Do flat screens save power?

[labman]

Ditch the CRT and save electricity? Ones I have looked at still are rated at over 100 watts.

Staples has a 18.5'' LCD for $80. My old Gateway 2000 gave me a scare today. I woke it up and the color was all wrong and blotchy. I went into setup, and deguass fixed it.

I paid a buck for it several years ago at the thrift store. Labman is a greenie OK, the green with pictures of presidents. I don't know if they still have them.

I see little use for the space between where I need a screen and the back of the desk. However, being a true cheapskate, I am willing to pay Staples, Wal*Mart, Tiger Direct, etc. now and not Con Ed for the rest of my life.

 

[Barkleymut]

I've recently wondered the same thing since I have a 20 year old 20" color TV in my bedroom. It still works fine but like you if it will pay for itself in 5-7 years and give me a better viewing experience then I will dish out a few bucks today.

 

[Barkleymut]

Ok just checked the 20 incher in the bedroom and since I know very little about power consumption all that I found was 1.2 amps. The 13.5 inch in our kitchen uses 53 watts.

I am guessing that a tv that uses 106 watts uses double the amount of power as the 53 watter? (therefore costing me twice as much...if there were no base charge from Virginia Power)

Anyone know of a line of TVs that are super efficient so that I can cost justify buying at least one new TV? It has been over 8 years since I bought a new tv and I'm getting the itch for some of them new fangled flat panels.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Generally, the LCD screens will use less electricity than comparable plasma screens. The 22" Toshiba LCD TV we have in the kitchen uses 65 Watts.

My 22" Samsung LCD monitor uses 58 Watts.

I'm looking into getting a 65" Panasonic plasma for the living room. That thing uses 365 Watts on average, 724 Watts max. Ouch!

 

[Quest]

LCD does save energy to that of their CRT counterparts, in general (save approx 30%).

Another advantage is that LCD does not emit radiation unlike CRT,and prolonged exposure to those radiation will make your eyes glow green during halloween nites..

Plasma is power-hungry, and it typically consumes about 20% more energy to that of CRT.

 

[Texas Aggie]

Don't they only save money if you buy a comparable screen size? For instance, if you replace a 27" CRT with a 40" LCD, will you save energy?

 

[brandini]

Plasma looks best because blacks are so deep, but sucks power like crazy.
CRT is tried and true but ungainly since thin-tube hasn't gotten popular.
LCD is gaining but you must have the faster refresh rates and the dynamic back-light to get anywhere near the contrast of a Plasma.

Get a near-top tier Samsung or Panasonic LCD and you'll be VERY happy.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: Texas Aggie
For instance, if you replace a 27" CRT with a 40" LCD, will you save energy?

Probably not.

 

[Liquid_Turbo]

What about LED tvs?

 

[LoneRanger]

Where does DLP fit into the energy consumption rankings? Just curious, I don't actually have one.

We have one of the last CRT wide screen rear-projection HDTV's to be made-- Hitachi 51F59, 51" 1080i, 16:9. Hitachi made them in 2006 for one year only then went to LCD on all their offerings, which is understandable. Specifications sticker on back says peak power draw is 187 watts.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: Liquid_Turbo
What about LED tvs?

They're supposed to be even more energy-efficient, but due to their higher initial cost, you're unlikely to come away with savings overall.

 

[LoneRanger]

There was an LED TV about a 42" in Best Buy recently that I saw that did not impress me. The LCD's nearby to it looked sharper.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: LoneRanger
There was an LED TV about a 42" in Best Buy recently that I saw that did not impress me. The LCD's nearby to it looked sharper.

Hmm... The 46" Samsung LED I looked at BB last weekend looked stunning, way better than LCD or Plasma. However, I was reading some reviews and a lot of people claim that this eye-popping video quality actually causes eye strain/fatigue during extended viewing (like when watching a full length movie). Looks great during a demo though.

 

[PandaBear]

The LED TV by Samsung is just LED backlite, not OLED.

Save some, but not a lot.

 

[XS650]

You should also consider the power consumption when the set is turned "off". Older ones generally consumed more power than newer ones.

 

[NJC]

Samsung 22" SyncMaster T220 - IIRC 45W consumption and .3W when off. Compared to my old 19" CRT = ~100W.

 

[Familyguy]

My 22" Westinghouse LCD uses 48W when on and 1.5W when off....and that's a 3 year old monitor. I would imagine that newer ones are a bit more efficient. Much better than the hernia inducing 20" CRT Sony boat anchor that it replaced. Ended up giving 4 of those away to a local school. Those made great space heaters in the winter.

 

[labman]

OK, I looked at the back of the old Gateway. It gives 100-240 volts and 2.0 amps. So do I assume that is 2 amps at the 100 volts or 200 watts at whatever voltage?

200 watts x 8 hr/day x 365 days/year / 1000watts/kw x $0.08/kwh = $46.72/yr. I leave it on constantly. I wonder what it draws in sleep mode? The 200 watts could be when first turned on and it is heating up. Maybe I need a Kill a Watt.

My guess is it could take a year or 2 to pay off a flat screen.

Giving them away would be cheaper than honestly dumping them here. The recycling center here hit me for $2 a piece for several non functioning monitors and TV's.

 

[eljefino]

Local library might have a kill a watt for loan.

Best use IMO is checking phantom power on wall wart transformers etc.

 

[NJC]

Originally Posted By: Familyguy
Those made great space heaters in the winter.

Which is why, in colder climates, they are not necessarily inefficient.