Government claims new TV's double power requirements that 5 500 Megawatt plants have to be built 6-18-05

[dmcowen674]

I don't buy that the larger LCD screen TV's use more power than conventional CRT sets.

Anyone have actual experience with this. I haven't been able to afford spending $4,000 for the 60" LCD I'd love to get.

They are also claiming the doubling of the scan rate for Hi-Def doubles the power requirement. I say bull on that too. Maybe a little but not significant.

Turns out the Energy Star numbers are a farce, they have not been monitoring the on time of a set but the standby mode! What a friggin joke.

Need real numbers here.....thank you

6-18-2005 As TVs grow, so do electric bills

Not long ago, Andrew Fanara was shopping with his wife for a new big-screen television. Everything was going fine, until the sales clerk discovered Mr. Fanara was an energy watchdog for the federal government. Pulling Fanara aside, the clerk confessed: His own new 61-inch TV gulped electricity the way a big SUV guzzles gasoline.

"The month after he got it, he got a call from his landlord, who noticed a big jump in the utility bill," recalls Fanara, team leader of the Energy Star program at the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). "It was the kid's big-screen television."

Bigger screens aren't the only culprits for TV's growing energy draw. The nation's move to high-definition TV, or HDTV, requires sets to deliver more picture clarity, which draws more power.

Currently, federal standards measure only a set's "standby mode," when the TV is idle, even though "active mode" accounts for 80 to 95 percent of its annual energy use.

One 50-inch plasma high-definition TV (HDTV) was estimated to use 679 kilowatt-hours of electricity per year.

A 32-inch liquid-crystal display with HDTV capability was pegged at 387 kWh per year.

By contrast, an older analog 34-inch TV was estimated to use just 209 kWh per year, NRDC tests found.

These boxes could use more than 20 billion kWh per year, at a cost of about $2 billion, another NRDC study says.

In that scenario, five 500-megawatt power plants would be needed to run these boxes, emitting 15 million tons per year of carbon dioxide, a global-warming pollutant.

 

[dmcowen674]

Lot's of views, no opinions???

No one here has a big LCD screen TV yet???

 

[krcat1]

If you built five 500-Megawatt nuclear you wouldn't have to worry about gas pollution.

This isn't surprising. The large TVs are built with a high-end consumer in mind.
The extra moola does not hurt these people.

When HDTVs start to really move to the lower end, the electrical cost will become more important.

 

[Calin]

Assuming TV's consuming no more power than absolutely needed, the power consumption will increase with the square of the size (or diagonal, whatever).
Also, generating faster signal requires faster electronics, so HDTV will use more power than classic TV (this goes even in the direction: one high definition TV will consume more power when showing HDTV content than when showing normal TV). However, I don't think this difference would be so important, and I'm sure the new large screen TV will consume less power than the large screen TV's of 10-15 years ago.
You should compare the power use of large screen HDTV to small screen classical TV just the way you compare the mpg of sport pickup trucks and small econoboxes.
EDIT: econoboxes - I'm not talking about 4-bangers but about 3-bangers , if you have something like this in America

 

[Calin]

And yes, I remember too Energy Star was there to certify that unused devices will go into very low power states (StandBy, low power but ready to start in less than one second, shutdown, extremely low power but able to start in several seconds)

 

[Brentx]

I think that whole thing is bull. I have a 27" LCD screen that replaced a 27" CRT, and I am saving power. I see my electric bill has actually gone down about a $1.35 since I got the new TV. Now if you want to talk about Plasma TV sets, I can see those eating a lot of power. Plasma's generate so much heat, plus the electricity that is used to heat up the gas... they are power eaters. I have a feeling though that people are eventually going to migrate to LCD TV's and that will become the new standard, which would make the construction of new power plants obsolete.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Brentx
I have a feeling though that people are eventually going to migrate to LCD TV's and that will become the new standard, which would make the construction of new power plants obsolete.

Yes, all of our energy problems will be solved thanks to LCD TVs... lol.

 

[Calin]

Not that everyone will replace their 27" CRT with 27" LCD - there will be more who will replace them with 40" or larger LCD, and they won't have their power use reduced but increased.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Lot's of views, no opinions???

No one here has a big LCD screen TV yet???

Eh? I always thought LCD screens used less energy than CRTs, at least at smaller sizes. Perhaps it depends on the brightness of the bulb, maybe large sized LCDs use really powerful bulbs?

 

[Eris23007]

I wonder how power-vicious the LCD and/or DLP front projectors are. They use very powerful lamps to throw the light all that distance... anyone know?

 

[Continuity27]

Well it's true an LCD monitor/TV will take up less power than a CRT model, but something we may be overlooking is the fact that large screen LCDs are now being pushed by HDTV. In the past, extremely large screens were mostly limited to the very wealthy - or people that really wanted a big TV, now though, with HDTV and LCD, it's becoming a lot more commonplace to have 50+ inch monitors. And of course a 50+ inch LCD takes up more power than a 37 inch CRT, and that's the type of changes millions are making, not just CRT to LCD.

 

[Velk]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I don't buy that the larger LCD screen TV's use more power than conventional CRT sets.

Anyone have actual experience with this. I haven't been able to afford spending $4,000 for the 60" LCD I'd love to get.

They are also claiming the doubling of the scan rate for Hi-Def doubles the power requirement. I say bull on that too. Maybe a little but not significant.

Turns out the Energy Star numbers are a farce, they have not been monitoring the on time of a set but the standby mode! What a friggin joke.

Need real numbers here.....thank you

The article is the result of sloppy research. While it's true that plasma screens have shocking power consumption, it doesn't hold true of LCDs as well, which have substantially lower power requirements than CRTs.

For "real" numbers, insofar as you can trust the manufacturer, Sony provides the following on their newest models :

32" CRT - 240W

37" plasma - 370W
55" plasma - 520W

32" LCD - 150W
42" LCD - 240W

 

[Velk]

Originally posted by: Eris23007
I wonder how power-vicious the LCD and/or DLP front projectors are. They use very powerful lamps to throw the light all that distance... anyone know?

Sony's WXGA resolution cinema projector is 195W, which is fairly low - not really surprising in that the "screen" part of a projector is much smaller than normal TVs so you save a lot there.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Eris23007
I wonder how power-vicious the LCD and/or DLP front projectors are. They use very powerful lamps to throw the light all that distance... anyone know?

Typically 300 or 500 watt bulbs.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Velk

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I don't buy that the larger LCD screen TV's use more power than conventional CRT sets.

Anyone have actual experience with this. I haven't been able to afford spending $4,000 for the 60" LCD I'd love to get.

They are also claiming the doubling of the scan rate for Hi-Def doubles the power requirement. I say bull on that too. Maybe a little but not significant.

Turns out the Energy Star numbers are a farce, they have not been monitoring the on time of a set but the standby mode! What a friggin joke.

Need real numbers here.....thank you

The article is the result of sloppy research. While it's true that plasma screens have shocking power consumption, it doesn't hold true of LCDs as well, which have substantially lower power requirements than CRTs.

For "real" numbers, insofar as you can trust the manufacturer, Sony provides the following on their newest models :

32" CRT - 240W

37" plasma - 370W
55" plasma - 520W

32" LCD - 150W
42" LCD - 240W

That's what I thought, I have no idea how the Govt came up with 387

 

[Mark R]

I think the issues are:
a) People are upgrading their TVs to larger screen units. Regardless of technology, a larger screen requires a greater power supply. Someone upgrading from a 20" CRT to a 42" LCD would likely see a significant increase in power consumption.
b) It's possible that LCD rear-projection TVs may have been included in the LCD category - the high-intenstity light source is a major power drain, and is considerably less efficient than the more conventional cold-cathode illumination on non-projection LCD displays.
c) Some new home theatre TVs offer considerably higher brightness than older CRT TVs. Higher brightness means higher power consumption.
d) Plasma TV consumption is indisputably higher than CRT. However, newer versions are much improved. The first generation plasmas used so much power that you could burn yourself if you touched the screen.

Energy star sets standards for standby power consumption - their remit does not include power used during operation. Trying to specify maximum power consumption for every different appliance and every different technology would be an impractical if not impossible task. The energy star number are useful, but not in this context.

That's what I thought, I have no idea how the Govt came up with 387

Velks figures (150 W, in this case) are power consumption. The government's figures (387 kWh, in this case) are energy consumption over the course of a year. Switch your 150W TV on for 7 hours a day, and it will clock up 387 kWh over a year.

Is the 7 hours a day figure realistic? I don't know - doesn't sound it to me. Maybe people are getting into the habit of leaving the TV set on just as a distraction in the background.


Another point is that may homes now have multiple TVs. Often for convenience, this may not greatly increase the total number of hours of TV watched per day, but the total standby power consumption would be increased greatly.

 

[Velk]

Originally posted by: Mark R

That's what I thought, I have no idea how the Govt came up with 387

Velks figures (150 W, in this case) are power consumption. The government's figures (387 kWh, in this case) are energy consumption over the course of a year. Switch your 150W TV on for 7 hours a day, and it will clock up 387 kWh over a year.

Is the 7 hours a day figure realistic? I don't know - doesn't sound it to me. Maybe people are getting into the habit of leaving the TV set on just as a distraction in the background.

While that is true, I would imagine that he is more concerned by why the proportions are radically different, rather than the absolute value itself. I.e. if the LCD is using 150W and the CRT is using 240W how, over the course of the year, did the LCD consume more power than the CRT if they had the same amount of uptime ?

I suspect either some uneven test criteria, or a simple mistake. My guess, given it's a news article and not a research piece, that there was no actual testing done and it is the latter.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

I just stumbled across this site. I run a home electronics shop so I thought I'd take a stab at this issue.

In reading the cited article I came across a few examples of how certain "fear monger" groups (our own government is not exempt from this) like to take a static view of the universe and scare us all into thinking we are bringing on our own armageddon. Which is to say that the variables used to extrapolate future scenarios will never change. Combine that view with a few factual errors & exaggerations and voila... you get a situation whereby someone needs to build 5 brand spankin' new 500MW power plants.

The article states quite plainly that the portion of electricity that television (in whatever form) as a part of the total electrical comsumption of an average household will increase by 2.5 times over the next four years. (From 4% to 10% of total household usage) Also, they had to put in the obligitory dig at global warming. I supposed I should be shocked at the lack of a "for the kids" reference.

Anyway...

If everyone went out and bought a plasma TV in the next four years I could swallow that dramatic increase. But the truth is that while HDTV is a reality and the HDTV market is rocketing toward a day when most TV's sold in the US are Hi-Def... I think the numbers are a little inflated.

If every household in the US converted every one of its TV's over to a large format Hi-Def display (regardless of category) we'd have a problem. But the reality is that won't happen. People just don't treat television that way. Most households with multiple TV's have one main set in the living room (or theater or whatever) and a few smaller sets around the house. (One for the kids' X-Box, one for the bedroom, one for the kitchen... etc.) I find it hard to believe that anyone would replace an ancillary TV with a power guzzling big-screen. In my 15 years of designing and installing custom electronics systems I have only installed one bigscreen into a kitchen. I've never had anyone buy a 60 plasma for the kids to play Nintendo on. I have a hard time believing that those sets would be replaced by anything other than another small set... most likely an LCD flat panel that uses less power than the CRT it replaces.

As for the replacement of those TV's in the living room... Yes, it's likely that they will be replaced by a device with a higher level of power consumption, albeit only slightly higher. And to add a DVD player into that equasion as though everybody buying a new TV doesn't already have a DVD is kind of silly. The same argument could be made for saying that all those new HDTV's will have an off-air HD set top box. Most people (around 85% in the US) receive their current TV diet via cable or digital satellite. Anyone with these services would simply replace their current box with a Hi-Def box thus creating a zero sum gain on electrical use.

The way I see it is that the average TV currently in the living rooms all across America (consuming approx 250w) will be replaced (on average - based on current and projected market trends) by either a DLP rear projection set or an LCD rear projection set which consume about 275w of power. So with the idea that ancillary TV's elsewhere in the home will be replaced with devices of similar power consumption we have a very negligable increase in total power consumption. Certainly not 250%.

 

[Gannon]

A little offtopic but... forget power for a moment. think about over-all environmental impact of LCD's being tossed out if they dont last as long as CRT's.

There might be issues with LCD longevity and dead pixels perhaps how many people are goign to be tosssing out LCD monitors versus CRT's? Most CRT monitors I have ever owned lasted at least 10 years each, I have old 14" from 10 years ago that still work perfectly. How many LCD monitors will be working in 10 years or will deadpixels eat up the screen? Ever seen a gameboy LCD after 3-4 years of use? Looks like garbage I just hope LCD monitors dont corrupt as badly as gameboy / gameboy advance screens of yesteryear.

 

[Bassyhead]

Originally posted by: Gannon
A little offtopic but... forget power for a moment. think about over-all environmental impact of LCD's being tossed out if they dont last as long as CRT's.

There might be issues with LCD longevity and dead pixels perhaps how many people are goign to be tosssing out LCD monitors versus CRT's? Most CRT monitors I have ever owned lasted at least 10 years each, I have old 14" from 10 years ago that still work perfectly. How many LCD monitors will be working in 10 years or will deadpixels eat up the screen? Ever seen a gameboy LCD after 3-4 years of use? Looks like garbage I just hope LCD monitors dont corrupt as badly as gameboy / gameboy advance screens of yesteryear.

To be honest, I've never seen an LCD deteriorate beyond the condition it was in when it was new. It was my understanding that "dead pixels" are an inherent factor of the imperfect manufacturing process and not from normal use, therefore I don't think more of them would occur after the LCD was made. Additionally, LCDs are solid state in nature. CRTs are exactly what the name says -- tubes. Tubes have physically moving parts -- electrons -- and over time the electron gun normally deteriorates as its parts become contaminated.

A CRT can have up to 8 pounds of lead in the display. About 70% of the heavy metals in landfills come from electronics and 80% of this is attributed to CRTs. They account for the second largest source of municipal waste lead, only behind lead acid storage batteries. I would think the disposal of CRTs would have a much larger concern attached to it than the disposal of LCDs, especially considering that many CRTs are being replaced by LCDs.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: Gannon
A little offtopic but... forget power for a moment. think about over-all environmental impact of LCD's being tossed out if they dont last as long as CRT's.

There might be issues with LCD longevity and dead pixels perhaps how many people are goign to be tosssing out LCD monitors versus CRT's? Most CRT monitors I have ever owned lasted at least 10 years each, I have old 14" from 10 years ago that still work perfectly. How many LCD monitors will be working in 10 years or will deadpixels eat up the screen? Ever seen a gameboy LCD after 3-4 years of use? Looks like garbage I just hope LCD monitors dont corrupt as badly as gameboy / gameboy advance screens of yesteryear.

ive had 2 LCD monitors for 4 years and they are holding up fine.

also, i have a 42" plasma TV and it doesnt get that hot at all. you guys are blowing smoke up peoples butts. ill bet most of you dont even own one, but you are talking about it like you do.

plasma is brighter and looks better in HD than LCD...ive got both, and i love both, but if i had to do it again id buy 2 plasmas.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: Bigsm00th

Originally posted by: Gannon
A little offtopic but... forget power for a moment. think about over-all environmental impact of LCD's being tossed out if they dont last as long as CRT's.

There might be issues with LCD longevity and dead pixels perhaps how many people are goign to be tosssing out LCD monitors versus CRT's? Most CRT monitors I have ever owned lasted at least 10 years each, I have old 14" from 10 years ago that still work perfectly. How many LCD monitors will be working in 10 years or will deadpixels eat up the screen? Ever seen a gameboy LCD after 3-4 years of use? Looks like garbage I just hope LCD monitors dont corrupt as badly as gameboy / gameboy advance screens of yesteryear.

ive had 2 LCD monitors for 4 years and they are holding up fine.

also, i have a 42" plasma TV and it doesnt get that hot at all. you guys are blowing smoke up peoples butts. ill bet most of you dont even own one, but you are talking about it like you do.

plasma is brighter and looks better in HD than LCD...ive got both, and i love both, but if i had to do it again id buy 2 plasmas.

LCD's deteriorate over time, I have two different version of a handheld, an old regular gameboy and a gameboy advance whose LCD screens are both totally corrupt and they are based on the same LCD technology. An LCD screen after years of use will start having dead pixel issues, obviously the quality of the LCD display is an issue but eventually many pixels in an LCD display will stop functioning. I've seen it happen in my handheld devices, I was wondering whether or not this applies to modern LCD monitors or not or is it just because handheld devices use crappier LCD's that decay faster?

Personally I think its a perfectly valid question. Your LCD has maybe held up for 4 years, but in another 3-4 years will you have to junk it because of pixel corruption? CRT's dont have that problem. I'm just wondering whether or not LCD pixel corruption will be as serious an issue going out to 8-10 years scales on LCD monitors as it is for LCD's on cheaper handheld devices.

 

[L00PY]

That Gameboy / GBA was designed for a very different lifespan than a monitor. They also take a lot more abuse than a screen sitting on a table 24/7. Trying to compare the two is as valid as me saying "LCDs will last well longer than 20 years because I have a 20 year old LCD watch based on the same technology that's perfectly fine today." CRTs also run into age related problems of degraded image quality and geometry issues.

I see that news article as standard cherry picking of stats / hype to make good print. You can read the paper in its entirety here. That "387" came from a 32" Panasonic TC-32LX20 LCD. It also happens to be the highest LCD number in their appendix. As a couple more data points, Sony's 32" HD CRT was listed as 332kWh and their 32" HD LCD was listed as 255kWh. There's also a graph in there with different technologies and direct view / projection sets if you're curious.

Skimming through the paper, they seem to be illustrating the fact that HDTVs (given their higher pixel count and better picture quality), use more juice than their older analog counterparts. Big whoop.

 

[JAGedlion]

I have 2 original gameboys and mine is still in rather mint condition while the other (given to me by a friend) came with like a whole row messed up but hasn't deteriorated since. I also have digital watches which last I checked are lcds and only when sumberged in water (non water proof watch) did the lcd die on me. My 4 year old lcd monitors are also holding up perfectly. My ~10 year old crt on the other hand is basically dead (granted my 13 year old one is still working fine though it never got as much use) but I'll also mention that at school a good 1/4 or so of the imacs also have dead crts.

I dont think lifespan is really an issue.

 

[AbsolutDealage]

Originally posted by: Bassyhead

A CRT can have up to 8 pounds of lead in the display. About 70% of the heavy metals in landfills come from electronics and 80% of this is attributed to CRTs. They account for the second largest source of municipal waste lead, only behind lead acid storage batteries. I would think the disposal of CRTs would have a much larger concern attached to it than the disposal of LCDs, especially considering that many CRTs are being replaced by LCDs.

That's especially true given the RoHS compliance initiatives that are coming down the pipe (this will surely impact the entire product line, not just EU variants).