Big screen TV's negate energy savings from CFLs

[Beachcomber]

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

 

[Palindrome]

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.

 

[[email protected]]

|
| 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.

 

[[email protected]]

| 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?

 

[Palindrome]

| 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?

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?

 

[Beachcomber]

|
| 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.

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

 

[ehsjr]

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

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

 

[Charles Perry]

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

That is incorrect. An Energy Star compliant PC power supply now has to be
80% efficient at normal usage levels.

Charles Perry P.E.

 

[krw]

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...

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

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 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.

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

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?

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.

What to do....?

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

 

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

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

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?

 

[Beachcomber]

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?

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

 

[[email protected]]

| [email protected] 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

 

[Andrew Gabriel]

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.

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.

 

[[email protected]]

| In article <[email protected]>,
| [email protected] (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.

 

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

[snip]
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 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.

Not just more pricey, but they was before they further improved on FPD
efficiency as well. FPDs (LCD variety) are far more efficient than a CRT
of the same form factor (size).

 

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

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.

 

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

| In article <[email protected]>,
| [email protected] (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.

What a fucking joke. BOTH the 135W and the 250W supply sounds like
cheap chinese bullshit. Do you also buy PC cases that are less than $50
each, and come with a supply? No wonder you have problems.

I haven't used a PC PSU that was rated at less than 400W for years, and
most of my machines did not consume more than a few hundred watts. Why?
Because I know the difference between high end cheap chinese with a
slightly higher cost, and low end cheap chinese (your retarded choice)
that cost less, but are almost guaranteed to have a huge failure rate
when used at over 50% of their rated output.

My last case was about $130 and did not come with a supply. But then
hey, Antec makes the best cases around. My machine has four HDs, and two
optical drives, and an NVidia 8800 vid card, which anyone with any brains
knows uses a huge chunk of juice.

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.

Jeez. Just go to Tom's Hardware site and look at the already done for
you research on brands and price/value analysis as well.

 

[krw]

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.

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.

 

[krw]

[snip]
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 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.

That calculation is only valid if the replacements are the same size.
It wasn't long ago that 15" displays were the norm. Now it's at
least 19", perhaps a couple of 21" in that environment. ...or should
be if they're doing a real economic analysis, rather than a research-
to-prove-conclusion analysis. If dual displays saved one minute a
day, the second monitor would have a payback of a year or two. I
could save a hell of a lot more than that, not to mention a few
trees. Power consumption (or anything else) can't be analyzed in a
vacuum.