Flat TV=More Nuclear Plants
by Mairi Beautyman, Berlin, Germany 
on 08.17.06
Flat screens are a big green no-no (as we’ve mentioned before). According to a recent article in The Observer, if half of British homes buy a plasma-screen TV, the country would need two more nuclear power stations to meet the extra energy demand. Flatter they are, but when it comes to energy these “hi-tech” toys use up to four times as much electricity as that clunky thing you just tossed on the street (to be recycled via Garbagescout of course). Plus, that stand-by feature? Just turn it off. “Simply leaving devices such as TVs and DVD players on standby at home puts up to 1m tonnes of carbon a year into the atmosphere and costs each household around £25,” the article reports. Considering many families may keep a TV for up to ten years, this evidence is daunting. Ahh, but the future is bright. Chances are the models out there will become increasingly more efficient. If only they had waited until then to launch these guys. Hm. Thanks tipster Linton, via ::Hugg
Image courtesy of Philips.
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Meet Green Business Consultant Tyler Moorehead, of GreenUnlimited
- Meet Auden Schendler, Author of Getting Green Done
- 8 Fun Green Ways to Manage Stress (Kissing is One of Them)
- Mister Miyagi's Guide to Going Green: 5 Questions to Always Ask to Think Green and Be Green
- Don't Kick Your TV to the Curb for the Digital Television Transition
- Top 10 Things to Bring On Your Cross-Country Bus Trip
The article says plasma tv's not just flat screen tv's. I believe lcd's are still better than tube versions. Also LED back lights are starting to come out.
It also says all the TV's would have to be on at the same time. What are the odds of that?
Oh great - more scare tactics based on nothing at all.
http://displayblog.wordpress.com/2006/08/13/plasma-tvs-demand-more-energy/
We're all going to die! Turn off your TVs!
Come on, folks.
I always assumed lcd's used less power than CRT, but my experience is with computer displays. Eventually I want to replace our 11 year old TV with something more efficient but what.
Remember though the standby power on a CRT also keeps the tube warm to prolong its life, if you start unplugging those then then end up in the garbage sooner.
Indeed, plasmas do suck. Just been looking at some TVs myself - My current 21" (non-widescreen) CRT TV uses between 80-100 Watts (dependent on predominant colour of what you are viewing!) , whereas the new 32" Sony widecreen LCD uses 125 Watts. So LCDs do give you an improvement over existing CRTs... but then it makes me want a bigger TV!
I believe that is called the Rebound effect!
Jilted: The odds are pretty good, during a major address or a World Cup game, that most of them would be on. Power system capacity has to be design with that in mind - you can't just throw on a couple more nuke plants for a big weekend in football. Obviously not ALL of them, but enough to blow away current capacity.
My LCD computer monitor at home does take less power than my previous CRT - but it's also about the same size. One of the things driving up the energy use of these panels (and the 'cold' cathode creating the light) is that they tend to be much larger than previous CRTs.
Because utilities still tend to be public, we can't rely on price to keep people from buying higher-power devices, but we could require energy labeling similar to what the US does for other major appliances.
Ditto what "JiltedCitizen" said.
"Flatscreen" used to distinguish tube televisions from Plasma televisions. However, now even tube televisions rarely have curved screens.
LCD's use less power than both and are relatively thin. Closer to flat than plasma's or Tube tv's.
Yes, I thought plasma was on the way out. DLP systems seem to be the new kid on the block, looks better and the price is coming down, and they are far more efficent than plasma.
Ya maybe for a world cup game. But doubtful. You and your friend my have a plasma tv, but are you going to watch it alone? Most likely not, your going to be at a bar or one another's house watching in company. I kinda see this article as eco fear mongering. It does raise a point though. We need more energy or we need to make more efficient products.
Anyone have a buyers guide, listing mmodels and the amount of power taken. I'm also looking for soemthing with an external power supply so I could run from low voltage.
No worries, a better technology is just around the corner. SED TVs.
Best picture quality, thin profile, least energy used, and projected to come down in cost faster than LCD or Plasma. But the first couple of years it'll probably be pricey.
http://www.hdtvsolutions.com/sed_tvs.htm
Back in april, i posted some photos on my blog showing the electricity wasted when electronics remain plugged in . Check them out.
Yes, but in the UK, those standby buttons will be illegal at some point soon ...
Why do they use more power, though...is this just a chipset problem? For example:
The first HD radios were (are?) not portable because they were using the first generation of HD radio chipsets. The primary focus of designing the first generation is to get the chipset to do everything you want it to do. In future redesigns, power optimization will be one of the goals, and they'll be able to produce HD radios that run on batteries.
BruceR DLP's aren't really that new they've been around for almost as long as plasma's. They are definately the best option for energy efficiency and enormous size.
I was annoyed to see this on hugg but I am suprised and disappointed to see it on the treehugger front page with the same ridiculously alarmist title. The title should say PLASMA TVS, not just "flat" ones. And the reference to nuclear plants is just pathetic fear mongering.
TV energy use:
www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/revisions/downloads/tv_vcr/Ecos_Presentation.pdf
Johann: SED sounds good, but if they are starting at 55" it seems perhaps not for the mainstream? Perhaps they will start big and then scale down.
2/3rds the power of LCD is pretty impressive, but that would still bring it in at 135 Watts compared to the current Sony 55" LCD (200W). Fantastic compared to CRT but that's still more power than it takes to keep a human ticking over!
How about a button on the remote that turns off just the screen for those times when you are just listening to the telly, in the kitchen, next room etc...
Please change the title of this story. The problem is with plasma TVs and not "flat" screen TVs, or monitors for that matter. LCD TVs and monitors use less power per screen inch than do CRTs, as well as far less materials and no leaded glass for shielding. They also emit no X-rays (which is what the lead is for in CRT glass) and have much lower levels of electromagnetic field emissions.
Plasma screens consume far more power than LCD and even CRTs, and have a low life expectancy too. However, their power use varies with the brighness of the image, and many have power-saving modes that reduce brightness for this purpose whenever possible.
If you don't own a plasma, don't buy one. If you do, try to reduce brightness or use power-saving modes (and lower room lighting to compensate, saving more power) and don't leave it on when nobody is watching.
Also remember that in winter it doesn't really matter, since the extra power is simply dissipated as heat. Just watch your summer plasma use like a hawk. You shouldn't be watching so much TV if it's nice out, anyway.
OK, this is twice that you've posted that flat screens are bad, and it is a terrible message to send.
A 15" LCD or plasma monitor/TV uses less power than a 15" CRT. Your article suggests someone should buy a new CRT when an old monitor dies.
"Larger TVs use more power" isn't much of a shocker. Both plasma and LCD use less power than CRT devices of equal size. Please revise these articles and make things more clear, because I think you're doing more harm than good right now.
Grouping all flatpanels together is just silly. Even grouping TV's WITHIN technologies isn't very accurate. Generally speaking projector front/rear tend to be the most efficient, LCD next, and then then Plasma and CRT can go either way. But, really some LCD's are worse per sq/in that some plasma and some high efficiency CRT's are actually pretty good.
I wish there was a simple easy way to say what these things use, but you can't trust manufacture specifications. So really you just have to push the reviewers to include power usage in their reviews. Or maybe if you have a breakout cable and a clamp on AC amp meter and are bold enough to go down to the local electronics store and test the display models before you buy (that's sure to turn a few employee heads).
A 26 inch LCD tv uses 133 watts on average; a 46 inch LCD uses 210 watts.
You make it sound like nuclear power plants are a bad thing. Sulfur oxide air or just normal air. uhh
I've plugged my Kill-A-Watt meter into similarly sized plasma and LCD displays and found similar power dissipation numbers for the two technologies.
In theory, a plasma is less efficient than an LCD. To display an all-white screen requires more power on the plasma because each fully lit pixel takes more power than each fully lit LCD pixel. But average, moving pictures level the playing field.
Plasma lights pixels on demand. The amout of power required by any pixel at any given moment is variable depending on brightness and color.
LCD pixels are essentially light valves. Each pixel must always be backlit and the pixel itself adjusts to give the pixel a specified brightness and color. So the backlight is on all the time, even for black pixels.
That being said I picked LCD for picture quality and burn-in issues.
I think if Lcd are backlit with white LED's they would be more effecient than a same size plasma screen.
All this talk about the energy consumed by devices on standby diverts attention from the really big issue, which doesn't get as mcuh attention as it should - changing ONE light bulb from a 100W incandescent bulb to a 20W CFL bulb will probably save more energy in a day than all devices in a typical home which are left on standby. Changing all the bulbs in a home will save vastly more energy than switching off devices on standby.
I mention this because I'm regularly surprised by conversations at people's homes where they talk about the energy consumption of devices on standby, but on looking around the house I find that all their bulbs are still incandescent.
I think the explanation for this is that lighting for most people is almost invisible; it's just part of life and necessary. Whereas devices on standby is a novel thought and people latch onto it. Also maybe there is this perception that CFL lighting is "not as good" as conentional incandescent and so people don't want to think about it. This is the only explanation I can come up with, tenuous though it is.
I read all the entries that were left on this topic and I was going to stay silent but there are a few thing that are bothering me. First like stated in other entries, CHANGE THE TITLE. I don't know who typed it, because it was anonamis, but yes by grouping all flat panels together you are doing a huge wrong and in all technicality slandering against another company. But this isn't what bothers me the most. What is really bothering me is that it seems like everywhere I go I am hearing people complain about the problems with one product or another on these forums and then sit back and waight for someone to make a response and tell them the most efficiant way. I am a enviromentalist myself and am getting ready to purchase a hdtv. The specific route I took is the LCD option. But I didn't just stop there I started to reserch the technoligy and the different make and models. I have finally found one that I like that dosen't consume to much energy. is a pritty good size and works for all aplications I need/want it to work for. The point is if you are going to say you are an enviromentalist or are green then back it up. Don't just sit there and complain about everything. Get up do some reserch and figure out what you are talking about first. If you don't you are just spitting out half truths that create paranoid dilusions among the majority of people who don't know anymore than you do but they except it as truth cause they figure you know what you are talking about. So please if you haven't done the homework and don't know for shure please keep silent and let someone else who actually put in the work and time get the credit.