Plasma Power Usage - Blu-ray Forum

My_Two_Cents · 09-14-2008, 03:44 PM

There have been more pasts than I care to remember from folks claiming the reason they didn't or won't consider a plasma is because it uses "so much more energy" than other display devices. In most of these claims, folks base their claims on the max wattage numbers cited in the various literature, which (I believe) represents power usage when one uses the display as an overhead light.

Anyway, Consumer Reports did a side-by-side comparrison of a 50" 1080p plasma versus a 52" 1080p LCD. I'll quote their test procedure:

"During testing, we measure each TV's power use when it's on and off (also known as standby mode). Then we calculate power consumption based on typical daily viewing - on for 8 hours and off for 16 hours. It's no big surprise that the bigger the screen, the more electricity a TV will use. But you might not know that plasma TVs typically use more energy than LCDs."

The total difference calculated over the course of one year? 1,159 kWh for plasma versus 667 kWh for LCD, or $53/year more to run a plasma. I don't believe it has ever been argued that plasmas don't use more energy than LCDs, but I would certainly hope that a minor $53/year is not enough to offset all of the other advantages of a plasma display.

I posted this to help educate, not to start another fanboy war. Let's hope we can keep the discussion civil and fact-based.

sokrman14 · 09-14-2008, 03:45 PM

I have been trying to tell people that, some ignorant people refuse to listen. I am glad you posted this.

dobyblue · 09-14-2008, 05:42 PM

Certain members here should be forced to read this thread when they log in, like the extremely unknowledgeable Jackaroo75

PLASMA-1080P-FULLHD · 09-15-2008, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dobyblue

Certain members here should be forced to read this thread when they log in, like the extremely unknowledgeable Jackaroo75

They remind me of the good old HD-DVD fan boyz. #1 common syndrom: refused to accept the facts

My_Two_Cents · 09-15-2008, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dobyblue

Certain members here should be forced to read this thread when they log in, like the extremely unknowledgeable Jackaroo75

How about a sticky for awhile? Not that it will force folks to read, but it will leave it visible for those that may be interested.

callas01 · 09-15-2008, 02:29 PM

Seriously, do we have to go through this again??? Lets just say that some people like plasma's and others like LCD, and bygones.

PLASMA-1080P-FULLHD · 09-15-2008, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by callas01

Seriously, do we have to go through this again??? Lets just say that some people like plasma's and others like LCD, and bygones.

thats not true. Its like why u choose blu-ray over hd-dvd

My_Two_Cents · 09-15-2008, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by callas01

Seriously, do we have to go through this again??? Lets just say that some people like plasma's and others like LCD, and bygones.

Not going through anything again. Just posting some actual data done by a unbiased source doing a real-world comparrison to counter many of the "plasma uses SO much more electricity than LCD" claims made by some folks around here with nothing to back-up their statements.

dobyblue · 09-15-2008, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by callas01

Seriously, do we have to go through this again??? Lets just say that some people like plasma's and others like LCD, and bygones.

This post provides factual information that corrects misinformation that permeates the average consumer. What is it exactly you're objecting to? You don't think people should have access to real-world information as opposed to opinion pieces?

Edh63 · 09-15-2008, 08:07 PM

Good post! It's beyond me why people have to come and refute, debate or argue this. This post is OBVIOUSLY not about the debate, rather a simple statement of fact about energy consumption. By all means, please enjoy your LCD (I've got a 32" in the bedroom and love it), and for those who have them, please enjoy your Plasmas, too (got one in the den and lovin it too). I'll fart that $53.00 bucks out of my ass in the course of a year so the "energy consumption theory" would never be a reason why I would buy one over the other.

Can't someone just post a fact and let it be an information piece to all who read?

Similar Threads
thread	Forum	Thread Starter	Replies	Last Post
Panny plasma power on problems	Plasma TVs	abynum1	13	05-22-2013 02:59 PM
Power usage for Plasma?	Plasma TVs	Robmx	16	10-10-2009 04:00 AM
Plasma TV power cord question ????	Plasma TVs	Yautja	2	09-29-2009 01:18 PM
Computer energy usage	General Chat	Go Blue	1	11-11-2008 05:42 PM

09-14-2008, 03:44 PM	#1
My_Two_Cents Blu-ray Knight Top contributor Member since:Dec 2007 Location:Wherever I may roam.... Home Theater Gallery:40 4K collection:35 Blu-ray collection:507 DVD collection:19 Blu-ray reviews: 1 Trading Score:4	Plasma Power Usage There have been more pasts than I care to remember from folks claiming the reason they didn't or won't consider a plasma is because it uses "so much more energy" than other display devices. In most of these claims, folks base their claims on the max wattage numbers cited in the various literature, which (I believe) represents power usage when one uses the display as an overhead light. Anyway, Consumer Reports did a side-by-side comparrison of a 50" 1080p plasma versus a 52" 1080p LCD. I'll quote their test procedure: "During testing, we measure each TV's power use when it's on and off (also known as standby mode). Then we calculate power consumption based on typical daily viewing - on for 8 hours and off for 16 hours. It's no big surprise that the bigger the screen, the more electricity a TV will use. But you might not know that plasma TVs typically use more energy than LCDs." The total difference calculated over the course of one year? 1,159 kWh for plasma versus 667 kWh for LCD, or $53/year more to run a plasma. I don't believe it has ever been argued that plasmas don't use more energy than LCDs, but I would certainly hope that a minor $53/year is not enough to offset all of the other advantages of a plasma display. I posted this to help educate, not to start another fanboy war. Let's hope we can keep the discussion civil and fact-based.

09-14-2008, 03:45 PM	#2
sokrman14 Special Member Member since:Mar 2006 Location:Omaha, NE Home Theater Gallery:9 Blu-ray collection:32 Blu-ray reviews:1 Trading Score:1	I have been trying to tell people that, some ignorant people refuse to listen. I am glad you posted this.

09-14-2008, 05:42 PM	#3
dobyblue Super Moderator Top contributor Member since:Jul 2006 Location:Ontario, Canada Home Theater Gallery:71 4K collection:55 Blu-ray collection:655 Blu-ray reviews: 15	Certain members here should be forced to read this thread when they log in, like the extremely unknowledgeable Jackaroo75

09-15-2008, 02:29 PM	#6
callas01 Blu-ray Prince Top contributor Member since:Jun 2008 Location:Riverside, CA Home Theater Gallery:42 Blu-ray collection:230 DVD collection:47	Seriously, do we have to go through this again??? Lets just say that some people like plasma's and others like LCD, and bygones.

09-15-2008, 08:07 PM	#10
Edh63 Senior Member Member since:Jan 2008 Location:Wimberley, TX	Good post! It's beyond me why people have to come and refute, debate or argue this. This post is OBVIOUSLY not about the debate, rather a simple statement of fact about energy consumption. By all means, please enjoy your LCD (I've got a 32" in the bedroom and love it), and for those who have them, please enjoy your Plasmas, too (got one in the den and lovin it too). I'll fart that $53.00 bucks out of my ass in the course of a year so the "energy consumption theory" would never be a reason why I would buy one over the other. Can't someone just post a fact and let it be an information piece to all who read?

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals