Plasma TVs to be banned in Europe

I would love to know who gathered thoss power draw figures and from what LCD and Plasma screens.

My 42" Plasma screen at home usually draws just under 200W whilst in use, and at most 220W of power (very accurate power meter).

Could this be like the people who "measure" a PC's power draw by reading what the PSU is "capable of" vs what the PC actually draws. Idiots.

Andy

"A 42-inch Plasma TV consumes 822 watts of electricity"

Silliest thing I've read in quite a long time. Perhaps 10 years ago a 42-inch plasma consumed that much.

For example, Panasonics Top-Of-The-Line 42in FullHD 42PZ800 has a maximum power draw of 385W and a typical power draw well below 300W !

And that's the top of the line FullHD, the 720p models need even less power, and the next generation due this spring will further reduce power draw.

This is just typical Euraucracy. They stand around babbling about some hairbrained crackpot scheme to save the planet "I know! Let's ban incandescent bulbs!" <meanwhile

That CFLs are much more efficient than incandescents is hard to prove at the best of times, given the component costs (both money and CO2 wise) and never mind the mercury content (what happened to ROHS/WEEE?)
Maybe there's some merit to it, perhaps a modest levy would be better.. But to outright ban the things, seems either thoroughly stupid, or corrupt.

Now it's plasmas. I'm not sure about backhanders on this one, but why ban them? They are old technology and will phase themselves out, but some people like them.. Surely all the hot air the eurocrats emit legistlating this one will outweigh any benefit anyway!

What next? CRTs? Vintage cars?

Although that the numbers are wrong the ratio is still correct.
The point is still valid.

Anyone would think Microsoft wrote this, it contains so much FUD...

my 42in Panasonic Plasma draws 230w, I measured it this morning.

It's worth bearing in mind the technology behind TFT and Plasma. Plasmas only light the pixels that need lighting, so a black pixel required no current, a brown one not very much, a white pixel lots.

A TFT has a massive backlight, and to produce a black pixel, the LCD crystal had to blank it out. (this is why TFT's black look crap).

In short, a TFT will always draw the dame regardless of what you are watching, a Plasma will vary by content.

Who wants to bet this test was done on a brilliant white testcard, as that's the only way you will see a significant difference between TFT and Plasma current usage.

Plasma displays are still by far and away a much better technology that the supermarket tech that is TFT. Don't be fooled, and don't waste your money on a TFT.

Of course as soon as OLED becomes affordable, thats where the industry will be heading, but for no Plasma rules the roost (unless you buy your TV from Adsa or Aldi...)

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-6400401-3.html
Good plasma TV's are the exception.

Without my plasma heating up my room i would have to turn the heating on to heat my whole house which would be alot worse for the planet!
As a result the 'heating' is only ever one when i am acually at home to benifit from it.

Noone is talking about banning plasma TV's, just banning TV's that cross the line with consumption, mostly affliciting old generation plasma's and preventing manufactureres from flogging old-gen crap TV's to cheaper market.
New gen plasma's that are more energy efficient will be legal, if you can afford them.

The reported numbers may be skewed out of proportion, but plasma screens are still energy pigs. My 61" HD LED DLP (Samsung HL61A750) draws 119W in use, and only 0.6W in standby.

Yes, but it's a LCD, so looks pants on anything other than showroom demo scenes.

Once you have a Plasma you wouldn't touch a LCD with a bargepole. Hideous response times (despite creative measurement techniques from manufactures), poor viewing angles, crap contrast ratios, and not very black blacks.

Mark, ST said LED (Light Emitting Diode) DLP, not LCD.

I'm guessing ST is running a DLP set that is LED lit instead of the older halogen bulbs.

My 37inch plasma Panasonic burns 250watts on it's offical specification, and i don't care about burning more carbon !

meh. by the time all the red tape is cut through to push into law fully, we will all have OLED sets that consume a tenth of the power with waaaaaay better fidelity than any plasma you could dream of

This site is very quickly becoming shite.

(10-15% spread) for consumption of 60" screen TV/monitor are the following: ### 500W Plasma,
### 400W non-LED backlit LCD,
### 200W LED backlit LCD,
### 100W LED projection TV (DLP and 3-CCD) with smaller viewing angle.

Commentator is defaming shite!? What next to take the piss out of?

The article compared a 42" plasma with just 'an' LCD and 'a' CRT. What sizes are being compared? There are 42" LCDs but I've never seen a 42" CRT in anyone's house so is it fair to compare a 28" CRT with a 42" plasma?

I have a 26" LCD and it draws 110W. The 25" CRT that it replaced drew considerably more than that.

Maybe it's made up...like many other articles. A 50" plasma display never exceeds 300W for post 2006 models (see Wikipedia : "plasma display") or perhaps they referred to P.M.P.O. watts... :)))) like on cheap speakers...Anything to draw attention, eh???

lets compare 50 inch plasmas to 42 inch LCDs seems to be part of the game. Bigger screens are less effecient/square inch electrically. And plasmas tend to be bigger.

lets stick to 42" then......
TV watt watt/inch
Vizio P42HDTV Plasma 42 188.26 0.25
Vizio L42 HDTV LCD 42 202.67 0.27

Ha. Don't tell the Americans or they'll only buy LCD if they absolutely can't afford Plasma.

No 42" Plasma I have ever seen draws anything like 822 Watts. They draw in the region of 300W and ONLY when they are displaying solid white. LCD's are about half that and are not affected by what they show.

Sadly though, an LCD panel requires 10x the CO2 in its manufacture and there are low yield rates because of defects as the size increases. So its just not sensible to even have this argument. Its just about grabbing headlines.

Its almost as stoopid as banning incandescent bulbs. Everyone heard the energy saving bit, but forgot the bit about it using vastly more in its manufacture, not to mention aluminium, Mercury, Boron and a few other nasty incredibly energy intensive and toxic parts used in its manufacture. Oops

I wonder when Nick Farrel, the author of the original post, will come up with the sources of his fantastic 842W for a 42" plasma TV, and the comparison with CRT TV... tsk tsk, AFAIK biggest produced CRT was 41", and even so power consume was much lower.

Nick, do you have any idea how much heat 842 Watts generate? You would not be able to stand such accumulated temperature in a regular TV room.

I for one, would think twice before I hit [enter] to post such untrue info, the reason is because I don't feel too comfortable to see lots of people knowing that I am writing something I have no idea about.

It is required 1 Calory to raise 1°C on 1 gram of water. So it will take around 40 thousand Cal to warm 1 liter of water for your afternoon tea (20°C to 60°C), it is around 168 thousand Joules. 1kWh = 3600 thousand Joules. Making the math, "your 842W 42 inches plasma TV" would consume 3031 thousand Joules, or, the equivalent to warm up 18 liters of water for tea... per second!!! 65 thousand liters per hour. it requires a lot of people to drink it... or, a lot of heat for a regular plasma TV, that IN REAL (not a fantasy world) consume around or less than 30% of your figures.

Oh, and you may are thinking what in the heck I am talking about 842W instead of 822W from the original post... why bother? both are unreal, right?

:)

Get your information straight before you write a stupid article like this one. Some 50inch plasmas consume less the 300 Watts of power. If you don't believe me go to energystar.gov