efficiency on power consumed by square inch of viewing area. And that's how they plan to implement the law, which if/when implemented will no doubt affect us to some extent.

I sure was surprised, it was exactly the opposite order that (internet) legend would have it.

Its making a comeback, and powerconsumption is better than other technologies. The Mitsubishi Diamond View (54" & 70")laser DLP is advertised as 30% less than LED, with a picture nothing short of OELD can match.

At this point in time anyone buying a plasma is making a statement about conspicious consumption. The sacrifice of LCD, is it realy that bad? The cumulative effect of millions of Plasma is significant. Especially because Plasma buyers tend to start at 50".

I admit with my 37' LCD its hard to get the family of 4 on axis.

1. Mits isn't sold in Canada,
2. The price is ridiculus ($7k US),
3. It's LaserVue. DiamondView are their other lines,
4. There is only one model and it's 65".

California, as usual, is planning to implement new *requirements* (not suggestions) for energy efficiency for all TVs sold in the state.

I expect that will be very good for TV retailers in Nevada.

Some people have a very false assumption about current plasma displays' power consumption, in general (one guy says he can use his as a heater...). I really don't know which ones they're talking about, but certainly not the ones *I* looked at, nor the ones CA used in their measurements. Nor the one I have (which runs "cold" i.e. you can't feel it above room temp anywhere on its surface front or back). It's true they are not efficient when small, but then 50" wasn't "large" even 10 years ago. And guess what: the cheap ones do suck more power. But we shouldn't compare the worst of one tech with the best of another.

Do not compare by the manufacturers' max power consumption spec. Especially for plasmas, it's not continuous and varies as the pic, unlike for LCD etc. which continually draws roughly the same power. From what I've seen, most people watch plasmas in a torch mode, and that's why they bought them. Power consumpton goes up noticeably then.

Measure the ACTUAL total power consumption on similar-sized LCD/plasma screens of good/comparable quality, while watching the same program material, and you'll probably get the same results as the CA efficiency researchers did.

Anyway, since when did "efficiency" have anything to do with luxury goods, "luxury" in the sense they're not necessities or needed to earn a living etc. for the vast majority? A 60" display of any tech isn't even close to "conspicuous consumption" these days, hardly the Hummer of displays. I'd say 110" plasma is though, mainly because they're $80k or something. :)

Edit: totally OT, but get one of those little power measuring meters for ~$18 from CT on sale. Watch how much your plasma power consumption changes depending on what's displayed...if such things amuse you.

I talked to someone from Samsung who is not in the technical dept. I asked him if, given that both the Plasmas and LCDs have Energy Star 3.0 ratings, LCD and Plasma standards are the same. He didn't know, dammit.
I thought this was kinda interesting. I mean, if the standard for achieving a rating is uniform across platforms then Plasmatic power munching is the same on average as LCD.
Anybody know more about Energy Star? The website is full of BS for laymen so if you got the info, give.

Energy Star is so flawed in the way it allows measurements to be made it's practically meaningless. For everything. It's way too political, and way not enough practical.

For TVs they allow measurements to be made in ways that almost noone would ever use. And the manufacturers report the results themselves. The manufacturers lobby for and set the Energy Star test formats.

Basically it's as meaningful as the wattage ratings of certain multichannel amp brands...

And to think we have to pay extra to get that logo on our stuff. Much better to measure yourself the way you actually use something, or to see what an independent measuring org found. Just like for the fuel consumption ratings of cars in real-world use.

Hi,

I am thinking to buy a Panasonic Plasma or LCD from their 42 inch G10 series.

I am just curious about the energy/power consumption of the latest Plasma displays from Panasonic vs the LCDs. Is there still a huge difference or is it now neglect able.

thx

Ahmed

Plasmas are generally more power hungry than LCDs but they have gotten better. Tf you are comparing two specific models just go to the manufacturers web site and check the specs.

blade2008 Your post was moved to an existing thread. Please read earlier posts here and realize that the power consumption is directly related to how the TV is set up. When set up properly, it often uses less power than if left in the default vivid modes. This goes for both LCDs (backlight settings) and Plasmas (programme and setting dependent.

The problem with "sit closer to the tv" argument, for a 20" 4:3 TV and to get an image impact equivalent to what I'm currently using, I have to sit about 12" away from the TV when I'm watcjing a 21:9 movies
For that Imax experience you can always watch the 20 inch through binoculars. :D

Is this something I should be considering when I am looking for a TV? How much more energy and cost is it to run a Plasma vs an LCD, all things being equal (resolution, size, amount used, etc.)?

Is this something I should be considering when I am looking for a TV?

No, no it isn't. (http://digitalhome.ca/forum/showpost.php?p=823614&postcount=3)

The power ratings stated below are from CNET reviews where the power consumption of calibrated was measured for identical blended content. The actual power consumption by a plasma TV is more variable than an LCD depending on the amount a white content displayed. The CNET measurements may not be accurate for your typical viewing conditions.

Here are the estimated costs for two typical TV used for 6 hours per day, 365 days for the year:

Panasonic TCP50V10, rated at 294.92w will cost about $64.61 per year

Samsung LN52B750, rated at 128.86w will cost about $28.14 per year

The costs are calculated using a billing rate of 10 cents per KWh.

An equivalent LED TV will use even less power.

Only you can judge if this will be significant to you if the TV is this amount for 5 or even 10 years.

Also don't forget that the calibrated screen usually is set at 45 ftL brightness (which in my personal opinion, too bright to be viewed in a dark room). I usually bring down the brightness level to about 20 ftL and the electrical consumption price gap will go even further down.

The 2010 Panasonic plasmas are showing a 40% drop in Maximum wattage which should translate to a usage rating of less than 200W for the new 50" (approx $40 per year).

I'd be more concerned about older electronics that don't have a good power save mode.

Well according to the futureshop details section:
My Panny TCP50G10 plasma uses 269 watts.
My father in law's Sony 52" W series LCD uses 300 watts.

Not the final say by any means but I don't think power consumption is not the big deal it used to be.

Here are the estimated costs for two typical TV used for 6 hours per day, 365 days for the year:

Panasonic TCP50V10, rated at 294.92w will cost about $64.61 per year

Samsung LN52B750, rated at 128.86w will cost about $28.14 per year


FYI, you may find the power consumption of most TVs from the following: http://www.cee1.org/files/TVQualifyingProductList.pdf

The data there should be more accurate than CNET's own measurement.

FYI, you may find the power consumption of most TVs from the following: http://www.cee1.org/files/TVQualifyingProductList.pdf

The data there should be more accurate than CNET's own measurement.
It is an interesting table. For example, I discovered that the Screen Area is not the same for all TV of the same Screen Size.

Getting back to the point of the thread, the power draw by a TV will vary depending on user configurable settings and the content being displayed. Any available comparisons should therefore be treated as guidelines rather than hard fact.

In theory, side by side measurements of calibrated TVs using the same video content (designed to represent typical viewing content) should provide more realistic real world results than the CEE table. The power consumption from a TV setup to meet the CEE testing standards will be different to a calibrated TV. It could be more or it could be less. For this reason I would be in favour of the CNET results over the CEE table.

In theory, side by side measurements of calibrated TVs using the same video content (designed to represent typical viewing content) should provide more realistic real world results than the CEE table. The power consumption from a TV setup to meet the CEE testing standards will be different to a calibrated TV. It could be more or it could be less. For this reason I would be in favour of the CNET results over the CEE table.
Most people do not caliabrate their TVs, they just set the TV to standard mode an watch. That's why CEE's data is more representative of the real life situation.