Power usage for Plasma?

[Robmx]

Hi everyone,

What do u all think about the current Plasma power usage? Im looking at getting a 42" Panasonic g10/15 this year and want to know what the hydro bills will be like.

I currently have a 40" sony lcd and am wondering how much higher the hydro usage will be.

I watch the current lcd on cinema mode and i will use something similar on the plasma because the accurate picture is what matters to me the most.

Thanks in advance !

[acritzer]

While I don't know specifics I do know that the new Pannys, g10 and 15 have significantly lower power requirements from previous plasma models. I can't imagine the power is going to make all that much difference unless you watch A LOT of TV.

[My_Two_Cents]

The study CR did a year or two ago showed a whopping $53 more annually for a 50" plasma versus LCD. That was based on 8 hours on and 16 hours standby every day. The new Panasonics ar significantly more energy efficient, so I would expect that number to be cut in half, if not more. And who has there set on 8 hours/day, 365 days/year anyway?

[Robmx]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

The study CR did a year or two ago showed a whopping $53 more annually for a 50" plasma versus LCD. That was based on 8 hours on and 16 hours standby every day. The new Panasonics ar significantly more energy efficient, so I would expect that number to be cut in half, if not more. And who has there set on 8 hours/day, 365 days/year anyway?

After a few quick min of research im seeing that my current LCD uses 220W max. The 42" Panasonic G10 uses 490W max. So I'm guessing it uses double !

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by Robmx

After a few quick min of research im seeing that my current LCD uses 220W max. The 42" Panasonic G10 uses 490W max. So I'm guessing it uses double !

You can't go by the max wattage numbers. Those are essentially based on an all-white (torch) signal. Once picture setting are properly adjusted, those numbers go down significantly. The CR study last year showed not quite a 2:1 power usage after the pictures were properly adjusted. As I mentioned earlier, I'm "guessing" this difference will be less with the current crop of 2009 plasmas, but I've not seen any recent test results. In the end, though, you're looking at a very minor $$ difference annually, which should not affect your buying decision.

[aramis109]

Mine definitely uses more than my old 42" LCD, judging just by my APC alone. However, even with that fact, I have not seen a significant increase in my energy bill. At least you're not using a PS3- it uses quite a bit more power than most standalones.

[SlmShdy1]

I was talking to a Panasonic rep last year and he was telling me that HD Guru did some tests on power consumption vs. a LCD. According to the rep, the Panasonics ended up using less energy when compared to the LCD because the Panasonic panel stops sending power to an area whenever there are any black areas on the screen. On the other hand, a LCD always has its backlight on. From what I can remember, HD Guru tested the displays using a clip from Casino Royale which had both bright and dark scenes.

I'll try and track down an article to see if it holds any water.

[PoorSignal]

I have a 54" panasonic and with the whole system with 5.1 sound. The whole screen white can use as much as 4.8 amps (break in screen..), typically 2.35:1 widescreen movies hangs about 2-3 amps range.

I use a sony BD player that uses about .1 amp only. I think it is fairly affordable. I had a small LCD before and they don't draw as little as you think, the gap is definitely closing.

I don't watch the TV 8 hours a day.. but I will say you could bake a cake for an hour and use alot more electricity than the TV.

[Hep]

Here is a study that may be of interest.

Average plasma: 339 watts
Average rear-projection: 211 watts
Average LCD: 213 watts

Note: the tests use a 10 minute program (IEC 62087 test) and not a full on white display pattern.

[gamebred]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

You can't go by the max wattage numbers. Those are essentially based on an all-white (torch) signal. Once picture setting are properly adjusted, those numbers go down significantly. The CR study last year showed not quite a 2:1 power usage after the pictures were properly adjusted. As I mentioned earlier, I'm "guessing" this difference will be less with the current crop of 2009 plasmas, but I've not seen any recent test results. In the end, though, you're looking at a very minor $$ difference annually, which should not affect your buying decision.

That's exactly right. Not enough to make a difference...unless you are planning to get a couple of items off the dollar menu at McDonalds at the end of each month.

An a/v salesman tried to tell me that the plasmas use almost as much electricity as an oven. I replied "What an EasyBake oven?" and laughed at him. I'm sure all those "pretty looking", cracker thin Samsung edgelit LED's they were trying to push didn't have anything to do with that.

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by Hep

Here is a study that may be of interest.

Average plasma: 339 watts
Average rear-projection: 211 watts
Average LCD: 213 watts

Note: the tests use a 10 minute program (IEC 62087 test) and not a full on white display pattern.

Good information to use for semi-relative comparisons, but I don't like the fact that every set was tested in 'default mode', which most likely is the Vivid setting. Power usage will be lower with properly calibrated sets. You also can't lump everything together and average, since power consumption is related to screen size. For a true comparison, you'd need to pick two like-sized sets with comparable features.

It's interesting to look at the improvement in power consumption with the Panasonic plasmas:

Panasonic TC-P46G10 - 0.19W per sq in, $36.48 per year
Panasonic TH-46PZ85U - 0.5W per sq in, $98.63 per year

Compare to comparable LCDs:

Samsung LN46A750 - 0.2W per sq in, $40.39 per year
Sony KDL-55XBR8 - 0.19W per sq in, $51.66 per year (chosen as a 'new' model)

Power consumption differences are minor, at best.

[Hep]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

Good information to use for semi-relative comparisons, but I don't like the fact that every set was tested in 'default mode', which most likely is the Vivid setting. Power usage will be lower with properly calibrated sets. You also can't lump everything together and average, since power consumption is related to screen size. For a true comparison, you'd need to pick two like-sized sets with comparable features.

It's interesting to look at the improvement in power consumption with the Panasonic plasmas:

Panasonic TC-P46G10 - 0.19W per sq in, $36.48 per year
Panasonic TH-46PZ85U - 0.5W per sq in, $98.63 per year

Compare to comparable LCDs:

Samsung LN46A750 - 0.2W per sq in, $40.39 per year
Sony KDL-55XBR8 - 0.19W per sq in, $51.66 per year (chosen as a 'new' model)

Power consumption differences are minor, at best.

If you read next page (How we test TV power consumption) of my link you will find the test parameters. With regard to calibration, here it what is says:

This column lists results we measure after the picture has been adjusted, or calibrated, for optimal home theater picture quality in a dark room. This adjustment is part of every TV review, and the individual picture settings are always linked from the Performance section of the review.

You are correct that the default settings are used to determine power consumption in the data set, which is why it is so important to look at the averages rather than comparing different brands/sizes, and old versus new models.

When you cherry pick results to compare (i.e. comparing the worst LCD with the best plasma), you will get skewed results. The averages get much closer to the truth of the matter. LCDs will consume approx 2/3 the power of a plasma on average.

[fatediesel]

My 50" Panasonic PZ800U uses 1.6 amps according to my power center, but that also includes the DVR being on and a receiver, BD player, Wii, and PS3 plugged in but turned off. This TV might use a bit less power though as it is Energy Star rated. Plasma isn't as bad in terms of power consumption as they used to be but they still aren't as good as the best LCD.

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by Hep

If you read next page (How we test TV power consumption) of my link you will find the test parameters. With regard to calibration, here it what is says:

I missed that, but it's irrelevant when you are looking at the results in the table, which you state below.

You are correct that the default settings are used to determine power consumption in the data set, which is why it is so important to look at the averages rather than comparing different brands/sizes, and old versus new models.

No, you cannot look at simply averages without taking into consideration the screen size, as power consumption increases as the set gets bigger (go figure). After throwing out the oddball brands from both LCD and plasma and then looking at averages, you find:

>The average size for LCD is 42.8" versus 50.2" for plasma
>The average W per screen sq in is .26 for LCD versus .33 for plasma

Looking at it this way (which levels the playing field), LCD uses, on average, 19% less electricity than plasma. The only way you can look at straight watts and $$ numbers would be if you compare specific like sizes, which is what I showed earlier.

When you cherry pick results to compare (i.e. comparing the worst LCD with the best plasma), you will get skewed results.

Not sure what you are implying. I hardly cherry-picked. The Panasonic 46G10 and the Samsung 46A750 are comparable new model sets. In the case with these two, the power consumption is just about equal. You can't argue against that.

[Hep]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

The Panasonic 46G10 and the Samsung 46A750 are comparable new model sets. In the case with these two, the power consumption is just about equal. You can't argue against that.

I didn't mean to offend with the cherry picking comment, it’s a very common tactic for citing examples when trying to prove a point. I should have used "When one cherry pick results...".

I don't like to argue, but I can on your point above. Do you know if the default settings on those TVs are the same? They may be (feel free to check) but the problem is that one can compare two sets with the same guts, and even though the calibrated power consumption will be equal, one can score far better in the standardized test due to a minor change in the default settings (vivid setting the default on one but not the other). So if you don’t have all the info, comparing only two sets is comparing apples to oranges. If you take a large sample size, assuming an even distribution of default settings (not an insignificant assumption I concede), things will average out. This is why the scientific method requires large sample sizes for validity.

Good pick-up on the average screen sizes, and as you point out, the chart does include power consumption per square inch. Taking this into account you still get LCDs at 20% more efficient vice the overall average of 30% due to the models tested. That equates to about $20/year savings over a five year life span (not taking into account inflation) is still a cool $100. Not a huge amount, but in answer to the OP's request, LCDs use less power than plasmas.

Now, without getting into a LCD vs. Plasma discussion, it is up to OP if $100+ dollars, and simply using more energy (don't get me going on conservation), is worth any perceived increase in PQ.

[SamC]

That equates to about $20/year savings over a five year life span (not taking into account inflation) is still a cool $100. Not a huge amount, but in answer to the OP's request, LCDs use less power than plasmas.

That's pretty much nothing and lowers my defenses. But it would be nice to see some real life comparisons with larger sample sizes or whatever. After all, at the end of the day the bottom-line on your bill is what you really care about.

[Hep]

Originally Posted by SamC

That's pretty much nothing and lowers my defenses. But it would be nice to see some real life comparisons with larger sample sizes or whatever. After all, at the end of the day the bottom-line on your bill is what you really care about.

I agree with the first part, it's not a lot of money. In fact, your bill for TV watching in general is not significant. Also, the list I linked to is not a scientific study by any measure, but it was the closest I found on the first page of my google search.

With respect to your final remark, the hydro bill may be your bottom line, but for me it's the least important factor. I am all about conservation of resources, and that drove my decision to go LCD.