UHD TV's could raise energy costs considerably

[HDTV1080P]

I have nothing against an Energy Star product. My point is that some of these OLED flat panels can use up to 540 watts maximum power versus some of the LCD screens with LED backlighting use a maximum of 180 watts. If one wants to compare average power ratings then the OLED flat panels still use more power when compared to LCD screens with LED backlighting.

[HDTV1080P]

If the Samsung really averages 167 watts and the LG averages 204 watts, then the Samsung is going to use less power during the year.

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by HDTV1080P

I have nothing against an Energy Star product. My point is that some of these OLED flat panels can use up to 540 watts maximum power versus some of the LCD screens with LED backlighting use a maximum of 180 watts. If one wants to compare average power ratings then the OLED flat panels still use more power when compared to LCD screens with LED backlighting.

Originally Posted by HDTV1080P

If the Samsung really averages 167 watts and the LG averages 204 watts, then the Samsung is going to use less power during the year.

The state and federal regulators will be looking at EPA Energy Star methodology. You should read the pdf posted in the OP.

The OLEDS are inherently more power efficient because they have no backlight. Power is applied to individual pixels. With LED, backlight is always on, even with local dimming. The LG65EF9500 is Energy Star Certified because it is around 30% more efficient than the LG65EG9600 which is not Energy Star Certified. The Samsung 65" SUHD is not Energy Star Certified.:

Here are some excerpts from the pdf:

The LG 55EG9600 was the only television we tested that contained organic light emitting diode (OLED) technology. While this technology has been very popular in cell phones and tablets, in part for its ability to extend battery life through higher energy efficiency, early-generation OLED TVs do not yet appear to be more energy efficient than their LCD counterparts. However, manufacturer-reported energy consumption values for LG’s new 9500 series OLEDs are about 29 percent lower than for its 9600 series OLEDs released earlier in 2015. We anticipate OLED TV energy efficiency may continue to improve as the technology matures

In Figure 13, we display the test results in terms of their annual energy consumption (AEC) in kWh/yr for the televisions that we tested in the laboratory. AEC was calculated using the DOE-specified daily duty cycle of five hours in On-mode and 19 hours in standby mode. The AEC levels of televisions tested ranged from a low of 110 kWh/ yr to a high of just over 300 kWh/yr. At a national average electricity rate of 12.98 cents per kWh,10 this 190 kWh/yr incremental energy use between the most and least energy consuming 55-inch models translates to an extra $246 in utility bills per television over the 10-year life of a new unit.

The EPA uses its own methodology to calculate power consumption and AEC annual kWh/yr. That's what regulators at state and federal level will follow when drafting legislation. I suspect they will be doing that very soon.

[spectre08]

I replaced a 42" Plasma with my 55" 4K LCD.

My power consumption went down CONSIDERABLY.

[HDTV1080P]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

The state and federal regulators will be looking at EPA Energy Star methodology. You should read the pdf posted in the OP.

The OLEDS are inherently more power efficient because they have no backlight. Power is applied to individual pixels. With LED, backlight is always on, even with local dimming. The LG65EF9500 is Energy Star Certified because it is around 30% more efficient than the LG65EG9600 which is not Energy Star Certified. The Samsung 65" SUHD is not Energy Star Certified.:

Here are some excerpts from the pdf:

The LG 55EG9600 was the only television we tested that contained organic light emitting diode (OLED) technology. While this technology has been very popular in cell phones and tablets, in part for its ability to extend battery life through higher energy efficiency, early-generation OLED TVs do not yet appear to be more energy efficient than their LCD counterparts. However, manufacturer-reported energy consumption values for LG’s new 9500 series OLEDs are about 29 percent lower than for its 9600 series OLEDs released earlier in 2015. We anticipate OLED TV energy efficiency may continue to improve as the technology matures

In Figure 13, we display the test results in terms of their annual energy consumption (AEC) in kWh/yr for the televisions that we tested in the laboratory. AEC was calculated using the DOE-specified daily duty cycle of five hours in On-mode and 19 hours in standby mode. The AEC levels of televisions tested ranged from a low of 110 kWh/ yr to a high of just over 300 kWh/yr. At a national average electricity rate of 12.98 cents per kWh,10 this 190 kWh/yr incremental energy use between the most and least energy consuming 55-inch models translates to an extra $246 in utility bills per television over the 10-year life of a new unit.


The EPA uses its own methodology to calculate power consumption and AEC annual kWh/yr. That's what regulators at state and federal level will follow when drafting legislation. I suspect they will be doing that very soon.

In the bold above is basically the same thing I mentioned about OLED’s. They keep improving the power consumption.


If one turns on a light bulb that is 60 watts in one room and one turns on a light bulb that is 100 watts in the other room, then after a year of running the light bulbs, the light bulb in the room that uses a 100 watts is going to use more electrical energy. With flat panels it is easy to find their maximum wattage used since the manufactories publish the specs in the owner’s manual. However when trying to determine the average watts used and yearly watts used it becomes more difficult. Everyone watches different programs on a flat panel with some movies having brighter and darker scenes compared to other movies that will use more or less watts. Of course if the same exact test pattern or movie is used for all flat panel screens then one can calculate a estimated average power consumption and estimated yearly power consumption.


Plasmas are still the power hog when compared to LCD flat panels. However, some LCD flat panels use less power yearly when compared to OLED displays. OLED displays have power consumptions between LCD flat panel screens and plasmas.


What is confusing is that PC magazine is claiming that the Samsung LCD flat panel has less average watts used when compared to the LG OLED average watts used. However the other publication claims that over an estimated year period the LG OLED uses less power than the Samsung LCD screen, if that is true then I agree that when compared to that Samsung LCD model the LG OLED uses less watts over an estimated year period (five hours in On-mode and 19 hours in standby mode.). Also PC magazine and Crutchfield might have had the displays calibrated differently which would result in different power consumption numbers.

[raygendreau]

You could be the most energy conscious person in the world, but what does that matter if power consumption caps for TVs are mandated by state and federal regulations. California did just that in 2009 and included greater restrictions for 2011 and even greater for 2013. There is far too much attention on power consumption in California for them not to revisit this.

So, while Energy Star Certification is not mandatory, state and federal regulations will be. The net result is that, in the future, you may not have the opportunity to purchase a UHD HDR TV with 1000, 4,000, 10,000 nit panels because they will be legislated out of existence.

Prior to October 30, 2015, UHD TVs were given an allowance for On Mode Power Consumption that was 50% higher than non UHD TVs. That additional allowance was eliminated for 2016 for the Energy Star Most Efficient Certification.

“Televisions: Several stakeholders expressed support for the 2016 recognition criteria. They agreed with EPA’s proposal to set a base level without additional allowances for features such as Ultra HD. One stakeholder asked EPA to watch standby energy use associated with internet connected TVs. EPA agrees with the importance of doing so and has set levels for this function in the ENERGY STAR Version 7 specification that will take effect next month.[Oct 30, 2015] As such, all TVs recognized as ENERGY STAR Most Efficient in 2016 will deliver on their efficiency promise in all modes”

https://www.energystar.gov/sites/def...icient2016.pdf

The NRDC has a powerful lobby in California and while California is currently engaged in an attempt to limit gasoline consumption in the state, they will turn their attention to this as well.

Will the manufacturers manage to make 4,000 nit UHD HDR displays that meet future state and local mandated caps? That is the real question.

[spectre08]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

Will the manufacturers mange to make 4,000 nit UHD HDR displays that meet future state and local mandated caps? That is the real question.

if the demand is there for those panels, the manufacturers will make it happen.

Putting regulatory requirements on the manufacturers doesn't mean they won't ultimately create a product to sell to consumers, it just means they can't take the easy way there.

This has both good and bad implications.

I remember when the government really started to crack down on emissions and fuel economy in cars several years ago. The doom and gloomers said that it was the end of fast cars and trucks.

What happened?

Customers still wanted pickup trucks and muscle cars. So GM and others set about making sure it happened.

In 2015 I can still buy a 505HP Camaro that gets 20mpg, or a Ford F-150 that can tow 12,000 pounds and gets 23mpg

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by spectre08

if the demand is there for those panels, the manufacturers will make it happen.

Putting regulatory requirements on the manufacturers doesn't mean they won't ultimately create a product to sell to consumers, it just means they can't take the easy way there.

This has both good and bad implications.

I remember when the government really started to crack down on emissions and fuel economy in cars several years ago. The doom and gloomers said that it was the end of fast cars and trucks.

What happened?

Customers still wanted pickup trucks and muscle cars. So GM and others set about making sure it happened.

In 2015 I can still buy a 505HP Camaro that gets 20mpg, or a Ford F-150 that can tow 12,000 pounds and gets 23mpg

California is proposing a 50% cut in gasoline consumption. You can keep your Camaro, but only drive it half as far.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by spectre08

if the demand is there for those panels, the manufacturers will make it happen.

....

In 2015 I can still buy a 505HP Camaro that gets 20mpg, or a Ford F-150 that can tow 12,000 pounds and gets 23mpg

Big differences here though. Gas Guzzlers had existed for decades when fuel efficiency standards were introduced. Many Americans viewed burning as much gas as your car could choke down as something of a birthright.

Consumers don't have the same associations here between energy consumption and power (ie people don't automatically think 'more is good' when it comes to their flat-panel's energy use). And hardly anybody has even seen a HDR panel yet.

And even when people finally see them there's no real reason to think significant numbers of them will think 'get my State Senator on the phone, we have to keep these babies coming, the energy efficient panels just ain't gonna do'. At least at this point there's not.

But I might just be projecting my own doubts with that last bit.

HDR might turn out to be one of those 'OMG I have to have it' features.

[spectre08]

Originally Posted by octagon

Big differences here though. Gas Guzzlers had existed for decades when fuel efficiency standards were introduced. Many Americans viewed burning as much gas as your car could choke down as something of a birthright.

Consumers don't have the same associations here between energy consumption and power (ie people don't automatically think 'more is good' when it comes to their flat-panel's energy use). And hardly anybody has even seen a HDR panel yet.

And even when people finally see them there's no real reason to think significant numbers of them will think 'get my State Senator on the phone, we have to keep these babies coming, the energy efficient panels just ain't gonna do'. At least at this point there's not.

But I might just be projecting my own doubts with that last bit.

HDR might turn out to be one of those 'OMG I have to have it' features.

Most customers won't care about the energy ratings of the panel, they'll only care about the features and performance of the panel. If the government mandates that companies MUST meet certain requirements, then the manufacturers will have to figure out how to meet those requirements while still meeting the customer's demands. They wont' be able to simply throw up their hands and say "look, we can't give you that awesome 1,000 NIT display because the government says we have to save energy," because the first company that does make the two requirements work together will immediately dominate the marketplace.

Make no mistake, regulation like this WILL delay the advancement of the technology by making companies shift resources away from performance and toward efficiency, but the end result will be the same only the panels will also be more efficient.

The car analogy is actually perfect, because for a lot of consumers, especially those who buy high power cars and big trucks, fuel efficiency and emissions are simply non-factors, they don't weigh in on their purchasing decision at all. Which is how the majority of people who buy big UltraHD tvs approach the subject of power efficiency as well. It's well down at the bottom of the list of things to compare sets on.

[ZIROK]

Bit off Topic but I also notice that my Dish boxes draw a huge amount of current even when they are off , needed to keep the Antenna alive for quick power on. Not just warm but almost Hot to the touch. I tried unplugging them when not in use but they took forever to boot up and many times they would pick the wrong Satellites requiring I tech support call. They must be drawing at least 40 watts even when off. How many thousands of these power hogs do they have in service ?

[HDTV1080P]

Dish Network has over 14 million subscribers and Direct TV has over 20 million subscribers. Some of the older Direct TV boxes use around 60 watts, the newer models use less power. Plus those that live in cold climates sometimes use Hot Shot Dish warmers to keep snow and ICE off the Dish.


Read today that Direct TV brand name might be changing to AT@T Entertainment.

[Midnight Rambler]

Originally Posted by spectre08

I remember when the government really started to crack down on emissions and fuel economy in cars several years ago. The doom and gloomers said that it was the end of fast cars and trucks.

What happened?

Customers still wanted pickup trucks and muscle cars. So GM and others set about making sure it happened.

In 2015 I can still buy a 505HP Camaro that gets 20mpg, or a Ford F-150 that can tow 12,000 pounds and gets 23mpg

Sorry, but as a 35+ year veteran of the auto industry, I can tell you that your memory is way off.

Emissions and fuel economy mandates absolutely gutted the performance segment of the industry for 30+ years. Only in the last few years have we seen it return in any significant form.

When a 4-bolt main Chevy 350 had to be de-stroked and detuned to <170HP due to emission and fuel economy mandates, I can assure you that the performance era was indeed over for a long, long time.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Midnight Rambler

When a 4-bolt main Chevy 350 had to be de-stroked and detuned to <170HP due to emission and fuel economy mandates, I can assure you that the performance era was indeed over for a long, long time.

That's odd. I have a 2003 C-5 Corvette, that off the showroom floor is 350 horsepower, and tops out at 170 MPH. One day, I drove top down from Santa Barbara to Sylmar (mostly flat, I was on the 101 most of the way), and rolled into my driveway, and had averaged a hair under 29 MPG.


Another time, I drove from north of Las Vegas (up where the canyon is, past Ely) to Sylmar, with the top up and the air on. I averaged over 29 miles per gallon, with my wife and I in the car. I'm still astounded.


In my 1984 C-4 Corvette, the Santa Barbara run never exceeded 27.5 mpg. It had only 240 HP, and could only reach 140 mpg.


I couldn't match these numbers on the I-5 to San Francisco, but traffic on that road never stays steady. I rarely got above 25-26 miles per gallon.


I don't know what 35 year period your experience is in, or with which manufacturer, but GM's 350 stroker is amazing in a streamline car. Even the Camaro/Firebird models got amazing mpg/performance.


Chrysler and Ford can't do it - great performance, but lousy mileage. And I could never coax more that 22 mpg out of my BMW M Roadster, though it ran with the Vettes all day.


It takes real engineering, and the public is wising up fast. You'll see a new emphasis on fuel economy versus performance coming very soon, just about everywhere.

[slimdude]

Unless a consumer is playing their HDTV, or UDHDTV 24/7 (which nobody doesn't). the energy cost shouldn't be problem nor a factor of owning one. The only household appliance that requires to operate 24/7 is a refrigerator/freezer, and nobody have any issues or complaints about its energy consumption because it's a necessity. Everything else can be turned off! Regardless the amount of electricity we use, we're going to pay for it. Either we pay the electric bill, or we won't have any power to watch anything.

[spectre08]

Originally Posted by Midnight Rambler

Sorry, but as a 35+ year veteran of the auto industry, I can tell you that your memory is way off.

Emissions and fuel economy mandates absolutely gutted the performance segment of the industry for 30+ years. Only in the last few years have we seen it return in any significant form.

When a 4-bolt main Chevy 350 had to be de-stroked and detuned to <170HP due to emission and fuel economy mandates, I can assure you that the performance era was indeed over for a long, long time.

it didn't end, it took a pause to fix itself.

The fact is that cars on the road today comply with even stricter standards than those back then, and have performance that absolutely obliterates anything somebody in the 60s could have imagined.

And it didn't return "in the last few years"

by 1992 the base model Corvette had 300hp, by 1997 it made 350hp and was capable of 180+mph.

That's 20 years ago.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

It takes real engineering, and the public is wising up fast. You'll see a new emphasis on fuel economy versus performance coming very soon, just about everywhere.

The public has a really short memory and in spite of the hype about electric cars, especially in California, I think our current low fuel prices are going to make far too many people forget about fuel economy and have them demand "bigness" or performance instead.

I just paid $2.05/gallon for gas in New Jersey and in upstate NY, I saw some "no-name" gas stations selling gas for $1.99. That's outrageously inexpensive (maybe even cheaper than it was in the 1970s before the oil shortage if you adjust for inflation) and over the last few days, the price of oil has dropped further - I think it's something like $40 a barrel now.

Isn't there some car advertising on TV with a 600 HP engine and some absurd top speed? What's the gas mileage on that? I fully expect to see people buying Hummers again and 8-cylinder engines making a comeback.

[spectre08]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

The public has a really short memory and in spite of the hype about electric cars, especially in California, I think our current low fuel prices are going to make far too many people forget about fuel economy and have them demand "bigness" or performance instead.

I just paid $2.05/gallon for gas in New Jersey and in upstate NY, I saw some "no-name" gas stations selling gas for $1.99. That's outrageously inexpensive (maybe even cheaper than it was in the 1970s before the oil shortage if you adjust for inflation) and over the last few days, the price of oil has dropped further - I think it's something like $40 a barrel now.

Isn't there some car advertising on TV with a 600 HP engine and some absurd top speed? What's the gas mileage on that? I fully expect to see people buying Hummers again and 8-cylinder engines making a comeback.

but even those 600HP supercars and 8-cyclinder pickup trucks these days get 20+ MPG.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

The public has a really short memory and in spite of the hype about electric cars, especially in California, I think our current low fuel prices are going to make far too many people forget about fuel economy and have them demand "bigness" or performance instead.

I just paid $2.05/gallon for gas in New Jersey and in upstate NY, I saw some "no-name" gas stations selling gas for $1.99. That's outrageously inexpensive (maybe even cheaper than it was in the 1970s before the oil shortage if you adjust for inflation) and over the last few days, the price of oil has dropped further - I think it's something like $40 a barrel now.

Isn't there some car advertising on TV with a 600 HP engine and some absurd top speed? What's the gas mileage on that? I fully expect to see people buying Hummers again and 8-cylinder engines making a comeback.

People here in California are too gun-shy for that stuff. We've watched the refineries play yo-yo with the prices too often.


I have a Volt, and I swear by it. I also have a Raptor, but figure out what I commute in, even with low gas prices. Out here, we don't trust anybody, and with a Volt, the first 50 miles or so are darn near free.


No reason to buy a Chiron (Bugatti's Veyron replacement) for the street, or if you have a hefty commute. When I can make a 100 mile commute on a shade more than a gallon a day, what do I need with horsepower? Nobody cares, and if I need a spaceship, I can get a hairy-assed American muscle car, and keep it a while as a side vehicle. Electric cars can scrape some pavement if they want to.


No need to keep slaving away for the oil companies, or sending kids off to go muscle it away from some savage. Sunlight is free all over the world.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

People here in California are too gun-shy for that stuff. We've watched the refineries play yo-yo with the prices too often.


I have a Volt, and I swear by it. I also have a Raptor, but figure out what I commute in, even with low gas prices. Out here, we don't trust anybody, and with a Volt, the first 50 miles or so are darn near free.


No reason to buy a Chiron (Bugatti's Veyron replacement) for the street, or if you have a hefty commute. When I can make a 100 mile commute on a shade more than a gallon a day, what do I need with horsepower? Nobody cares, and if I need a spaceship, I can get a hairy-assed American muscle car, and keep it a while as a side vehicle. Electric cars can scrape some pavement if they want to.


No need to keep slaving away for the oil companies, or sending kids off to go muscle it away from some savage. Sunlight is free all over the world.

California is a different world. In big cities, where a majority of people live in apartment buildings, there is virtually nowhere to charge an electric car. Even with all the super-rich one-percenters living here (NYC), I've yet to spot a Tesla. The only place I've ever seen to charge an electric car are a few spots in Central Park for city-owned vehicles. I live in a co-op and while we have an indoor garage, the co-op is NEVER going to put in any charging stations. I've never seen a charging station at a gas station. I guess the Tesla dealerships have them, but they're few and far between.