Try a digital projector. The latest Panasonic offering is 180 watts for a HUGE image.

How about a tv tuner for the computer?

Why have a TV at all? I realize that many people really enjoy TV... But, after I sent mine to the thrift-store, I have more time, money, and emotional energy.

My life has been much better since I almost completely stopped watching TV 5 years ago, and I agree with most of what is said here, but obviously if you are going to buy a TV, might as well get an energy-efficient model.

>Try a digital projector.
>The latest Panasonic offering
>is 180 watts for a HUGE image.

With the added energy saving side effect that you have to turn all the lights out to see it.

Ha! Collateral benefits, I guess, though modern projectors are usually bright enough to be seen clearly with the light on and so that's not really required.

If you get a projector with 1200 lumens or more, and a high-gain screen, you can watch in broad daylight. Get one that's XGA equipped, and you're also set for HDTV.

Awesome for outdoor movie-parties!

I worked at a place that rented projectors, and we used this amazing stuff for screens called Lumen-Oz, which had a very high light gain, and you could rear-project it, as well.

The big downside: Bulb Life. If you use it alot, you'll burn it out in a year or two, and have to shell out $300+ for a new one.

I'm still not convinvced that watch TV on your computer is really going to save a lot of energy. Not only is the screen smaller than your average TV, you've got a lot of other stuff sucking energy that TVs don't.

This is one of the reasons I haven't built a PVR on my computer; a DVD-recorder (with hard drive) is probably more energy efficient, even in standby than your computer will be, even if you turn that off when your not recording/watching tv.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong though; I cringe at the idea of giving money to TIVO or DirectTV when I don't have to do that with my VCR.

I'd just like to mention that the most efficient TV isn't necessarily the TV that uses the least power. To illustrate: if a 60" TV were to cost $13 per year to run, it would be far more efficient than the 20" Sharp mentioned above. That's because it'd be doing more "work" with the same amount of energy.

I'd be very very interested in seeing a comparison of the power consumption of TVs that are comparable to each other. Now that would be meaningful.

TVs have become classic examples of the rebound effect - manufacturers develop energy saving new technologies (LCD screens), which then allow the user to buy a bigger screen whilst keeping the energy consumption at a similar level. This is very similar to cars.

The consumer benefits, the environment doesn't.

"Why have a TV at all?"

Simple: video games. I don't really watch that much television anymore, though I used to watch several hours per day. Since going to college, however, I've found that I prefer forms of entertainment that keep my brain busy (video games, programming, reading), and TV shows just don't do that.

TVs now are a classic example of the rebound effect - Manufacturers develop a new more efficient technology (LCDs) and consumers then choose to buy bigger TVs, maintaining a similar energy consumption. Very similar to cars.

The consumer benefits, the environment doesn't.

I was ready to buy the Aquos based on this info, but decided to check the specs for myself. Sharp Aquos 42" LC42D644 power consumption: 215 watts; Sony 40" V2500 (also LCD) power consumption: 200 watts. (They don't make a 42" in this model). So I don't see the big green advantage to the Aquos (other than SAVING some "green"!). Unless I'm missing something, perhaps the site owner could update this information?
Huggs,
Alan

CNET has given top honors to a 42" Philips TV model 42PFL5603D that appears to only take 75 Watts. For this size TV this is a great improvement.

CNET has given top honors to a 42" Philips TV model 42PFL5603D that appears to only take 75 Watts. For this size TV this is a great improvement.