That Giant Sucking Sound May Be Your New TV

[oldandinthe way]

http://biz.yahoo.com/wallstreet/071213/sb119751487989925779_id.html?.v=2

The Wall Street Journal explores the costs of running your plasma TV.

[guns1inger]

Is the poll question looking for a total, or per house he owns ?

[Soopafresh]

Doesn't this poll delve into politics?

[SCDVD]

Doesn't this poll delve into politics?

No! It delves into humor. When we have to avoid anything just in case some hyperventilating mutant might not like it, we have a serious problem!

[guns1inger]

Where is the politics ? He isn't running for president. Just king'o'the'greenies.

[Marvingj]

This is Funny>>>>

[stiltman]

You better watch out...All of you making jokes!

Al invented the Internet and shut it off when he wants.

BTW, he doesn't own any TVs, he watches TV over the his Internet on a computer

[oldandinthe way]

I posted this thread because of the article. When it costs twice as much to run your plasma TV than it does to run your refrigerator it deserves some thought.

The previous fuss over Gore's energy use and his purchasing carbon emissions credits came to mind. So I posted the poll as well.

Nowadays everything delves into politics. Or politics delves into everything.

And indeed with the television writers strike we have to rely on Al Gore for the Al Gore jokes.

[edDV]

LED backlight LCD panels are the most power efficient. Still new, they also have potential for zone variable backlight brightness to assist dynamic contrast.

[DereX888]

the question is why we don't have more cheap and clean energy sources like nuke power plants able to provide more cheap electricity?

Electricity is clean.
Who cares how much we consume? It is not oil in the sands that once is gone is gone forever, for God's sake.
As last as we produce it clean and cheap, there is nothing wrong with 10000000000 Watts per device!
EPA in its wisdom should have scoped for long time on shutting down all the coal power plants and replace them with nuclear power plants, instead of worrying how much electricity is wasted in standby mode.

[Conquest10]

How many TVs does Al Gore Have? Shouldn't this be in OT?

And Al Gore's bills are high because he uses green power which costs more.

[valvehead]

I can't believe that the article is making a big deal about an extra $200 a year. If someone has $2k to $7k to drop on on a plasma display, $200 a year to run it is nothing. If someone can't afford an extra ~$17 a month for electricity, the purchase of any new TV shouldn't even be a consideration.

A parallel thought: Rising fuel prices hasn't stopped people from buying SUVs. It may have slowed sales down, but SUVs are still very popular in the US.

[guns1inger]

How many TVs does Al Gore Have? Shouldn't this be in OT?

And Al Gore's bills are high because he uses green power which costs more.

And nothing at all to do with the fact that his bill for a month is the equivalent of 12 average households bills combined. And nothing at all to do with the fact that he and his cronies (sorry, mates) own a carbon trading business. He can buy as many carbon credits as he likes, and feel all warm and fuzzy about it, but he does 100 times more damage to the environment in a year than my entire family does in a decade. If he was really serious he would fly to all these awards ceremonies and green lone-ins by balloon. They all would. Of course that would mean going to less of them, putting up with some discomfort, and give up the niceties of being civilized. Can't see that happening in a hurry. And I'll stop now before it starts to get political (and then religion will get dragged into it, and then the fun police will have to come and arrest me).

Watching the fat man fly around the world telling everyone else to stop living in luxury (and how he can call what most of the live in luxury when compared to his lifestyle is beyond me) is like watching an alcoholic telling everyone to stop drinking while necking a bottle in a bar. Credibility : 0

[DereX888]

How many TVs does Al Gore Have? Shouldn't this be in OT?

And Al Gore's bills are high because he uses green power which costs more.

Who cares?
Its his houses, his TVs, and he pay the bills.


Yes it should be OT me thinks too

[painkiller]

I would be equally interested in finding the better/best flat panel system demonstrating higher reliability AND maintenance free. (Basically, like crts.)

Anybody have data to share?

(I do like EdDV's comment on the LED backlit LCD screens, makes me prefer that approach for the time being.)

[NiteLite]

I can't believe that the article is making a big deal about an extra $200 a year. If someone has $2k to $7k to drop on on a plasma display, $200 a year to run it is nothing. If someone can't afford an extra ~$17 a month for electricity, the purchase of any new TV shouldn't even be a consideration.

A parallel thought: Rising fuel prices hasn't stopped people from buying SUVs. It may have slowed sales down, but SUVs are still very popular in the US.

Amen!!!
Gas is costing me way more than an extra $17.00 a month but who cares...right? Jeez, give the man a break. And please quitely keep buying that $3.00 gas. Shhh... maybe it will go to $4 /gal.

[guns1inger]

We are currently paying $1.45 per litre, which works out at around AUD$4.40 a gallon

[jagabo]

Who cares?
Its his houses, his TVs, and he pay the bills.

It's called "tragedy of the commons."

[Snakebyte1]

I've been running a 42" LCD rear projection with a basic 900W home theatre system, PVR and cable for a year now (Dec 2006-Dec 2007). Before that we only had an ancient 24" CRT that wasn't hooked up to cable and we only watched a DVD or two a week.

We watch a lot more TV now, record movies all the time and watch DVDs. My wife still uses the old TV to watch Oprah while she cooks and bakes daily. Yet when I look at a yearly comparison of the total kilowatt hours (kWh) for the entire house over the last 4 years there is not much of a difference. Factoring in the different usage of A/C each year, the amount of additional usage for the TV is minor. I know plasmas are supposed to use more energy but that much more?

And now for my rant...

This is another example of how this global warming thing is reaching the point of mass hysteria. With the general population in hysterics the politicians are in a frenzy to take advantage of it. Money is being thrown all over the place now (wonder how much of that cash will actually end up doing any good). Diplomats are bitchin at each other. Your country is bad, no your country is worse, its your faulty, no its yours bla bla bla.

Let's not forget all these so called experts and professionals crawling out of the woodwork and telling everyone what to do. Do this, No do that, No do this other thing. This study says this and that study says that. Everybody wants to tell everyone else what to do especially if it doesn't affect them themselves. People in the city tell people in the country what to do. People who live in apartments tell people in houses what to do. Rich people say its OK to raise prices and taxes. If you watch TV you are killing the planet. Its hopeless trying to get a consensus.

I know the environment needs attention, but let's face it, worrying about TV usage isn't going to have much/any impact. Most electricity is used by commercial and industrial purposes anyway. Having me sitting in the dark isn't going to save the planet. The problem is global (over) population with everyone on the planet wanting to live the decadent western lifestyle even though we know its not sustainable. Even if every person on the planet reduced their energy use and waste dramatically, within a few decades the levels would be right back up simply due to the ever increasing population.

I have changed all my lightbulbs to energy efficient ones and lowered my thermostat, but I'm sorry, I'm going to watch my TV and put up my Christmas lights for a couple of weeks!!!

[oldandinthe way]

One of the points made in the article was that people who have replaced their lightbulbs with energy efficient bulbs and taken other energy saving steps have not seen any savings because they bought a plasma TV.

Use electricity any way you wish, but understand what you are doing. Lots of folks who don't get any results from energy saving measures share their experience with their friends and on a variety of forums. Its easy to see how the impression could be created that energy-saving is a shuck from the same jiving politicians and activists who tell us to avoid anything which gives us pleasure.

The cost of running a plasma TV is huge when compared to the savings from using those energy-efficient lightbulbs.

[Snakebyte1]

Actually I did notice a marked reduction in kWhs after replacing the lightbulbs back in 2005 and I do highly recommend them. I do think people should take whatever steps they can and certainly not waste energy for no purpose.

However, if you look at all the advertising out there, everything is Green this and Green that. Is it Honda or Toyota that has a commercial out showing one of their hybrids and they say its making the environment cleaner? No, at best its just not polluting as much as it otherwise might. I see this kind of blatantly wrong information all over. Energy saving is a good thing but people just don't seem to realize that despite what we are being told it amounts to bailing out the Titanic with a Dixie cup....

[dun4cheap]

You know I am curious, I personally think that LCD's have a better picture, they typically have better resolutions, and they are a lot lighter. What is the estimated cost to run say my 47" LCD Vizio, and what would it cost to run an equivalant Plasma, and then what did my old 46" CRT cost to run. Lastly, which is easier to recycle?

[DereX888]

Actually I did notice a marked reduction in kWhs after replacing the lightbulbs back in 2005 and I do highly recommend them. I do think people should take whatever steps they can and certainly not waste energy for no purpose.

I wonder how much will it cost to treat all the eye problems after a conutry-wide generation-long use of energy-saving yet flickering "light bulbs".
I bet already it will cost way more than whatever the savings on electrity are combined.

[Snakebyte1]

Those bulbs are a lot better than they were a few years ago. All lights flicker if you're electricity is on AC which is the case for 99.999% of the time. I haven't noticed any difference in light quality, based on a Soft White bulb. I guess there are those people who might notice something different in them. But I wonder how much extra energy they use to produce them, how much extra landfill space they will take up when they die and what other enviro problems they will create because of what they are made out of.

[AlanHK]

I wonder how much will it cost to treat all the eye problems after a conutry-wide generation-long use of energy-saving yet flickering "light bulbs".
I bet already it will cost way more than whatever the savings on electrity are combined.

People have been using fluorescent lights for two or three generations now, in offices and workplaces more than homes. And incandescent lights "flicker" at 50 or 60 HZ, along with the AC power supply.

Worry more about spending all day staring at a computer monitor a foot away from your face.

For that matter, an average PC now uses a few hundred Watts, and is often on all day and night. They chew up more energy than a big screen TV.

[edDV]

Not to mention the set top boxes and game consoles that also run hot.

[DereX888]

Those bulbs are a lot better than they were a few years ago. All lights flicker if you're electricity is on AC which is the case for 99.999% of the time.

Ever seen how long it takes incadescent lightbulbs to completely turn off? the higher the wattage the longer it takes - so how can anyone claim they ever flickered LOL
No the 'new fluos' they are not better or any different the first fluorescent tubes from 50 years ago (or whatever old they are).
They just have different gas inside for more natural color, they have built-in faster 'starter' in their base instead of in the fixture as old 'straight' tubes had, and the tube is twisted into shape of lightbulb, thats everything what has changed The way they work haven't change at all.

I wonder how much will it cost to treat all the eye problems after a conutry-wide generation-long use of energy-saving yet flickering "light bulbs".
I bet already it will cost way more than whatever the savings on electrity are combined.

People have been using fluorescent lights for two or three generations now, in offices and workplaces more than homes. And incandescent lights "flicker" at 50 or 60 HZ, along with the AC power supply.

Worry more about spending all day staring at a computer monitor a foot away from your face.

For that matter, an average PC now uses a few hundred Watts, and is often on all day and night. They chew up more energy than a big screen TV.

Electricity usage is a NON-ISSUE if people finally start use only nuclear power plants instead of old coal/oil plants, so I'm not worry about that all
Actually the higher the oil prices ad the more costly ic coal mining - the better

LCD screens don't flicker even at 50/60Hz, same as incadescent light bulbs - simply because they are not fast enough to "turn off and turn on" themselves 50 or 60 times a second, specially the light bulbs
Fastest pro LCD dislays nowadays have still few miliseconds latency, that is still slow enough for the screen not to flicker at all

The fluorescent light create 50-60 "sparks" inside the tube per second (the twisted tube as in the energy-saving "light bulbs" work exactly the same). So:
They are designed TO FLICKER 50 or 60 times a second (depending on your AC's Hz,) so don't tell me they don't flicker just because you can't see it, hahaha Just because new fluorescents use different gas inside to create more eye-pleasing color instead of old cold hue, it doesn't change the fact they DO FLICKER They are build that way, and if they wouldn't flicker they wouldn't have light at all.
Office workers generally suffer bad eyesight at the age of 40 much more than non-office workers - and many sources attribute it exactly to the fact that offices use fluorescent lights (and CRT screens, but that is non-issue anymore me thinks).

When we will have LED lightbulbs, I'll switch to them, but I am not going to sacrifice my eyesight at old age for the savings of few bucks on flickering fluorescent light But of course anyone do as they please
After all it is interesting to see how this nation-wide test will turn out in 10 or 20 years.
I only pity all the 'enlightened' green fools who never can get their facts straight


/edit/ oops, apologies for OT...

[Snakebyte1]

Well, to each there own, I guess. Many places are starting to ban the incandescent bulbs so you may as well get used to them. It guess those who are worried about flicker can use candles - oh, they flicker too... and produce CO2. Oh well...

The cost to build, operate and maintain a nuclear plant would not allow for cheap electricity. Everyone fell for that line in the 1950's. They still haven't solved the waste problem either. I wonder where all those anti-nuke people are from the 70s these days, I'd have thought they'd be soiling their pants with the talk of building more nuke plants.

In oder to solve things you'd need a fusion reactor or maybe something that runs on dilithium crystals .

[DereX888]

Well, to each there own, I guess. Many places are starting to ban the incandescent bulbs so you may as well get used to them. It guess those who are worried about flicker can use candles - oh, they flicker too... and produce CO2. Oh well...

The cost to build, operate and maintain a nuclear plant would not allow for cheap electricity. Everyone fell for that line in the 1950's. They still haven't solved the waste problem either. I wonder where all those anti-nuke people are from the 70s these days, I'd have thought they'd be soiling their pants with the talk of building more nuke plants.

In oder to solve things you'd need a fusion reactor or maybe something that runs on dilithium crystals .

OMFG!
You are so blind and hillarious in the same time

[TheFamilyMan]

Soapbox Time!

Whoever thought that any sort of 46" set would only use as much energy as a 27" traditional CRT set isn't thinking rationally.

I know my 19" TFT monitor draws less power than the 15 CRT it replaced, but I imagine a 30" TFT would easily draw more power.

I no long worry about consuming too much electricity since we now pull 2.7KW off our roof when the sun is out; I wish most home-owners could say this. Now where's that !@!@&#@* remote....