|
||||||||
Looking to replace my Plasma TV |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#26 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,783
|
Quote:
All this talk of energy is pointless. The energy used to manufacture the TV and the costs of you buying it are huge compared to the energy costs of running it. If you really want to be environmentally friendly don't buy a new TV.
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 21,645
|
Quote:
Not at all, almost ALL LCD TV's dynamically dim the backlighting, only the very early ones didn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Sandy Heath, Beds. UK
Posts: 10,377
|
Quote:
The manufacturing costs are a 'one time' cost, and MUCH smaller than the lifetime running costs of a TV.
A plasma uses about 400W. 6 hours a day gives you 2.4kWh. At a unit cost of 12p, that means your TV costs 29p/day, or £105/year in energy. |
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,783
|
Quote:
Fair enough. Though without local dimming, this effect must be constrained by the brightest area displayed on the screen - no matter how small that is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,783
|
Quote:
Really? Let's do the calculation.
A plasma uses about 400W. 6 hours a day gives you 2.4kWh. At a unit cost of 12p, that means your TV costs 29p/day, or £105/year in energy. Assuming the TV retailed at £500, only a small percentage (less than 10% perhaps?) of that would be for energy spent manufacturing it (and it's components) - so £50 against £1050, looks MUCH smaller to me
|
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 28,728
|
Quote:
Really? Let's do the calculation.
A plasma uses about 400W. 6 hours a day gives you 2.4kWh. At a unit cost of 12p, that means your TV costs 29p/day, or £105/year in energy. Peanuts in the grand scheme of things - my two 27 inch 50W LCD computer screens and low energy (Intel) PC cost me more than that as they are on for longer each day. The plasma high energy 'problem' was and is still grossly exaggerated. |
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,195
|
Quote:
Yes, and it's even less than that on my 50 inch plasma. Just checked the average over two 5 minute periods; 192 W on BBC News Channel and only 132W on a concert DVD. Normal picture settings, room lights on, all unnecessary enhancements off. Even at 10 hours a day average viewing time (excessive IMO!!!) that's only 19p a day at your energy cost. £70 a year and for me, much less as I'm not glued to the box all day. Some people pay more than than on Sky subscriptions alone.
Peanuts in the grand scheme of things - my two 27 inch 50W LCD computer screens and low energy (Intel) PC cost me more than that as they are on for longer ecah day. The plasma high energy 'problem' was and is still grossly exaggerated. if I was buying a fridge freezer and two machines with the same capacity & no other defining features had energy ratings that were 200% different and the same price, I'd buy the one with lower running costs. Same with a lot of appliances that are not enjoyment related. With a TV, I'm going to spend a lot of time specifically watching something that I'll be subjectively enjoying through it's picture quality. I have never liked LCD pictures, even now on the top end models there is still far too much about them that I don't like which is why I have a plasma TV and am loathe to get rid of it before OLED is at a sensible price range. So what if the thing costs me £80 a year instead of £40. My enjoyment of the picture is well worth it for 10p per day! |
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,783
|
Quote:
The plasma high energy 'problem' was and is still grossly exaggerated.
![]() Plasma is 4 to 5 times the consumption of LCD - so it's a serious problem for the planet. Hence their disappearance, as they can't meet EU (and other area bodies) power requirements. Although I suspect it's more to do with their high manufacturing costs, and inability to meet modern requirements. |
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Sandy Heath, Beds. UK
Posts: 10,377
|
Quote:
Completely ludicrous suggestion
![]() Plasma is 4 to 5 times the consumption of LCD - so it's a serious problem for the planet. Hence their disappearance, as they can't meet EU (and other area bodies) power requirements. Although I suspect it's more to do with their high manufacturing costs, and inability to meet modern requirements. |
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,783
|
Quote:
Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make the suggestion ludicrous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 443
|
This debate about the power consumption of the long dead plasma raises an interesting question for the future. Nobody denies that plasma uses far more power that LCD (or LED) if you compare like with like - eg similar screen size, both HD, etc. But go to SmartbUHD on massive screens (60, 70, ....) and the LED power consumption also shoots up, especially if users turn off automatic brightness control:
https://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/energye...mission_19.pdf Buying a power hungry plasma to get a nicer 42" HD picture is no more "immoral" than buying a power hungry LED to get a nicer 70" or 90" UHD picture. I think I just proved that this entire power debate has been pointless. If TV power consumption really matters just legally limit TV sizes to 30" which should be more than enough to enjoy any programme in a normal domestic room.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 28,728
|
Quote:
Completely ludicrous suggestion
![]() Plasma is 4 to 5 times the consumption of LCD - so it's a serious problem for the planet. Hence their disappearance, as they can't meet EU (and other area bodies) power requirements. Although I suspect it's more to do with their high manufacturing costs, and inability to meet modern requirements. But for people with a bit of common sense, they will set brightness levels at 'normal' or even below and turn off most of the extra processing magic that was unnecessarily available in their latter years. My 50 incher is a mere HD Ready but has served me well and averages 160 watts as measured on a power meter, my 27 inch HD Ready LCD TV averages 55 watts and is rated at 69 watts - a 50 inch version would be much higher. Yes newer versions are more efficient but that would apply to Plasmas too if they'd continued. The energy cost of a late model 50 inch or below plasma set is minimal compared to the total cost of household energy - £40 a year in my case, or a mere 3% of my energy bill. Maybe 50% more for a full HD version but do I need to or want to save £3-odd a month from that? Nope, I'll just buy 2 cans of beer less instead. Second thoughts, I won't even bother. |
|
|
|
|
|
#38 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,783
|
Quote:
There's very little variation in LCD panel power consumption whatever the screen content is
|
|
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 28,728
|
Quote:
That probably explains your confusion?, as LCD sets vary considerably with screen content as they almost all use (and used) dynamic dimming.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 22:08.



