Plasma Power Usage

[Roderick 0]

Sorry, double post. The system is not perfect!

[jfbari 0]

I want to know the answer too, for curiosity reason, although I do not own a Plasma.

Have you, so far, got a real life answer from a Plasma owner?

I guess you have stepped on the nerve of some of the Plasma owners.

Let me ask you how much your tv currently costs you to run per year?

[jfbari 0]

The extra cost of running a large screen is not an issue for me as it's the price I am willing to pay for a good viewing experience. Cost to run will vastly differ from each install as some watch more TV than others. I for example have mine on, on average about 6-7 hours a day. Others maybe less or more.

Another perspective is this. Why would you buy a reverse cycle air con and then not use it because it costs too much to run or buy a V8 and worry about petrol pricing

Surely running costs have to be taken into consideration - it's a whole of purchase perspective that's needed

LCD's woud be much easier to work out as they have a backlight running at a constant brightness. However, with a plasma it totally depends on what picture settings you run the screen at and how bright the source is that your watching. If your watching constantly dark movies then the Plasma will use bugger all power.

This is what im led to believe and have read, please correct me somebody if I have missed the point somewhere.

[jfbari 0]

Sorry, double post. Delete.

[Scalpel 0]

The cost of one movie at the local cinema (2x$11 tickets + babysitting + petrol + marked up movie-snax) would pay for my plasma power for a looooonnnnnggg time.

J.

[Roderick 0]

The cost of one movie at the local cinema (2x$11 tickets + babysitting + petrol + marked up movie-snax) would pay for my plasma power for a looooonnnnnggg time.

J.

That's a small fortune thse days . Cost of petrol, babysitter, etc.....

Piece of Trivia: Did you know that the amount of CO2 produced in order to run a 100 watt lightbulb for 6 hours a night for a year is about the same as that produced by an average car in travelling from Sydney to Melbourne? More if you live in Melbourne, because brown coal is less efficient at generating electricity -- only about 25% efficient.

[Greebs 0]

Piece of Trivia: Did you know that the amount of CO2 produced in order to run a 100 watt lightbulb for 6 hours a night for a year is about the same as that produced by an average car in travelling from Sydney to Melbourne? More if you live in Melbourne, because brown coal is less efficient at generating electricity -- only about 25% efficient.

Using that logic, electric cars must produce more CO2 than the petrol beasts they are meant to be replacing for cleaner emissions and less greenhouse gases.

EDIT: Ignore that - just realised this was over the whole year for the lightbulb.

[Roderick 0]

Using that logic, electric cars must produce more CO2 than the petrol beasts they are meant to be replacing for cleaner emissions and less greenhouse gases.

EDIT: Ignore that - just realised this was over the whole year for the lightbulb.

Yes, that is actually true! Petrol cars produce less CO2 than electric cars that use electricity produced in a coal-fired power station -- a lot less. .

Now, all we need is a roof full of photovoltaics to recharge the car. In Canberra in summer, an electric car covered with solar cells could quite easily recharge its batteries while in the carpark at work!

Forget your V8s. Electric cars can outsprint them all.

[Zacspeed 0]

Now, all we need is a roof full of photovoltaics to recharge the car. In Canberra in summer, an electric car covered with solar cells could quite easily recharge its batteries while in the carpark at work!

I'm not sure if there's any substance in this quote I heard somewhere.

But apparently the amount of energy it takes to make a Solar panel is far more energy than the panel itself will ever produce in its life.

[TBAR 0]

Piece of Trivia: Did you know that the amount of CO2 produced in order to run a 100 watt lightbulb for 6 hours a night for a year is about the same as that produced by an average car in travelling from Sydney to Melbourne? More if you live in Melbourne, because brown coal is less efficient at generating electricity -- only about 25% efficient.

I would love to see the references to support this statement - truely

[TBAR 0]

But apparently the amount of energy it takes to make a Solar panel is far more energy than the panel itself will ever produce in its life.

Given that solar cells installed on a residential property connected to the power grid and supply enough power to cover the initial investment in a 10-15 year period they must have returned more energy than used. i.e. only part of the original cost (from raw materials to final installation in energy) and that energy cost will be fully covered in the purchase/installation price - assuming all parties are making profits. The laws of economics.

Of course if the solar cells are never placed in the sun then it will take more energy to make a Solar panel than the panel itself will ever produce in its life.

[Roderick 0]

I'm not sure if there's any substance in this quote I heard somewhere.

But apparently the amount of energy it takes to make a Solar panel is far more energy than the panel itself will ever produce in its life.

There is no substance to this urban myth. Solar panels quite quickly overtake the energy consumed in their manufacture -- or so I'm told.

The bit about the 100 watt lightbulb and the car travelling from Sydney to Melbourne is also in the latest Silicon Chip mag, in their feature on energy conservation. I would think their maths are fairly good, but this can be confirmed quite easily by sitting down to some simple calculations with the right starting info. Their article on the 1000 lumen LED proved to be spot on with the press release from Osram.

Rod

[Ajax9000 0]

Problem is many people just quote the specs which is max power. If you want a good comparisons of actual Plasma/LCD usage check out these:-

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-6400401-3.html?tag=lnav

http://www.hometheatermag.com/gearworks/106gear/

http://www.g4techtv.ca/callforhelp/shownot...3.shtml?regular

http://www.tv.com/story/3153.html?q=tv

Interesting ... and frustrating. The one broad survey gives no methodology, and the others that used a detailed investigation methodology only looked at a few screens.

I ran a few quick regression analyses (linear/exponential/quadratic) on the cnet data and came to this result: on average a plasma uses about 45W more than the equivalent-sized LCD, and about 240W more than the equivalent-sized RPTV.

Note that data on LCDs greater than 50" is limited and the Sharp 65" result strongly impacts on the analyses.

Adrian

EDIT: The standby power figures are pretty scary. Would you leave a 75W light on all day and night? Well that's the equivalent you have if leaving the Sharp 65" LCD on standby.

[xr06t 0]

wow, that last fact is surprising!!

[Roderick 0]

The standby power figures are pretty scary. Would you leave a 75W light on all day and night? Well that's the equivalent you have if leaving the Sharp 65" LCD on standby.

Yeah! If you lived in Melbourne, thats the equivalent of two car trips to Sydney and back in one year -- at least in CO2 emission terms.

[achw 0]

why is it that plasma tvs use so much power in standby mode? surely the only power needed is that to receive a signal from the remote control to turn it on (so it should be any different from any other tv)??

[Ajax9000 0]

why is it that plasma tvs use so much power in standby mode? surely the only power needed is that to receive a signal from the remote control to turn it on (so it should be any different from any other tv)??

It isn't just plasmas.

I seem to recall that there is a voluntary EU target for standby power draw to be less than 1W, but that the combination of keeping status LEDs, IR receivers, the PSU, etc. ticking over means that meeting this is a little tricky. But it isn't that hard either. The cnet data has 12% of plasmas, 24% of LCDs and 44% or RPTVs meeting the 1W target. Fortunately, 76% of the plasmas, 80% of the LCDs, and 67% of RPTVs draw less than 3W. But even so there are still an alarming number using 20/33/40/50/76W.

I think Malcom Turnbull said on Four Corners that the 1W target would be made compulsory here by 2008?

Adrian

[Roderick 0]

Do not dispair! More efficient big-screen TVs are in sight! This is from the article at http://www.tv.com/story/3153.html?q=tv

"This trend to low-power TV technology has already begun with current "professional" Panasonic plasmas that are able to limit brightness peaks and, as a result, overall power. It's just the start, as Matsushita (Panasonic's corporate parent) has teamed up with Pioneer and Hitachi to create a prototype plasma screen that uses half as much power as the typical display today. First shown at Japan's CEATEC show, it took a total reengineering of the set to make it possible. These low-power plasma TVs could be on the market in a year or two. "

"Also, look for a new generation of LCD TVs that get rid of the three color filters and use an LED backlight instead. A Samsung prototype wide-screen, 32-inch, high-definition display consumes only 80 watts, about half as much as comparable sets. It could be on sale next year. Look for LEDs to help projector TVs as well. We've seen projector prototypes that are miserly enough to run on a battery but don't yet come close to the light intensity produced by a traditional high-voltage lamp. Finally, the future may belong to the organic light-emitting diode, or OLED, a technology that delivers bright, rich screens but for much less power. At the moment, they're so small they're useful only for cell phones, but like all TV technologies, the trick is to start small while thinking big. "

The CO2 crisis is forcing us to develop much more efficient consumer appliances in all areas, and we will probably be surprised by the extent to which this revolution takes hold. A 60% reduction of CO2 emissions by 2050 may be easily achieved, despite John Howard's misgivings.

Rod

[trevor1 0]

Hi everyone,

I have 3 children under 5 and I've been worried about the climate change issue for a while. However now I'm coming to my senses and have taken a step back to observe this massive media hype. I'm seeing Ian thorpe preaching every 5 minutes on foxtel. We that belong to this forum and love big screens are subjected to much brainwashing through these sources.

Some points to note:

- The cause of any climate change has not been proved.

- There is global warming on Mars and Neptune at the moment and they don't have v8's there (maybe sunspots could be the cause?).

- There was far more CO2 in the atmosphere at times during previous ice ages.

- There was a big increase in temperatures in the 10th century and they didn't have v8's then.

- Just because most scientists agree on a certain theory doesn't make them correct (e.g the earth is flat).

So although I remain undecided I'm not going to stress about it anymore, keep my V8 bmw and buy a 50 inch plasma pretty soon.

[Anton-P. 0]

Have you, so far, got a real life answer from a Plasma owner?

I have measured my two-plasma-generation-old 50" plasma: 220W steady consumption as opposed to 430W (max??) printed on back label.

Regarding standby there must be two different types they were talking about. The normal standby mode, when you switch off from remote control, uses very little (just 0.3W according to spec). The 75W type must be when you switch off the signal feed but leave TV on; screen goes blank and they call it standby. But ask yourself how many people do this; I think it's just sensational reporting.

[Roderick 0]

- The cause of any climate change has not been proved.

I take it you don't own a beach house that's close to sea level, trevor1?

[drsmith 0]

I take it you don't own a beach house that's close to sea level, trevor1?

Running a Dell 24" LCD at a non-native resolution might increase power consumption.*

* Only joking.

[TBAR 0]

- The cause of any climate change has not been proved.

So its agreed there is climate change just not what's the cause?

- There is global warming on Mars and Neptune at the moment and they don't have v8's there (maybe sunspots could be the cause?).

Would you like to live on Mars or Neptune with global warming or stay on earth with global warming - climate change?

- There was far more CO2 in the atmosphere at times during previous ice ages.

Evidence from ice cores shows this statement to be incorrect. Have you watch An Inconvenient Truth?

- There was a big increase in temperatures in the 10th century and they didn't have v8's then.

As big as we may get now? And are you happy with a big increase in temperature? Maybe consider Mars or Neptune as places to live...

- Just because most scientists agree on a certain theory doesn't make them correct (e.g. the earth is flat).

I think history shows that it was science and scientists that proved the world was in fact round and not the centre of the universe - they struggled to evidence these facts to the leaders and population that feared change. Also its not that the scientists agree there is significant evidence and fact to back-up conclusions.

No need to stress about change but we should all be a bit mindful and considerate of the generations to follow us.

[Roderick 0]

Running a Dell 24" LCD at a non-native resolution might increase power consumption.*

* Only joking.

You've got a good memory 'drsmith'. Yes I'm using it at non-native res right now! Too hard to read otherwise.

I suppose you are right, but I hardly think the difference is something to worry about too much .

I've been meaning to buy one of those plug-in power meters that are advertised in the Jaycar catalog (page 223).

But it's not yet availible, damn it! Delayed by government approval procedures, so I'm told. When and if I get my hands on one I'll test your hypothesis.

Rod

Edit: This is no different to the vast majority of big-screen TVs, which almost always rescale to display. Do any of them actually display pixel-for-pixel?

[trevor1 0]

Roderick,

about 10m above sea level. Hope that's enough !!

Tbar,

thanks for the response. Here's a few more points to consider:

- There hasn't been any large oil discoveries since the 70's.

- Each year new discoveries are adding a lower percentage of the depletion.

- Oil production worldwide is peaking, i.e. we can't produce any more per day more or less than

approximately now. approx 85 million barrels per day currently. Production is flat out.

- this is why oil is over $70 per barrel when it costs about $6 per barrel to produce

in the middle east.

- In other words, all the oil produced each day from here on in will be burned somewhere in

the world, if not here then in China or India. Have you seen their growth rates?

http://www.dieoff.com

By the way, I have a farm in Victoria and have planted many trees on it !!!

regards,

Trevor,