UHD TV's could raise energy costs considerably

[JohnAV]

Based on the NRDC article - The Big Picture: Ultra High-Definition Televisions Could Add $1 Billion to Viewers' Annual Electric Bills

• Going forward, consumers will likely be buying new ultra high-definition (UHD) televisions instead of high-definition versions for all models 36 inches and larger. Once this transition is completed, U.S. consumers will need to pay an extra $1 billion in annual energy costs to operate their new TVs unless further energy efficiency improvements are made.
• NRDC's analysis found there were dramatic differences in the power consumption among UHD models of the same size, indicating the technology already exists to make energy-saving improvements to the most inefficient UHD televisions.
• TV manufacturers and governmental policymakers must act to ensure that our televisions do not waste electricity, which leads to an increased need to burn polluting fossil fuels to generate it.
• Consumers can cut several hundred dollars off the lifetime energy costs of a new UHD TV by a) buying models with the ENERGY STAR® label, b) ensuring Automatic Brightness Control is enabled, and c) avoiding the quick start feature on Internet-connected televisions that results in significant amounts of wasted standby power.

Wonder if some of the UDTV's vendors forget about the EOL with Plasma's in the race to implement HDR, Dolby Vision and like?

[Opips3]

JohnAV,

You mean people doesn't care about environment on the earth? Ozone layer of the earth is survive without a life. warm...warmer...hot...hottest...burning up!!

I'm so stupid. Do you think I'll stop to spending on entertainment electronic?

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Opips3

JohnAV,

You mean people doesn't care about environment on the earth? Ozone layer of the earth is survive without a life. warm...warmer...hot...hottest...burning up!!

I'm so stupid. Do you think I'll stop to spending on entertainment electronic?

You can read the PDF report it covers energy provider concerns/research with recent UDTV's design in depth. They are merely advising the manufacturers on good design goals since well managed energy usage in United States is important. This was posted here for informational purposes only.

[ZoetMB]

Going forward, consumers will likely be buying new ultra high-definition (UHD) televisions instead of high-definition versions for all models 36 inches and larger. Once this transition is completed, U.S. consumers will need to pay an extra $1 billion in annual energy costs to operate their new TVs unless further energy efficiency improvements are made.

There are 320 million people in the U.S., so $1 billion translates to a little over $3 per year per person or about $8.33 per household (69 cents a month).

But that assumes that EVERYONE is going to upgrade, which is ridiculous. It will take 20 years for everyone to upgrade. There are still plenty of people using old SD CRTs and many other people won't upgrade their current HD sets until they stop working.

And it also assumes that manufacturers are never going to find a way to improve efficiency. That's certainly not the case.

And maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see anything inherent to UHD that requires more energy. Isn't most of the energy in a TV consumed by the backlight?

Besides, at the same time people are upgrading their TVs, they're also in the process of stopping the use of incandescent bulbs and replacing them with LED lighting, which consumes far less energy.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

And maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see anything inherent to UHD that requires more energy. Isn't most of the energy in a TV consumed by the backlight?

That's kind of what they're saying too. They say in one of their bullet points that they've observed a wide variance when comparing UHD sets of similar sizes from which they conclude that high energy usage is not inherent to UHD and that UHD manufacturers can keep energy usage down if that's a priority.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by octagon

That's kind of what they're saying too. They say in one of their bullet points that they've observed a wide variance when comparing UHD sets of similar sizes from which they conclude that high energy usage is not inherent to UHD and that UHD manufacturers can keep energy usage down if that's a priority.

I was shopping for LED flood lights the other day at a Lowes. It was interesting how much deviation you have on rated lumen vs watts of several equivalent flood lights, ignoring angle of dispersion which varies a awful lot also. I'm betting the same is true, that LED backlighting technology varies quite a bit for whats being used inside UDTV designs.

[chad_1138]

I will say this about the cost of running a TV:

I have had a 65 in Panny plasma for the last 3 year. My electric bill runs about $100 per month.

It died a couple of months ago and Square Trade replaced it with a 65 inch Sony LED.

My electric bill for the next months after dropped to about $70 per month!

I do miss my Plasma, but I like the extra $30 per month

[zeuspaul]

When I purchased my 65 inch Panasonic plasma my electric bill went down. Perhaps it is because I also purchased a small Sony LED that sits next to it for daytime viewing.
.
.
.
.
.

[raygendreau]

Energy Star listing of most power efficient 2015 TVs over 50" and not one UHD tv on it.

https://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm..._over50_inches

You can search for specific tvs by brand, size, etc. here: http://www.energystar.gov/productfin...r=0&lastpage=0

[raygendreau]

"The technology neutral standards mandate that new televisions sold in California should consume 33 percent less electricity by 2011 and 49 percent less electricity by 2013. The standards affect only those TVs with a screen size 58 inches or smaller. For example, a 42-inch screen would consume 183 watts or less by 2011 and 115 watts or less by 2013. Pacific Gas & Electric estimates that over a decade the standards will reduce CO2 emissions by three million metric tons"

http://www.energy.ca.gov/releases/20...gulations.html

California will probably lead the way toward more onerous restrictions.

How will the Dolby Vision TVs (Vizio for example) fare in that environment?
Will we actually see 4000 or 10,000 nit TVs in the future?

I did a search for Samsung SUHD 65JS9500. It is not on the Energy Star list. I found no Sony UHD TVs. The LG65EF9500 is on the list, but not the 65EG9600.

[jblank]

So the hell what. I use more electricity, I will pay for what I use.

[HDTV1080P]

From an economic profit point of view, a power company wants to sell consumers as much power as they want to use for their home entertainment system and other power needs. Some people are worried about global warming carbon dioxide from coal power plants and they like to restrict the amount of power consumer’s use (Some scientist do not believe in global warming, and some of the scientist that do believe in global warming believe its caused by natural causes instead of manmade causes). In an ideal world, power companies should be able to produce unlimited clean cheap electricity for everyone. For example, France generates around 75%-80% of its power from nuclear power (nuclear power can provide plenty of low cost power for everyone while at the same time having no greenhouse gas emissions). Nuclear power plants in France and USA have been completely safe for several decades with no loss of life. The latest nuclear power plants use passive cooling instead of active cooling. Passive cooling allows for the nuclear reactor to be cooled even during a complete power lost. It was terrible what happen in Japan when a large earthquake caused a big tsunami, which resulted in the active cooling diesel generators to be taken out. Experts say that if power free passive cooling would have been used instead of active cooling, then the nuclear power plant in Daichi Japan would have continued to be cooled like normal.

Now many countries are getting away from nuclear power plants since some people are scared of them (even though nuclear power generates no greenhouse gasses with an extreme amount of power that is low cost). At the same time, those that believe in manmade global warming do not want coal power plants. While solar and wind is clean power, it does not generate that much electricity when compared to nuclear power plants. If too many nuclear power plants and coal power plants are shut down in the USA do to government demands, then consumers could start experiencing power outages when demand outpaces supply.

I am all for companies making consumer electronic flat panels and other electronic appliances more energy efficient. However at the same time placing too much demand on low power consumption can cause flat panels to not have as good as picture quality. For example, one of the reasons plasma displays went out of production is because to make a 4K quality plasma screen would require too much power consumption under the current flat panel envirmental laws. In the ideal world consumers should be able to purchase a flat panel that has the best picture quality and the less power consumption possible. Perhaps one-day low cost and low power OLED flat panels might become a reality.

Some people might not like the fact that I am still using a 2008 1080P Pioneer plasma that is considered a power hog when compared to 2015 flat panel screens. However, it still has a reference 1080P picture quality, and I always turn off the flat panel screen when I am not using it. Perhaps one day my old 2008 plasma will be sold or end up in a landfill when it is completely broken. Also 99.9% of the lights I use in the house are low power LED lights, and I turn off the lights when I am not in a room. Therefore, my point is in general in my personal life I do not waste electricity.

[JohnAV]

• LG 65EF9500 OLED display - averages 204 watts - peak brightness of 391.46 cd/m^2
• Vizio P642ui-B2 LED display - averages 287 watts - peak brightness of 435.76 cd/m^2
• Samsung SUHD UN65JS9500FXZA LED Display - averages 167 watts - peak brightness of 239.9 cd/m^2
• Sony XBR-65X900B - averages 204 watts - peak brightness - 453.74 cd/m^2

Per PC Magazine reviews of displays and specs.

Number of different aspects in play such as edge back lighting vs full array but compare the Sony to the Vizio for example. Quite a deviation in energy usage.

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

• LG 65EF9500 OLED display - averages 204 watts - peak brightness of 391.46 cd/m^2
• Vizio P642ui-B2 LED display - averages 287 watts - peak brightness of 435.76 cd/m^2
• Samsung SUHD UN65JS9500FXZA LED Display - averages 167 watts - peak brightness of 239.9 cd/m^2
• Sony XBR-65X900B - averages 204 watts - peak brightness - 453.74 cd/m^2

Per PC Magazine reviews of displays and specs.

Number of different aspects in play such as edge back lighting vs full array but compare the Sony to the Vizio for example. Quite a deviation in energy usage.

The comparison that Energy Star makes is yearly power consumption. The LG 65EG9500 consumes 175 KWh/yr. The Samsung UN65JS9500 consumes 203 KWh/yr. (according to Crutchfield) The LG is Energy Star certified. The Samsung is not since it does not appear on the Energy Star list.

If California and others follow through with more restrictive legislation, they will set limits based on yearly power consumption of the displays.

EDIT: Confirmation that the Samsung JS9500 is not Energy Star certified: http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs/all-products
(Check the Energy Star Certified box to generate the list.)

[raygendreau]

Are UHD TVs with mandatory ABC and nit caps of under 1000 cd/m2 in our future? The UHD Alliance needs to pay attention to this.

"Horowitz said consumers can help themselves and the environment by ensuring that any TV they purchase carries an EnergyStar rating. Second, he said after purchasing a new EnergyStar rated TV, users activate the Automatic Brightness Control (ABC) found on many models to automatically adjust television screen brightness in response to changes in room light levels.

Horowitz said that the NRDC tests of 50-inch to 55-inch televisions found ABC cuts energy consumption by a huge amount, but many manufacturers chose to ship TVs with the system turned off. He said TVs uses 50 percent more electricity on average with the ABC turned off.


As for 4K Ultra HDTVs supporting new HDR capabilities, which add picture quality improvements by expanding the contrast performance and image detail in areas ranging from dark blacks to bright whites, the NRDC said two HDR movies it tested on 4K HDR TVs caused power to increase an average of 47 percent compared to viewing the same movie on a 4K Ultra HDTV without HDR.

http://hdguru.com/nrdc-4k-ultra-hdtvs-are-energy-hogs/

[HDTV1080P]

That is interesting information that I briefly heard before. Cutting down the brightness, and cutting the contrast performance detail of a flat panel will lower power consumption. Videophiles when shopping for flat panels and projectors are more interested in the picture quality performance and when calibrating the display have it in the mode that uses the most power. Other consumers will be interested in getting a flat panel with the lowest power consumption and reducing the picture quality a little bit so that they can use less power. For those consumers that are more interested in using less power, they should be looking for low cost 1080P LCD flat panels with LED backlights and with no HDR feature. Staying away form 4K with HDR will lower power consumption. In addition, the smallest screen size in general offers the best power consumption numbers. Also not purchasing a A/V receiver will also greatly lower power consumption numbers (Living in a cave or in a house with no electricity at all is the best way to reduce power consumption to absolute zero, however most consumers do not want to live like that).

The flat panel industry has greatly reduced the amount of power consumption that is used over the years. For example a 2008 Pioneer Elite PRO-141FD flat panel uses a maximum of 481 watts of power (0.3 watts standby) . The 2008 50 inch Pioneer Elite PRO-101FD uses a maximum of 384 watts of power (0.2 watts standby). The funny thing is according to the owners manual, the 65 inch 4K OLED LG 65EC9700 uses a maximum of 540 watts power consumption which is more power consumption then the best plasma screens. So much for OLED flat panels being low power consumption.

A 58 inch LG 4K 58UF8300 LCD flat panel with LED backlighting uses a maximum of 180 watts. That is very good compared to a 60 inch plasma or 65 inch OLED.


The 80 inch 1080P Sharp LC-80LE642U uses a maximum of 307 watts and 0.1 watts in standby, which is less power consumption when compared to the 2008 50 inch Pioneer plasma that uses a maximum of 384 watts. My point is that in general screen sizes are increasing and at the same time power consumption is also decreasing.

Also A/V receivers are becoming a little more energy efficient when one compares the old 2008 models to the new 2015 models. For example a 2008 Pioneer Elite SC-07 7.1 channel A/V receiver has a maximum power consumption of 330 watts (between 0.4-0.6 watts in standby). Where as the 2015 Pioneer Elite SC-91 7.2 channel A/V receiver uses a maximum of 290 watts of power (between 0.1-3.0 watts in standby). However the top of the line 2015 Pioneer Elite SC-99 9.2 channel A/V receiver uses more power when compared to the 2008 Pioneer Elite SC-07 7.1 channel A/V receiver because of the extra amplifiers that are required for DTS X and Dolby ATMOS. The maximum power consumption of the top of the line 2015 Pioneer Elite SC-99 is 370 watts (between 0.1-3.0 watts in standby).

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by HDTV1080P

[SIZE=3]
[COLOR=#000000 the 65 inch 4K OLED LG 65EC9700 uses a maximum of 540 watts power consumption which is more power consumption then the best plasma screens. [/B]So much for OLED flat panels being low power consumption. [/COLOR]


[/COLOR]

Actually, the 2015 LG OLEDs are energy efficient. In fact, the 55EG9100, 55EG9200, 55EF9500 and 65EF9500 are all Energy Star Certified.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=533

[ZoetMB]

I consider myself an environmentalist, but what really counts is one's total carbon footprint, not the amount of energy any one device uses.

So if you buy a UHD TV that uses more power, make sure you've gotten rid of all your incandescent lighting and replace it with LEDs or whatever. Drive less. I'm lucky to live in a city that doesn't require a lot of driving and as a result I drive fewer than 7000 miles a year. Make sure you turn the heater or AC off when you leave the house. Don't leave all your lights on all the time, etc.

There's plenty of ways to be energy efficient.

Also, while HDR TVs do emphasize brighter whites, those whites are generally only in very small areas of the screen. In general, any calibrated TV that I've ever seen generally has a much darker image than an uncalibrated set and far darker than the "demo mode" that is displayed in stores and frequently used by consumers with over-bright, over-saturated and over-contrasty images.

My bet is that a calibrated set of any kind will use less electricity in real-world usage than an uncalibrated set.

The biggest usage of electricity in my apartment is not the TV or audio system: it's the refrigerator.

[HDTV1080P]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

Actually, the 2015 LG OLEDs are energy efficient. In fact, the 55EG9100, 55EG9200, 55EF9500 and 65EF9500 are all Energy Star Certified.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=533

The LG 65EF9500 4K OLED flat panel has a maximum power consumption of 480 watts according to the owner’s manual. That is comparable to the maximum power consumption of a 2008 60 inch 1080P Pioneer plasma. Now I realize that JohnAV posted that the average power of the LG 65EF9500 is 204 watts. Only under extreme conditions would the LG 65EF9500 reach its maximum power consumption of 480 watts. I would need to check but some plasma screens might have an average power consumption of around 200 watts also and only under certain conditions would they reach their maximum power consumption ratings.


I do see the 55 inch LG 1080P OLED 55EG9100 only uses a maximum power consumption of 320 watts, which is better then the 384 watts of a 2008 1080P 50 inch PRO-101FD plasma display. 4K Ultra HD adds to power consumption, which is one of the reasons a 4K Ultra HD plasma was never released.


Professional reviewers have also mentioned that the first generation of OLED displays use more power and they are closer to plasma screens when it comes to power consumption. Of course, over time OLED power consumption will most likely be reduced. However at this time LCD flat panels with LED backlighting (or edge lit LED) have less power consumption when compared to OLED displays.


Also when calibrating displays they are taken out of the power saving mode since those modes decrease the picture quality performance. That does not mean that automatically all calibrated displays use more power, sometimes they use less.

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by HDTV1080P

The LG 65EF9500 4K OLED flat panel has a maximum power consumption of 480 watts according to the owner’s manual. That is comparable to the maximum power consumption of a 2008 60 inch 1080P Pioneer plasma. Now I realize that JohnAV posted that the average power of the LG 65EF9500 is 204 watts. Only under extreme conditions would the LG 65EF9500 reach its maximum power consumption of 480 watts. I would need to check but some plasma screens might have an average power consumption of around 200 watts also and only under certain conditions would they reach their maximum power consumption ratings.


I do see the 55 inch LG 1080P OLED 55EG9100 only uses a maximum power consumption of 320 watts, which is better then the 384 watts of a 2008 1080P 50 inch PRO-101FD plasma display. 4K Ultra HD adds to power consumption, which is one of the reasons a 4K Ultra HD plasma was never released.


Professional reviewers have also mentioned that the first generation of OLED displays use more power and they are closer to plasma screens when it comes to power consumption. Of course, over time OLED power consumption will most likely be reduced. However at this time LCD flat panels with LED backlighting (or edge lit LED) have less power consumption when compared to OLED displays.


Also when calibrating displays they are taken out of the power saving mode since those modes decrease the picture quality performance. That does not mean that automatically all calibrated displays use more power, sometimes they use less.

See Post #14 and the comparison between the SUHD Samsung which is not Energy Star Certified and the LG 65EG9500 OLED which is Energy Star Certified.

Max power is not relevant. Energy Star is a voluntary EPA program. The Energy Star criteria have become more stringent for certification.

Qualification for all 2016 TVs is based on this as of 30 October 2015:

PON_MAX = 78.5 x tanh (0.0005 x (A - 140) + 0.038) + 14 For UHD add a high resolution allowance of 0.5 Pon_MAX

https://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm...pr_crit_tv_vcr

To qualify for Most Efficient Energy Star certification the On Mode Power Consumption criteria is more stringent for 2016 than it was in 2015:

2015

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partner....pdf?2a1e-835c

2016

https://www.energystar.gov/sites/def...isionsESME.pdf

For convenience, the Energy Star listings include the yearly power consumption (KWh/Y) for certified TVs in their searchable list as I noted in Post #14

Does that clear up the difference between Max Power and On Mode Power Consumption?

As I said, the LG 65EG9500, based on Energy Star Criteria (prior to October 30, 2015) is Energy Star Certified with annual power consumption of 175 KWh/Y.

Consumers can choose to ignore the Energy Star decal on CE equipment, but I think selecting “green” products is the right thing to do.
Ignore it and the next thing you know, the EPA makes certification mandatory.