Television Outlaw: Are you one? [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Television Outlaw: Are you one?



poppachubby
11-20-2009, 08:42 AM
Hey all. I was listening to CBC this morning and this topic came up. Basically, Ontario is looking at following California's recent move regarding TV's. They are looking at the energy consumption of Plasma and LCD, this would see them banning certain TV's that don't make the grade. The link will explain it properly.

I still have a tube Sony set so this doesn't concern me. I think it's a strange place to start after addressing the whole car topic. I suppose fridges have recieved some attention already.

Anyhow, I thought this would be of interest for you hardcore H/T types.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/11/19/flat-screen.html?ref=rss

pixelthis
11-20-2009, 09:11 AM
THEY DON'T NEED TO BOTHER.
Plasma is selling at firesale prices( a Sanyo 50" for 600 bucks) and is rapidly
exiting the scene, the intro of LED LCD will only hasten that walk stage left.:1:

poppachubby
11-20-2009, 09:16 AM
So LCD has no issues with power consumption?

Feanor
11-20-2009, 10:12 AM
Hey all. I was listening to CBC this morning and this topic came up. Basically, Ontario is looking at following California's recent move regarding TV's. They are looking at the energy consumption of Plasma and LCD, this would see them banning certain TV's that don't make the grade. The link will explain it properly.

I still have a tube Sony set so this doesn't concern me. I think it's a strange place to start after addressing the whole car topic. I suppose fridges have recieved some attention already.

Anyhow, I thought this would be of interest for you hardcore H/T types.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/11/19/flat-screen.html?ref=rss
What I can say about this is that I was glad to learn the plasmas and LCDs use more power than good ol' CRTs (like I'm stuck with for the moment). I had no idea. I think maybe I assumed the last used more power than the LCDs at least -- I guess actually thinking decades ago when CRTs had a dozen tubes or more, of which the actual CRT was only one.

Anyway, although spreading the knowledge is a good thing, I think legislating which TVs people can have is idiodic. If you want to reduce power usage, increase the per watt usage price, don't legislate appliance by appliance.

recoveryone
11-20-2009, 10:14 AM
I think a little info was left out in that artical, Calif is looking more at charging a sur-tax/luxury tax on larger Sets. The move is not soley about energy, but trying to increse the tax base on more items that the general public is buying. But it is all still under review,

BadAssJazz
11-20-2009, 11:43 AM
Right now I'm out of compliance (outlaw), but I'll no doubt upgrade in the next month or two...especially now that I know that Christmas bonuses are forthecoming this year ... to meet CA power consumption requirements.

Woochifer
11-20-2009, 01:21 PM
TV makers have already been making huge reductions in energy consumption. The law just inserts a mandate and a firm timetable into the process. The current generation of plasma TVs already use less than half the energy of their counterparts from just two years ago and most of them already meet the 2011 standard. Similar reductions have been made on the LCD side. If California acts alone, this would not do much because TVs could still be purchased from out-of-state vendors (including websites). Only if other states and places like Ontario adopt similar standards would this have a major market impact on how TVs are designed (similar to how Canada and states where about half the cars in the U.S. are sold have adopted California's vehicle emission standards).

FWIW, only a handful of current TVs on the market would meet the more stringent 2013 standards, and that 58" screen size exemption creates a gaping hole whereby manufacturers can move more of their product line into screen sizes larger than 58".

rob_a
11-20-2009, 03:43 PM
Living in California my whole life, I have come to the conclusion that the politician in Sacramento are a bunch of fricken moron! I am getting pretty irritated with this Nanny State that has been beaten over my head! Do this, donít do that, eat this, say this, believe this way, blah blah blah. This ban on big screens is complete Bull S&!t. There is nothing that this state wonít Tax or Regulate. Thatís why the business is leaving and our economy is so much worse than the rest of the country. Other States and Country need to look at California and do the opposite. :prrr:

Woochifer
11-20-2009, 04:53 PM
Living in California my whole life, I have come to the conclusion that the politician in Sacramento are a bunch of fricken moron! I am getting pretty irritated with this Nanny State that has been beaten over my head! Do this, donít do that, eat this, say this, believe this way, blah blah blah. This ban on big screens is complete Bull S&!t. There is nothing that this state wonít Tax or Regulate. Thatís why the business is leaving and our economy is so much worse than the rest of the country. Other States and Country need to look at California and do the opposite. :prrr:

Read the article before you go off on your rant, it's not a ban.

Feanor
11-21-2009, 05:38 AM
TV makers have already been making huge reductions in energy consumption. The law just inserts a mandate and a firm timetable into the process. The current generation of plasma TVs already use less than half the energy of their counterparts from just two years ago and most of them already meet the 2011 standard. Similar reductions have been made on the LCD side. If California acts alone, this would not do much because TVs could still be purchased from out-of-state vendors (including websites). Only if other states and places like Ontario adopt similar standards would this have a major market impact on how TVs are designed (similar to how Canada and states where about half the cars in the U.S. are sold have adopted California's vehicle emission standards).

FWIW, only a handful of current TVs on the market would meet the more stringent 2013 standards, and that 58" screen size exemption creates a gaping hole whereby manufacturers can move more of their product line into screen sizes larger than 58".
So... a "cap and trade" system for household applicances?

I see your point, Wooch, and it's totally valid. But automobile regulation covers 100% of our driving. Wen it comes to household appliances, why pick on TVs in particular, only 10% (arguably the high estimate)? Is there similar proposed or extent legislation for, say, freezers, refrigerators, air conditioners, kitchen ranges, or -- the biggy in much of North America -- heating systems?

Mr Peabody
11-21-2009, 08:03 AM
I know the law sets a minimum SEER for air cooling systems. Not sure on heating but I'd think so. I agree, it is a bit odd to single out TV's. I hope they grandfather any law or perhaps a hefty tax credit to upgrade to a more efficient model.

Ed_in_Tx
11-22-2009, 08:46 AM
My Sony 40" LCD set is rated a max of 230 Watts, but that's with the backlight cranked up all the way to "5". Turned down to a normal viewing level 2 or 3 it draws less than 100 Watts measured with my Kill-A-Watt meter. The set runs a hell of a lot cooler too. Factory preset levels, and adjustment, have a lot to do with the power consumption.

pixelthis
11-22-2009, 11:10 AM
My Sony 40" LCD set is rated a max of 230 Watts, but that's with the backlight cranked up all the way to "5". Turned down to a normal viewing level 2 or 3 it draws less than 100 Watts measured with my Kill-A-Watt meter. The set runs a hell of a lot cooler too. Factory preset levels, and adjustment, have a lot to do with the power consumption.

AND THATS NOTHING in the great scheme of things.
What these green ninnies don't get is that anyviewing device is going to
come out ahead of going to the movies, etc.
AND yes CRT was energy efficient, something like 130 to 150 watts,
lightbulb territory, basically.:1:

poppachubby
11-22-2009, 11:19 AM
anyviewing device is going to
come out ahead of going to the movies, etc.
:

Maybe I am misunderstanding you. I would think that the movies would serve the same function as a bus/public transit in the great car pollution debate. How does thousands of TVs sucking juice from the system not outweigh one theater? Especially since most people leave their TVs on at all hours of the day, regardless of whether they are watching or not. My wife will "listen" to Oprah while in the kitchen readying dinner.

Mr Peabody
11-22-2009, 01:10 PM
The whole idea is stupid. I can't imagine if every one shut off their voltage hog Plasma that it would make a drop in the bucket difference. Even if it did why single out the one appliance? They need to investigate what's causing the governmental, mental instability.

E-Stat
11-22-2009, 04:51 PM
They are looking at the energy consumption of Plasma and LCD, this would see them banning certain TV's that don't make the grade. The link will explain it properly.
What's next? Class A power amps? :)

rw

Geoffcin
11-22-2009, 05:08 PM
What's next? Class A power amps? :)

rw

HA!!

You've touched the point with a knife. Where does this kind of regulation stop?

poppachubby
11-22-2009, 06:58 PM
What's next? Class A power amps? :)

rw

I will be starting SOOCAR. It's purpose cannot be fully revealed. We will congregate in secret locations for yet to be disclosed purposes. Bring your amp and an extension cord.

S- ecret
O- rder
O-f
C-lass
A
R-evolutionaries

pixelthis
11-23-2009, 01:49 PM
Maybe I am misunderstanding you. I would think that the movies would serve the same function as a bus/public transit in the great car pollution debate. How does thousands of TVs sucking juice from the system not outweigh one theater? Especially since most people leave their TVs on at all hours of the day, regardless of whether they are watching or not. My wife will "listen" to Oprah while in the kitchen readying dinner.

One theater usually has as many as twelve screens(mine has 16), and yeah, even with that many projectors its cheaper than a bunch of home TV sets.
But what about the three hundred cars in the parking lot that came from all over to see the movies? AND THEN HAD TO GO HOME, Or by the burger shack.
Bus? Only losers ride the bus in suburbia.
Sixteen theaters, average of five showings a day, cars in the parking lot for each
showing, gotta pop a lot of popcorn in the microwave to make up for that.:1:

rob_a
11-23-2009, 02:01 PM
Read the article before you go off on your rant, it's not a ban.
I know, I was over doing the doom and gloom :cryin: but I still don't care for the taxes to much :mad2:

rob_a
11-23-2009, 02:35 PM
My wife will "listen" to Oprah while in the kitchen readying dinner.

Thereís your problem, too much Oprah. Government is going to have to cut re-runs of Oprah down to only 6 showing a week to save energy. No, but really,,, I have an A/V receiver that sucks up a lot more juice than my Big screen, why not go after them??? This just seems odd. With the way the economy is, I would think keeping taxes and regulation down would help keep prices down, which will help people who are tight with money.

Mr Peabody
11-23-2009, 04:48 PM
Hey! Pix, watch that only losers ride the bus thing. Keep it up and I'll send you a fruit cake.

Rob, hush your mouth..... don't give them any ideas.

pixelthis
11-29-2009, 01:20 PM
Hey! Pix, watch that only losers ride the bus thing. Keep it up and I'll send you a fruit cake.

Rob, hush your mouth..... don't give them any ideas.


ITS THE TRUTH, I guess "you cant handle the truth".
You see a munny bus about once a week, and the only people on them are maids
and crack heads and "challenged " people going somewhere before bedcheck.
Dont have a car? Better have a bike.:1:

Woochifer
11-29-2009, 01:55 PM
The whole idea is stupid. I can't imagine if every one shut off their voltage hog Plasma that it would make a drop in the bucket difference. Even if it did why single out the one appliance? They need to investigate what's causing the governmental, mental instability.

Actually, the overall power draw from TVs now accounts for approximately 10% of household power usage in California. I think that this had already become an issue when power rates spiked starting about three years ago, and the manufacturers know that. That's why you've seen such huge reductions in power consumption with the newer TV models over the past couple of years.

The power efficiency of the TVs themselves is not the big issue, it's the screen sizes. The move from a 32" TV (4:3 CRT) to a 50" HDTV (16:9) means the screen area has increased by almost 120%. And if you keep all other factors equal, it simply takes more power to illuminate that much more screen area.

With the improvements that manufacturers have already made, I don't think this regulation is needed.


What's next? Class A power amps?

The EU already looked into this a few years ago. They took no action at that time, but it's definitely a product category that has been under consideration. The saving grace for the power amp industry is that it's a small niche category. HDTVs are a much bigger category than home audio components.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
11-29-2009, 02:59 PM
I think they would have done a lot better looking in to server farms rather than television sets. But of course both the state and federal govenment are more for big business than they are for the average American.

I just read that Senator Lugar is going to ask Obama to forget health care reform so we can fight the war in Afghanistan. What kind of backwards crap are our politicians thinking, or what are they smoking? Bad crack?

3db
12-23-2009, 04:55 AM
What I can say about this is that I was glad to learn the plasmas and LCDs use more power than good ol' CRTs (like I'm stuck with for the moment). I had no idea. I think maybe I assumed the last used more power than the LCDs at least -- I guess actually thinking decades ago when CRTs had a dozen tubes or more, of which the actual CRT was only one.

Anyway, although spreading the knowledge is a good thing, I think legislating which TVs people can have is idiodic. If you want to reduce power usage, increase the per watt usage price, don't legislate appliance by appliance.

according to this article, LCD uses the least and Plasma uses the most:

"A recent issue of "Real Simple" magazine listed some annual power consumption statistics for a variety of electronics equipment. The ones that interested me were the kW hours and annual cost estimates for each type of TV (plasma, LCD, CRT). The results are summarized below (for TVs smaller than 40"):

ITEM Annual Energy Use Annual Cost
Plasma TV 441 kWH $48.25
CRT TV 123 kWH $13.46
LCD TV 77 kWH $8.42


"CRT vs. LCD: Power Consumption
# According to an article by Alan Hedge at Cornell University, LCDs use less power and save more energy than comparable CRT displays. When comparing a 15" LCD monitor with a 17" CRT monitor (which has an equal amount of viewing area), the LCD monitor used 55 watts less when operational (25 vs. 80) and 2 watts less when in standby (3 vs. 5). LCD screens also consume less power when returning from standby mode than CRTs.

LCDs will use less power than CRT televisions, which means a little less money spent on power. That's also better for the environment, if you're into the green movement.

Woochifer
12-23-2009, 02:10 PM
according to this article, LCD uses the least and Plasma uses the most:

"A recent issue of "Real Simple" magazine listed some annual power consumption statistics for a variety of electronics equipment. The ones that interested me were the kW hours and annual cost estimates for each type of TV (plasma, LCD, CRT). The results are summarized below (for TVs smaller than 40"):

ITEM Annual Energy Use Annual Cost
Plasma TV 441 kWH $48.25
CRT TV 123 kWH $13.46
LCD TV 77 kWH $8.42


"CRT vs. LCD: Power Consumption
# According to an article by Alan Hedge at Cornell University, LCDs use less power and save more energy than comparable CRT displays. When comparing a 15" LCD monitor with a 17" CRT monitor (which has an equal amount of viewing area), the LCD monitor used 55 watts less when operational (25 vs. 80) and 2 watts less when in standby (3 vs. 5). LCD screens also consume less power when returning from standby mode than CRTs.

LCDs will use less power than CRT televisions, which means a little less money spent on power. That's also better for the environment, if you're into the green movement.

Problem with this generalization is that both CRT and plasma will vary the power consumption depending on the signal source -- i.e., a bright signal will consume more power than a dark signal. The power consumption will also vary based on whether the TV is calibrated -- the high contrast and high brightness settings in the torch modes will use more power than the settings closer to calibrated standards. LCDs' power consumption varies only on the lamp level -- doesn't matter what signals or calibration settings are used. An article published in Home Theater magazine three years ago found that when running a grayscale test signal using out-of-the-box settings, the plasma TVs in their test already used less power than the LCDs did.

I would also question how old the data cited in the article is. The fact that they limited the findings to TVs 40" and under is a red flag that the information is either way outdated or irrelevant, given that 32" plasma panels (that was the only plasma panel size less than 42") are no longer made and were never imported into the U.S. in large quantities to begin with

Just over the last two years, the peak power consumption on the plasma panels made by Samsung and Panasonic (which together control more than 80% of the plasma production) has dropped by about 2/3. Going to LED backlighting will also drop the power consumption on a LCD by close to 50% compared to CCFLs. I get the impression that the article didn't mention that either.

As I stated earlier, the power consumption issue with TVs has more to do with how big the screens have gotten. Anyone who wants to maximize the green factor in their TV decision should just go with a small screen, regardless of the display technology.

3db
12-24-2009, 04:43 AM
Problem with this generalization is that both CRT and plasma will vary the power consumption depending on the signal source -- i.e., a bright signal will consume more power than a dark signal. The power consumption will also vary based on whether the TV is calibrated -- the high contrast and high brightness settings in the torch modes will use more power than the settings closer to calibrated standards. LCDs' power consumption varies only on the lamp level -- doesn't matter what signals or calibration settings are used. An article published in Home Theater magazine three years ago found that when running a grayscale test signal using out-of-the-box settings, the plasma TVs in their test already used less power than the LCDs did.

I would also question how old the data cited in the article is. The fact that they limited the findings to TVs 40" and under is a red flag that the information is either way outdated or irrelevant, given that 32" plasma panels (that was the only plasma panel size less than 42") are no longer made and were never imported into the U.S. in large quantities to begin with

Just over the last two years, the peak power consumption on the plasma panels made by Samsung and Panasonic (which together control more than 80% of the plasma production) has dropped by about 2/3. Going to LED backlighting will also drop the power consumption on a LCD by close to 50% compared to CCFLs. I get the impression that the article didn't mention that either.

As I stated earlier, the power consumption issue with TVs has more to do with how big the screens have gotten. Anyone who wants to maximize the green factor in their TV decision should just go with a small screen, regardless of the display technology.

You raised some good points. I chose these articles because they were trying to keep the sizes of the displays roughly the same. They are probably out of date. Home Theater Magazine should run another power consumption test and include LED TVs. Out of curioisty, when Home Theater Mag ran that test, did they have the back light set too full power? I would think that if the backlighting was set to low that the power consumption would drop substantially.Also, what did the article say about everyday/normal use? That's the real test as people don't sit and watch test patterns on their screen. Watching a test pattern gets kidna boring after the 2nd day. :))

Mr Peabody
12-24-2009, 07:46 AM
I guess the big concern is the kilowatts but $48.00 a year to run your TV don't seem so bad. Then again, when you compare to getting it for $8.00. But what's the difference if you prefer plasma.

pixelthis
12-27-2009, 12:31 AM
I hate plasma with a pink and purple passion, but I AGREE that buying a display
because of its power usage is dumb.
Of course so is buying a plasma......:1: