Plasma TVs: Not the Energy Hogs You Think They Are

[Jeremy Charette]

<img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/EHOG-Wanted.jpg" /><br /><br />I was reading <a href="http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-6214189.html">this </a>article on ZDNet today, and came across a common misconception: "...plasma sets are notorious for their high power consumption." This is absolutely untrue. CNET recently compared the power consumption of 54 TV sets, of various types (plasma, LCD, rear-projection, CRT). I averaged out the power consumption across LCDs and Plasma TVs, and found that LCDs consumed 0.29 watts per square inch, whereas Plasma TVs consumed 0.33 watts per square inch. That's barely a 10% difference. The size of the set didn't really matter, with larger panels consuming about the same watts per square inch as smaller ones.<br /><br />So the old argument that you should buy an LCD tv because it's more efficient than a plasma tv? Baloney. Wanna save some real money? Calibrate your tv. It could cut your electric bill <a href="http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-tvs/samsung-ln-t4661f/4505-6482_7-32385769.html">in half</a>.

[randalllewis]

Doesn't Cnet own ZDnet?

I own a plasma and on the day of purchase two years ago actually did not have that technology in mind. I was planning on LCD. Until I saw the displays side by side and looked at them from the three viewing angles in my family room: that's when plasma won the day. Viewing angle is a big issue that LCD struggles with to this day. LCD works best for certain rooms, plasma for others. I doubt that many buyers compare energy use to make their decisions. LCD is great technology. I am not dissing it. But I do beleive it has become the predominant HD format only because it is available in far more sizes, including under 20 inches while plasma starts at 42. Small sets don't have the viewing angle concerns of larger ones because you generally sit closer to them. With room size sets, people should evaluate foramts based on where they sit in the room, then look at the biggest set they can afford. All of the other claimed pros and cons for each format are secondary issues at best.

[Jason Dunn]

Wanna save some real money? Calibrate your tv. It could cut your electric bill in half (http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-tvs/samsung-ln-t4661f/4505-6482_7-32385769.html).

Can someone explain that to me? Are we talking about brightness levels that are pumped up by default, and after calibration the brightness is lower so it uses less power?

[Jason Dunn]

With room size sets, people should evaluate foramts based on where they sit in the room, then look at the biggest set they can afford. All of the other claimed pros and cons for each format are secondary issues at best.

Agreed - that's why I picked DLP. I sit a good 13 feet away from the TV in our TV room, so I needed something BIG. 61" DLP was good, 72" DLP is better. LCD or plasma? Not big enough, and the ones that come close were stupidly expensive.

[Jeremy Charette]

Wanna save some real money? Calibrate your tv. It could cut your electric bill in half (http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-tvs/samsung-ln-t4661f/4505-6482_7-32385769.html).

Can someone explain that to me? Are we talking about brightness levels that are pumped up by default, and after calibration the brightness is lower so it uses less power?

Yup.

TVs are calibrated from the factory to provide the best picture on the showroom floor. That means the brightest, highest contrast, most saturated colors possible. First thing you should do with any new TV is turn the contrast and brightness down by half, right out of the box. In the case of plasma or CRT tvs, these settings can permanently damage the picture tube or the plasma elements.

Properly calibrated, a TV will put out alot less light (and therefore consume alot less power) than the default settings.

[Felix Torres]

In the case of LCDs most of the time all that is needed is cranking the backlight down.