Big screen TV's negate energy savings from CFLs

Did anyone see the article from the Wall Street Journal on 12/13?
Apparently, you can install those low-flow showerheads, replace your
incandescent lamps everywhere in your house with CFLs, buy energy star appliances and vow to take shorter showers, but...
That big screen plasma TV you're buying this year is still going to suck 10 - 15% more energy overall on your electric bill and probably negate everything you are doing at home to save energy and save the earth and stop the global warming.
Even the LCD displays typically consume more power than the CRT's they are replacing, (according to this article), and there is not much that the manufactuers can do about it.
So if you are the concerned, do-gooder type... Do you plan to do all those good, touch-feely, good things to save energy, but still plan on watching the Super Bowl on your new 42 inch Plasma Screen TV?
What to do....?
Beachcomber
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Beachcomber wrote:

Absolutely not a problem, for me - except when I have people visiting, my only form of heating is electrical power. So using a big TV, if I had one, would simply mean that joules would come out of that instead of a room heater.
--
Sue

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| Beachcomber wrote: |> Did anyone see the article from the Wall Street Journal on 12/13? |> |> Apparently, you can install those low-flow showerheads, replace your |> incandescent lamps everywhere in your house with CFLs, buy energy star |> appliances and vow to take shorter showers, but... |> |> That big screen plasma TV you're buying this year is still going to |> suck 10 - 15% more energy overall on your electric bill and probably |> negate everything you are doing at home to save energy and save the |> earth and stop the global warming. |> |> Even the LCD displays typically consume more power than the CRT's they |> are replacing, (according to this article), and there is not much that |> the manufactuers can do about it. |> |> So if you are the concerned, do-gooder type... Do you plan to do all |> those good, touch-feely, good things to save energy, but still plan on |> watching the Super Bowl on your new 42 inch Plasma Screen TV? |> |> What to do....? |> | | Absolutely not a problem, for me - except when I have people visiting, | my only form of heating is electrical power. So using a big TV, if I had | one, would simply mean that joules would come out of that instead of a | room heater.
Great for winter. What about in summer?
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote:

That wouldn't be a problem either. I live in the middle of a National Park - so why would I want to be watching TV during the long, glorious, days of Summer?
Then again, it's Winter now, so all the tourists have left and all the beauty spots are, well, beautiful. So why would I want to be watching TV now?
--
Sue


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote:
|> | Beachcomber wrote: |> |> Did anyone see the article from the Wall Street Journal on 12/13? |> |> |> |> Apparently, you can install those low-flow showerheads, replace your |> |> incandescent lamps everywhere in your house with CFLs, buy energy star |> |> appliances and vow to take shorter showers, but... |> |> |> |> That big screen plasma TV you're buying this year is still going to |> |> suck 10 - 15% more energy overall on your electric bill and probably |> |> negate everything you are doing at home to save energy and save the |> |> earth and stop the global warming. |> |> |> |> Even the LCD displays typically consume more power than the CRT's they |> |> are replacing, (according to this article), and there is not much that |> |> the manufactuers can do about it. |> |> |> |> So if you are the concerned, do-gooder type... Do you plan to do all |> |> those good, touch-feely, good things to save energy, but still plan on |> |> watching the Super Bowl on your new 42 inch Plasma Screen TV? |> |> |> |> What to do....? |> |> |> | |> | Absolutely not a problem, for me - except when I have people visiting, |> | my only form of heating is electrical power. So using a big TV, if I had |> | one, would simply mean that joules would come out of that instead of a |> | room heater. |> |> Great for winter. What about in summer? |> | | That wouldn't be a problem either. I live in the middle of a National | Park - so why would I want to be watching TV during the long, glorious, | days of Summer?
Sounds like a good solution.
| Then again, it's Winter now, so all the tourists have left and all the | beauty spots are, well, beautiful. So why would I want to be watching TV | now?
Then it seems you don't have a problem :-)
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/14/07 2:42 AM, in article l6t8j.112758$ snipped-for-privacy@fe09.news.easynews.com, "Palindrome"

Get a heat pump.
Bill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| | Did anyone see the article from the Wall Street Journal on 12/13? | | Apparently, you can install those low-flow showerheads, replace your | incandescent lamps everywhere in your house with CFLs, buy energy star | appliances and vow to take shorter showers, but...
I was looking at some "energy star" clothes dryers. They still need a 30 amp circuit.
| That big screen plasma TV you're buying this year is still going to | suck 10 - 15% more energy overall on your electric bill and probably | negate everything you are doing at home to save energy and save the | earth and stop the global warming.
I'm not buying one of those. I'm hanging on to my 36" CRT power hog for now :-(
| Even the LCD displays typically consume more power than the CRT's they | are replacing, (according to this article), and there is not much that | the manufactuers can do about it.
I did switch my computer monitor from CRT to LCD. There is less heat coming off the top of it. The CRT got quite toasty. The LCD is not.
| So if you are the concerned, do-gooder type... Do you plan to do all | those good, touch-feely, good things to save energy, but still plan on | watching the Super Bowl on your new 42 inch Plasma Screen TV? | | What to do....?
I'll just get online and read the lastest on AEE.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 14 Dec 2007 14:16:27 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote:

Interestingly enough, the WSJ article on 12/13 points out that "Energy Star" devices are only defined for their efficiency when they are OFF (or more properly in standby and sucking power constantly to keeps clocks & receiver circuitry running while awaiting commands).
When the appliance is turned ON, they can use power without regard to the imposition of government standards.
Beachcomber
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

That is incorrect. An Energy Star compliant PC power supply now has to be 80% efficient at normal usage levels.
Charles Perry P.E.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
     snipped-for-privacy@notreal.none (Beachcomber) writes:

When I was looking at Energy Star ~3 years ago, there were some interesting loopholes. A PC in power saving mode just had to drop it's consumption to some proportion (10% IIRC) of the max rating of the PSU, so if you fitted an appropriately oversized PSU you could conform without actually reducing the consumption of the PC at all.
TCO was a much tougher standard at the time. e.g. TCO'03 monitors could not draw more than 1W in stand-by, regardless of PSU size or full power consumption.
--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| snipped-for-privacy@notreal.none (Beachcomber) writes: |> Interestingly enough, the WSJ article on 12/13 points out that "Energy |> Star" devices are only defined for their efficiency when they are OFF |> (or more properly in standby and sucking power constantly to keeps |> clocks & receiver circuitry running while awaiting commands). | | When I was looking at Energy Star ~3 years ago, there were some | interesting loopholes. A PC in power saving mode just had to drop | it's consumption to some proportion (10% IIRC) of the max rating of | the PSU, so if you fitted an appropriately oversized PSU you could | conform without actually reducing the consumption of the PC at all.
In fact I have had to oversize some power supplies because there seems to be a crop of them in the past few years that will let some voltages slip down at higher loads, and some critical devices (hard drives) have shutdown as a result. On a machine using around 65 watts on, a 135 watt P/S would occaisionally have hard drives shut down. When I put in a _new_ (and that may be part of the equation) 250 watts P/S, the problem has not returned at all.
I'm building a new computer this month (as individual parts trickle in) and I am making sure the P/S is well oversized for better stability.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 15 Dec 2007 08:36:05 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) wrote:

Yeah, I am quite sure that folks everywhere rushed out and bought 1kW PSUs for their 100Watt slimline PCs. NOT!
Use a little common sense.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote: | On 15 Dec 2007 08:36:05 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) | wrote: |
|>> Interestingly enough, the WSJ article on 12/13 points out that "Energy |>> Star" devices are only defined for their efficiency when they are OFF |>> (or more properly in standby and sucking power constantly to keeps |>> clocks & receiver circuitry running while awaiting commands). |> |>When I was looking at Energy Star ~3 years ago, there were some |>interesting loopholes. A PC in power saving mode just had to drop |>it's consumption to some proportion (10% IIRC) of the max rating of |>the PSU, so if you fitted an appropriately oversized PSU you could |>conform without actually reducing the consumption of the PC at all. | | Yeah, I am quite sure that folks everywhere rushed out and bought 1kW | PSUs for their 100Watt slimline PCs. NOT! | | Use a little common sense.
The standard has been to get a PSU with a rating about double that of the actual power level you expect to use. Do you have a reason to believe it should change to some other ratio? Maybe quadruple?
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Beachcomber wrote:

No problem, we'll just go to Al Gore's house and watch it there. Ya see, he's got this scheme where he can use 87 bi-jillion watts without harming the environment, make some third-world country rich, and win the Nobel prize, all in one swell foop. It's almost as good as perpetual motion!
But, like always, there's a flaw. After watching the thing with him, we'll need to spend so much time in the shower trying to get clean that we'll waste far more energy than we saved, to say nothing of the water wasted and the pollution caused by all the soap we'll need.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

Smell, screw up your eyes, but buy that 60" TV.

I was rather surprised. The 42" plasma TV we just bought dissipates 575W, according to the documentation. I haven't put my power meter on it yet but if it makes you feel better, we have electric heat.

I was surprised at that too but the picture sure is nice.

Good thing I'm not a do-gooder type. I won't even have to buy AlBore's Carbon offsets so I can feel better about myself.

Pay the electric bill, have another drink, and watch the leftist whine about their plasma TVs, dripping shower heads, and bad eyes.
--
Keith

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:20:36 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@notreal.none (Beachcomber) wrote:

An old 25" console used over 350W.
My 32" used 300W
My 37" Dual format HDTV CRT uses near 400W.
Many LCD FPDs use around 150W or more (mine at 32").
Sure plasma will use more than LCD, but does it really take more than an old, large CRT to drive?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

On a large scale, I think the point is that recent developments in new consumer electronic products are going to lead to significant and perhaps dramatic increases in overall energy use for most households.
It's not just the new plasma, projection, or LCD TVs. More and more people are connecting these to "Always On" DVR's, home theatre amps, computer gaming consoles, and satellite or cable tuners.
Beachcomber
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:12:47 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@notreal.none (Beachcomber) wrote:

EEEH! Wrong! Strike two. LCD panels are now being backlit by LEDs instead of more power consumptive designs. Also, when OLED matures for large sized arrays, we will see no backlighting at al as an OLED is a light source at the pixel level. They will use less than plasma or LCD.

Oh boy! My HT setup uses a whole ten watt hours more than before!
I am not worried. People used to leave lights on all the time, and use those damned scent emitters, and there have been dongles in use in households for decades. Where have you been?
My carbon footprint is smaller than a newborn babe's. I ride a bicycle to work, ten miles away.
My computer, cable box, and router, and one 15W CFL is all that runs here, except at shower time, or when I watch a DVD movie.
The hot water here is near boiling, and that is provided, so my cooking bill is low as well.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

DVRs seem to draw more than they should (my cable STB runs the disk drive when nothing is being recorded or even watched). I probably would shut it off if it didn't take so long to get its brains back. The rest of the stuff you mention is pretty small potatoes. THe kabillions of wall-warts idling may be of greater concern and easier to do something about. Though, I'd have to see the data (both physical and economic) to be convinced.
--
Keith

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Beachcomber wrote:

[snip]
I don't think so. I have a 37" LCD TV set that draws 210W. My 24" CRT TV draws 180 W.
I have a 17" CRT monitor and a 17" LCD monitor. The CRT takes 180 W, the LCD's power brick is rated at 50W (I can't find the specs on the screen. It may draw less than 50W).
Some folks at Boeing did a heat load calculation on an engineering office building back when LCDs were still pricey. The power saved plus the reduction in air conditioning would pay for an LCD monitor in one to two years, IIRC.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto: snipped-for-privacy@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.