Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Con Edison blames flat-screen TVs record high winter electric bills

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 04:47 PM
Original message
Con Edison blames flat-screen TVs record high winter electric bills
Source: NY Daily News

It may look good in your living room, but it's killing your electric bill.

Flat-screen TVs are among the biggest culprits in the New York area's record use of electricity this winter, Con Edison said Friday.

"This is now the second straight winter in which we've set a record for usage," said Con Ed spokesman Chris Olert. "And we believe it's the electronics and the luxury items that are to blame."

-----

A 42-inch plasma TV set, turned on for just a few hours a day, can consume more electricity than a full-sized refrigerator, consumer groups said.

If the plasma TV is decked out with a DVD player, stereo speakers and other high-end add-ons, the sets can add up to $200 annually to a family's electric bill.



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/03/08/2008-03-08_c...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Captain Angry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 04:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. There was a story a few months ago.
The UK was talking about having to light up 3-5 new power plants over the next 10 years to contend with the switchover from standard definition to high definition televisions.

Just for the televisions, with no relation to increasing population, or climate changes that require more heating/cooling...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EmperorHasNoClothes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 04:55 PM
Response to Original message
2. Just to clarify, LCD screens don't use nearly as much power as plasma screens
So not all flat screen tvs are culprits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 05:01 PM
Response to Original message
3. Uh, that's PLASMA TV sets, not flat screen sets.
LCDs are flat screen TVs and the most economical in terms of energy usage.

CRT TVs are what we grew up with and use considerably more energy.

Plasma TV sets are energy hogs two ways: they suck a lot of juice to make the picture and they run tremendously hot, increasing cooling bills in the summer. They're also prone to burn in, so why bother?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. How do I know which one I have? What is my monitor?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. I don't think they make plasma monitors.
so if it's a thin, flat screen, it's likely an LCD.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Thank you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #15
66. If it's large, you can tell by the backlighting.
I got a 22" Wide screen LCD after my CRT monitor kicked the bucket. You can tell that it uses fluorescent lights in the background as it first powers on and then gets progressively brighter over the next minute.

The good side is it's an Energy Star unit with 45 watts of consumption while displaying images, and only 1 watt while in standby. My old CRT used ~100 watts on display, and did occasionally bug-out my eyes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bean fidhleir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #13
33. They do make plasma monitors, but they're rare
E.g. Sony FWD-42PX2/S 42" PlasmaPro plasma panel ( FWD-42PX2/S )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #33
41. Thanks, but it's a limited market
..limited to jerks who need to have the latest toy to show off to other jerks.

I thought perhaps somebody had come out with one for the jerk market, but that it won't be seen in Best Buy for us proles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. Here's what they look like
http://www.webopedia.com/DidYouKnow/Hardware_Software/2...
CRT (Cathode Ray Tube) and LCD (Liquid Crystal Display)


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #17
26. I have an LCD, then.
I didn't buy it, I inherited it. When I do my own shopping, I know what I have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DBoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #17
29. and what does a plasma flat screen look like?
Something like this?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 04:03 AM
Response to Reply #3
43. Do you know anything about DLP screens that Samsung sells?
I have a 42" Samsung DLP TV I bought 18 months ago, but it's hard to find information on it's power usage. I haven't seen a huge jump in our electricity bills, but I do have it on a power strip I turn off when not home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snooper2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #43
56. I've been looking as well...
I have a 52" Mitsubishi...

It blows a decent amount of warm air cooling the bulb in the back, but curious on actual consumption. It does have a feature to make the backlight "brighter" I have disabled.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #43
62. The wattage should be in the specifications
somewhere in the instruction manual nobody ever bothers to read through. If it's not, you might be able to find it out online at their web site.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #3
54. Juice only comes in lemons. When ya get knocked on your ass
you know its power.

More A/C in the summer makes sense. Because these suckers do run 'hot'. It can also help to keep you warm in the winter. Perhaps a trade off in kilowatts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
4. Well if people wouldn't leave their damn TVs on all day, every day...
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 05:07 PM by LeftyMom
We have, here at Casa de Lefty, one utterly ridiculous television (but it's rear projection and Energy Star rated, FWIW.) It's probably not the greatest thing ever, efficiency-wise, but it's on an average of less than an hour a day, and it's the only tv. I'd rather have that than a household where there's a tv in the living room, the den, every bedroom and maybe the kitchen, and at any given time three are running.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 05:13 PM
Response to Original message
5. 42 inch TV sets are just wrong anyway, plasma or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal Veteran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Exactly....one can get a 50" set for practically the same price.
:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. LOL! Not what I meant, but you knew that.
I should at least get an assist on that one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DBoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #7
30. So anything over 40" is evil?
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 05:48 AM
Response to Reply #30
32. If you need special furniture for it, that's a bad sign.
Ridiculous faux armoires in the living room, because you want to pretend you don't have a tv at all, as if people don't know what the armoire's doing there, is goofy. It's overconsumption. I don't know about evil, I'll leave that to the religious folks, but it's unnecessary, and anything unnecessary is a waste, to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. No offense, but precisely who made you the God of home entertainment systems?
And if you're going to go around applying arbitrary standards, you'd better be prepared to let other people dictate how YOU live, too. So here's an idea: don't complain about my TV, and I won't try to tell you what you should and shouldn't do either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 07:59 AM
Response to Reply #34
49. I'm not dictating how you live. I'm expressing my scorn for it. Different.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Traction311 Donating Member (229 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #49
78. Perhaps your living room needs to get out of the 50's
I have a 61" DLP widescreen. It's VERY necessary to me, and makes me happy. If anything, I should have held out for 70". You think 40" is too big? I wouldn't wipe my ass with 40"! :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 12:09 AM
Response to Reply #78
85. I could think of thousands of other activities more wasteful than viewing 60" TVs
Edited on Tue Mar-11-08 12:10 AM by nolabels
Most projection sets work good for what they bring to the table

Front Projection Television Energy Efficiency

(snip)
Conclusions:

Front projectors use roughly the same amount of power as typical size LCDs. I find that amazing. My 8 foot projection image uses the same amount of power as my 36″ LCD TV. On an inch per inch basis, you cant get any more efficient than a front projector. You can, however be energy efficient in total by moving to an LCD TV smaller than 36″, but who wants to do that? There doesnt appear to be any substantial difference in power consumption between LCD and DLP projectors.

Plasma TV power consumption is awful. Based on the Cnet article, it is apparent that Plasma TVs are only as efficient as the old style CRTs. LCDs are about 15% more efficient, and rear projectors are nearly 60% more efficient. It looks like rear projection (RPTV) and front projection (FPTV) have very similar consumptions statistics in total. The technology is essentially the same, so that makes sense. FPTV would obviously win on a per inch basis.
(snip)
http://techreaction.org/?p=110
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TommyO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #32
58. I have my 42" LCD on a coffee table
The other goodies, a TiVo, Apple TV, and DVD player are on the shelf. No special furniture required.

Who are you to determine that my TV is overconsumption or unnecessary?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #58
73. I'm somebody expressing my opinion. That's who I am.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TommyO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #73
75. I'm expressing my opinion that there is nothing wrong with a 42" TV
regardless of how unnecessary you think it may be. On my 42" TV I watch movies rented from Redbox that I pick up while grocery shopping, saving an extra trip to Blockbuster or to a theater. I'm also downloading movies from the iTunes store, completely eliminating any travel to buy or rent a movie. That 42" TV also is used to display family photographs during the holidays without using paper to print them or wasteful ink cartridges on a photo printer, or worse the toxic chemicals that are used in photo processing.

You say they're wrong, period, and then you go on to the nonsense of special furniture. You're opinions on what is an appropriate TV for somebody else to have is just as ludicrous as somebody else telling me what religion is right for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lochloosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #30
59. Mine's 40 inches...but my wife won't agree
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #30
80. We know how men love to brag about "size"
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #5
19. that's why i opted for the 60".
1080p never looked better.

it's worth the extra electricity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #5
37. I know how to make you prove they are not wrong.
Come over to my place... :evilgrin:

Anything over 42" sets show EVERY blemish on standard def recordings... I like 32"...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
8. Conspicuous consumptive societies are creating their own doomsday scenario.
Exactly what "sacrifices" is the average person willing to make to save the planet from total destruction? If the wars don't get us, the pollution will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr.Phool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #8
21. Yeah, but if the end of the world is televised,
I can watch it in 1080i HD!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DBoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #21
31. And they'l have it out on Highway 61
Now the rowin' gambler he was very bored
He was tryin' to create a next world war
He found a promoter who nearly fell off the floor
He said I never engaged in this kind of thing before
But yes I think it can be very easily done
We'll just put some bleachers out in the sun
And have it on Highway 61.

-- Bob Dylan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #21
60. Wait for it to come out on the history channel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skids Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:05 PM
Response to Original message
10. Well in my case... it's space heating... with CPUs...

Haven't checked my stats lately but I was edging towards the top 20 DU Folding@Home team members...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #10
22. LOL I hear ya!!!!
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 08:27 PM by Dont_Bogart_the_Pret
When I use to fold and/or Seti, with 2 computers, with 21" CRT's, my room was always warm.

Funny thing.......last year when I upgraded both of them (AMD2 3800 & 4200)and they both new 22" LCD.
I didn't need that window unit anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turbineguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
11. I was surprised to discover
a 42" LCD was rated at using 278 watts. My old Sony 36" WEGA XBR uses 200 watts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:09 PM
Response to Original message
12. karma
lazy-assed sheep buying a TV that not only costs thousands on credit, but also give the electric bill a crank or two skyward. Guess the salesman that impressed you with that huge POS didn't explain it would also teach your electric meter how to run faster, eh? :hurts: :nopity: :nopity:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Up2Late Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:18 PM
Response to Original message
14. Gee, it couldn't have anything to do with the record price of Natural Gas and Oil, could it?
Typical Republican Business tactic, blame the customer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nancyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. Nah, of course not.
My power bills have skyrocketed, and I haven't got one of those new-fangled t.v. sets. Golly, what a puzzle. Darned if I can figure it out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #14
50. No need for me to post now. Can't believe it took 14.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tandalayo_Scheisskopf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:35 PM
Response to Original message
16. Interestingly enough...
Two TV manufactures have announced they are ending production of Plasma screens. Seems like the trend is shifting to OLCD's. Better picture and power consumption.

I knew that plasma thing wasn't gonna work out.

On the other hand, the state pushed CFL's here, hard, and a lot of people started using them. Power consumption went down. The unregulated power companies raised their rates. There ain't no winnin'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost Dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
20. k&r for the Lemmings.
TV = brainwashing for the dumb.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snort Donating Member (132 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:26 PM
Response to Original message
23. for general t.v. viewing
i've got a 30" flat hd crt floor model p.o.s. from the local sears for cheap! crt's have fairly low power consumption compared to plasmas. when it is time for a movie or a basketball game i fire up my projector, then i have a 110" 1080p t.v.. yes, it rocks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sanity Claws Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:30 PM
Response to Original message
24. TVs are everywhere
I see them not only in bars but in restaurants. In the restaurants, they tend to play DVDs and not broadcast or cable tv.
I think their increased presence, as well as the plasma's greater drain, account for the difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. There are also store signs that are LCD's
In my area, Sonic's got two LCD screens outside on a pole (back-to-back). I seen others too but not many.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skids Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:38 PM
Response to Original message
25. Funny thing -- "blackle" actually works on LCDs...

It shouldn't -- using a more black screen should take just as much energy on an LCD as a white screen, because it's the backlight that takes all the power.

But as it turns out, the newer LCDs have "backlight scaling" that dims the backlight when it detects high contrast white-on-black being sent to the screen. So even on LCDs switching to a light-on-dark color scheme for your most used webpages will shave a few watts. Not as much as on a CRT or plasma, but...

Maybe when the new DU code gets put in there will be color scheme choices...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluerum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:33 PM
Response to Original message
28. $200. Annually. My heating bills average $400-$500 a month in the winter.
$200 a year is less than $20 a month. Soon the electric corps. will roll this out as an excuse to increase the charge for electricity and my heating bills will go up even further.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #28
81. Here's something funny.. We went WITHOUT a furnace for a whole winter
we live in CA, so it was not terribly awful...but the point is this.. our gas bills did not go down all that much..

I was too lazy to call a HVAC guy to replace the whole system and figured we would get a better deal in the spring (we did), but it got down into the 50's inside our house at night :)

My hot flashes kept me plenty warm, but my husband had to "layer" a bit more

The system is rigged.. I don't care what they tell me..

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
35. I call bullshit.
Sure, plasma TVs can eat a lot of juice, but these days most flat TVs are LCDs, which are very energy-efficient. More to the point, unless you have a really huge plasma TV, you're not eating that much more energy than a conventional tube TV of the same size. To blame energy usage on TVs strikes me as disingenuous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. CRTs were actually quite efficient. LCDs, less so. Plasma, a lot less so.
The switch to flat panel TVs has been very costly
in energy terms.

Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
galledgoblin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. energystar and conventional wisdom says LCDs are more efficient than CRT...
Edited on Sun Mar-09-08 08:00 PM by galledgoblin
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=monitors.lcd
Energy Savings

LCD monitors can offer the consumer considerable savings over the products total lifetime. In some cases, the energy-consumption of an average LCD display can be half to two-thirds of that for an average CRT. ENERGY STAR labeled LCD monitors can save even more.


why do you say CRT < LCD?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 06:31 AM
Response to Reply #40
46. There's a certain "minimum energy" for CRTs but not so for LCDs.
Edited on Mon Mar-10-08 06:32 AM by Tesha
There's a certain "minimum energy" for CRTs but not so for LCDs.

In a CRT, you have to drive the deflection coils, heat the heater,
and generate the high voltage. And to a first approximation, that
is almost exactly the same problem whether the image is 12" or 36".
Only the amount of power directly consumed by the electron beam
rises proportional to the surface area of the screen.

By comparison, for an LCD, there's a fixed cost in the energy for
the driver electronics (for a screen of a given number of pixel
rows and columns), but the backlight energy rises at least in
proportion to the screen size and probably more. So a 12" LCD
laptop LCD uses *A LOT LESS* power than a monster wall-hung
LCD panel (of about the same resolution).

Somewhere in there, there's a cross-over point where the CRT
becomes the more energy-efficient technology. As someone else
observed, that cross-over is well-below the "monster TV"
sized screens and the switch-over to monster LCD panels is
raising electrical consumption worldwide.

Tesha


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
galledgoblin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #46
63. if you're comparing a 15" CRT with Frank's 2000" LCD tv,
then yeah, the CRT is more efficient...

I'm not following your logic, but then again, I'm hardly an electrician.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #63
64. It's worse than that...
Edited on Mon Mar-10-08 05:00 PM by Tesha
> if you're comparing a 15" CRT with Frank's 2000" LCD tv,
> then yeah, the CRT is more efficient.

It's worse than that. The nameplate on my Sony 32"
TV says "185W Max" and based on the lack of heat
coming out of the ventilating slots, I guarantee
you it's drawing less power than that; you can
hardly feel any heat.

By comparison, that LCD mentioned in a reply
elsewhere was rated at about the same power ("169
Watts *TYPICAL*) and was measured as drawing more
like 230 Watts. And if you wave your hand over the
rear of an LCD, you'll agree; it's hot!

(Plasma sets, by comparison are *REALLY HOT*!)

The principal reason that CRTs can be so efficient
is their basic operating principle: they squirt three
beams of electrons at the screen and every electron
to hit the screen makes a tiny bit of light. To light
the entire screen, two changing magnetic fields sweep
the beams rapidly right and left and slowly down then
up the screen. But electrons have practically no mass
so it takes very little energy to sweep the electron
beams around (and it doesn't matter how big the screen
is, you just let the beams travel farther so they sweep
out a bigger screen area.

And a little energy is also spent heating up the
three cathodes that emit the beams of electrons.
The energy used to heat those cathodes doesn't
change with screen size either.

The only thing that does change is the actual
amount of energy "invested" in the electrons in
the stream that eventually hit the screen to make
the light. And that energy investment is directly
proportional to the area of the screen.

Also, the energy invested in the electron beam
varies in proportion to the lightness of the
screen so it goes to *ZERO* when the screen is
dark. By comparison, fluorescent backlights in
LCDs stay at full intensity all the time. (LCD
backlights are starting to vary intensity, but
a single bright object on the screen means the
backlight must run at the brightness necessary
to illuminate that bright object.)

CRTs were very old technology, heavy and klunky,
but they still had advantages that the newer
technologies can't meet. When OLED displays
(Organic Light-Emitting Diode displays) are
finally practical, *THEN* CRTs may finally be
displaced as the big screen energy champions.

Tesha


Reference:

http://www.crutchfieldadvisor.com/S-CbsT1tXkaZ7/learnin...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #64
68. Is this only for TVs?
My LCD monitor is bigger (22") than my old CRT (19"), and uses half the power. It's an energy star unit from LG.

Also, the back side of my LCD is cold.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #68
74. As I said earlier, there's some "crossover" point...
As I said earlier, there's some "crossover" point (since
CRTs tend to be constantish energy regardless of size).

But I've also gotten the (unscientific) impression that
big-screen LCDs tend to run at higher brightness levels
than your average desktop computer monitor (and so, use
more power for their backlights).

That is to say, I agree with your assessment of a typical
19" or 21" CRT versus a similar LCD monitor.

Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
POAS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #35
65. Remember when they blamed the internet
for the rising cost of electricity in California? Too many people using their puters to look at porn!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 06:21 PM
Response to Original message
36. Bollocks. A comparably sized CRT would use THREE TIMES as much electricity.
CRT = ye olde glass box set.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BadgerLaw2010 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #36
42. Difference being, those basically don't exist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
priller Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
39. One of the more stupid articles I've seen recently
Edited on Sun Mar-09-08 07:11 PM by priller
Notice there wasn't a shred of real evidence offered. Just anecdotal. So dumb. Full-sized refrigerators these days are very efficient, so that's not much of a comparison. The majority of new "flat-screen" TV's are LCD, not plasma. What's the percentage of plasma to LCD's used in that area? They don't say! And LCD's are far more efficient than the old CRT's they replaced. Hell, they should be *encouraging* people to trade in CRT's for LCD's.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robbien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 06:50 AM
Response to Reply #39
48. And note they blame high bills on usage, glossing over their increase in prices
Always blame the consumer

Never, ever dare to look at the provider who is dramatically increasing prices.

This article is just plain a CYA article for ConEd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #39
55. Nope. Big-screen LCDs use more power than big-screen CRTs.
Plasmas use even more.

Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 05:31 AM
Response to Original message
44. it's not just big-screen TVs - it's lot of electronic doohickeys
there was a Doonesbury cartoon within the past year about how all the night-time lights from the various electronic devices were a substitute for looking at the stars in the sky... or something like that.

Think about it - the cellphone charger, the iPod charger, the clock on your microwave and/or oven, the cable or DSL modem, your router or wireless router, etc. The fridge in my kitchen has a little green light on it that indicates when we should replace the filter on it (the light turns red)

Many of these sorts of items are only new in the past 10 years or so.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikeytherat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 06:07 AM
Response to Original message
45. An extra $17 each month to run a plasma TV = record use of electricity?
Since the article states that a 42" plasma TV plus DVD and audio goodies might add $200 annually to your bill, it is nice to know that most people in New York are only spending about $50 each month on electricity. I mean, if people were spending $200-$500 each month, $17 would not really seem like much of an increase, so clearly everyone in New York has ridiculously low energy bills.

Do I need the sarcasm tag?

mikey_the_rat
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sabriel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 06:48 AM
Response to Original message
47. And I suppose flat-screens are responsible for $3.14 gas here, too?
Please! How stupid do they think we are? What about all the reductions from more efficient bulbs and aware consumers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #47
61. $3.14?
Where you at?

It's just about worth it for me to drive THERE to fill up.

It's $3.70 here. x(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #61
69. I thought natural gas at first... yet
Edited on Mon Mar-10-08 05:31 PM by depakid
even as to petroleum- ABSOLUTELY the same reason applies.

Americans by in large drive wasteful cars inordinate distances and live "non-negotiable" lifestyles beyond their energy means.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikeytherat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 08:29 AM
Response to Original message
51. From crutchfield.com: LCD vs. Plasma TV power consumption tests
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #51
52. ConEd is full of shit
Maybe more people are just staying home instead??? :shrug:

Good find!!! :yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #52
53. I'll second that after living in NYC for five years.
Next they'll be selling a story about sex starved girls and their toys being the culprit.

Some states in the South may legislate laws, that will make it a crime to have a toy in possession.

I wonder how many watts a mechanical bull pulls?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xithras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
57. My 42" Panny plasma uses 260 watts. The 36" CRT it replaced used 225. Not a big difference.
Most of the wattage cited are peak usage for very large 60"+ screens running a rull white picture. Few people own screens that big, and even fewer let them run all day showing an all-white picture. People also tend to cite power utilization levels that were true when the technology first hit the market six or seven years ago. Newer plasmas use dramatically less power.

And, for comparisons sake: My shiny new GE counter depth refrigerator with all LED lighting uses only 75 watts of power, replacing an old inefficient 350 watt model. If you're running an old refrigerator, you're wasting FAR more energy than that used by plasma owners. But no matter what you do, there isn't a single TV on the market today OF ANY TYPE that uses less power than my refrigerator, so their comparison is rather bogus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
conflictgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 05:10 PM
Response to Original message
67. Wrong! Try again!
I don't have a plasma TV set at all, and my electric/gas bill is at record levels this year. $322 just for February! Couldn't possibly have anything to do with near-record amounts of snow and cold temperatures, could it? Hmm...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
4dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 05:37 PM
Response to Original message
70. Its the Furnaces that have to run more
Lets face it even my furnace has had to run more because of this winters colder temperature and it has little to do with my HD TV..

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HockeyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 06:01 PM
Response to Original message
71. "Increased Costs Associated With Doing Business"
aka, SURCHARGES. I know last year mine were more than my kilowatt hours. Given the price of oil this year, I would be it is even worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
72. wow....amazing (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 09:01 PM
Response to Original message
76. I've been wondering about this. It's the main reason I don't own one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #76
82. Your assumption is wrong please go back up and read Crutchfield tests
LCD TV's way outsell plasmas and use about the same as a glass tube tv. ConEd is full of shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JBoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 09:10 PM
Response to Original message
77. I blame the writers' strike
People spent way more time searching and searching for something good on TV, and therefore their TVs were on longer.

Fucking Hollywood types are the cause of every problem...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 11:31 PM
Response to Original message
79. 55 cents a day is not much for most people...
especially when you consider the other extras many people blow money on every day..

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #79
83. You bet, Starbucks, bottled water, Fast food, beer, blunts
All are unnecessary wastes of money. Buy one less bottle of Poland Spring water and you pay for half a week's worth of TV in NYC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #83
84. My favorite tv is a Magnavox 13" sitting on my desk..paid $50
I have no desire to have a big tv.. Our sons have the HUGE ones, and I don't think their reception is any better than my little 13" tv :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #84
86. Having lost the sight in one eye thanks to dain bramage, I need a big TV now
I have an 8 year old Panasonic 32" that is slowly fading, but I can't afford a new TV. I'll probably get a 26" LCD if I ever get my tax "rebate". :cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 12:22 AM
Response to Reply #86
87. I see poorly too, and that's why my tv is a foot away from me on my desk
My eye surgery failed last week during the surgery :cry:.. I am so bummed :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #87
88. Well, we got two eyes if we bump our heads together
Edited on Tue Mar-11-08 12:30 AM by DainBramaged
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:hi: :hug:


Last year I bought a 22" monitor for my computer on sale $209 in Best Buy instead of getting a TV. And I sit 2 feet away from it because I am so badly nearsighted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 02nd 2014, 08:13 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC