this is called the rebound effect

i don't understand why people who want TVs this large don't go with front projection. you're willing to spend $6-8k on a TV, but won't buy a little box and some heavy curtains?

anyway, LED backlit LCDs are just around the corner, which means LCD TVs should get better on the energy consumption front.

This is called conspicuous consumption.

Rebound effect is when you have saved so much electricity you don't feel guilty adding back on more luxuries that eat up some of what you saved. Most plasma TV buyers haven't tried to save any energy so this isn't rebound effect.

mdpdb - Many people don't like projectors for many reasons. I went with an LCD instead of a projector for the following reasons:

- projectors "wash out" with sunlight or bright light
- they don't use less energy than an LCD TV (see note below)
- they still look grainy compared to good direct-view technologies
- they require bulb replacement every 300 hours vs. LCD backlights that last 20,000 hours
- they are often noisy with a fan to blow out all that heat in a small box
- people walking around block the view for everyone

And yes, my TV is on a switched outlet.

note: I just checked some projectors on bestbuy.com and one uses 130 watts for the bulb alone, more than my 47" LCD

I'm going to have to call BS on this one. The average household in the US used 4,000 Wh of electricity per day to power their refrigerators -- or 13.7% of total household electricity use.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/ce_pdf/appliances/ce5-3c_hhincome2001.pdf

According to Nielsen, the average American household watched 8 hours and 14 minutes of televison per day (!!), which is another whole discussion (because it's stunningly high).

http://tinyurl.com/ou8st

That means, for television electricity use to equal that of refrigeration, the TV would have to consume and average of 486 watts.

CNET did a comparison of the most efficient televisions, and found that plasma was the least efficient compared to LCD and rear projection. Including standby power consumption, the best LCD they profiled (a 47" one) would use 1.83 watts per square inch per day in the average US household. The best plasma (a 42" one) came in at 2.11. The best rear projection (a 56" one) came in at 0.92.

So to equal the average household's refrigerator's electricity consumption, a plasma TV would need to be around 1,895 square inches, or about 70" diagonal. An LCD would have to be 114" diagonal, and a rear projection would need to be 228" (ie, 19 feet) diagonal.

I can only assume that average TV efficiencies (in watts per square inch per day) are going to improve more quickly than refrigerators, simply because the newer TV technologies are still relatively immature and there's much higher product turnover than refrigerators.

They'll use more electricity than the fridge and yet there will still be 500 channels with nothing on.

Makes me want to go buy a Slingbox and just use my computer as a TV. I never really understood the point of a 50" TV in the first place.

I bought my slightly too large for my house plasma TV before I became aware of the impact it had on the environment. These days, I barely use it and plan to replace it with a smaller, LCD model relatively soon. I usually keep it unplugged. A bit sad, but I realized I don't actually use it very often.

"Was therefore happy to have my prejudges reinforced recently"

I'm sorry my first comment on TH is a negative one but my frustration has been building for a while (and I apologize for picking this author's post to use as my soap box). I think the green movement has to be very careful, especially as it picks up steam, to not strike an "I told you so" posture and to be seen as some kind of puritan police. We may be at a tipping point but it's a precarious one and could easily tip the other way into backlash.

While I'm here I must point out that while I read about wasteful energy use on TH my CPU is at 100% and the fan is running because of the Flash ads... for PG&E. Maybe hypocrisy is too strong a word, but conservation starts at home is all I'm saying.

All that being said, I'm glad TH exists and I appreciate the wealth of info that's presented every day. Some tweaking (and more editorial oversight) would make it even better.

absolutely ridiculous.

I can understand people getting upset about the idea of TV's using so much electricity. However, this story in itself is pretty inflamatory. You start by showing a TV that will never be mass produced and was only made for Electronics Expo bragging rights (yes I do think that is silly). You then go on to demonstrate the shame your friend had at having a big TV in their home. I understand that there is a definite environmental impact to owning a large TV, however the tone of this article ticks me off. Does it feel good to have your prejudices reinforced? Do you research TVs that often to look at future trends and product developments? Have you read about the possibility of OLED TVs in the near future or considered that products could be improved upon? You mention that the trend is to go with ginormous TVs but that also ignores the fact that not that many people can afford them or have room for a TV that large. I think it is important to point out the information, but you could do a better job of presenting it.

I assume that that number refers to the power usage when it is on being the same as a fridge when its on.

I would also like to voice my displeasure about the flash ads, especially the so called "clean coal" GE ones. I understand you have to pay the rent, but still...

We all have prejudges. I loath littering, can’t stand discourteous drivers, and struggle with non-artistic graffiti tags on private property. I was just being honest about another. I’m sure I do more than my fair share of things which tick off others too. Like writing the above post. But I didn’t do it without having an understanding of the market trends (see below). Organic LEDs will be an improvement, for sure. But maybe we could also look at the myth of ‘bigger = better’, before relying on technology to assuage our unease at the scale of some purchases?

From the sydney Morning Herald's business section:

Retailer Gerry Harvey has compared the voracious appetite of consumers for plasma televisions and computers with the resources boom - and he says the trend is far from peaking. "It's just going to get bigger and bigger as it goes on," Mr Harvey said. "It's like the mining boom - it might have some ups and downs, but at the end of the day it's a technology-driven economy. "Everything just gets better and better. And people keep buying it." As a result, retailers of modern plasma and LCD television screens have reported dramatic increases in sales, particularly around the time of popular sporting events such as the AFL grand final and football World Cup. Mr Harvey said coming sporting events including the rugby league Tri-Nations and the Ashes cricket series would mean more people would look to update their televisions.

From ">Digital Trends News:

Warren-

I appreciate you providing evidence on the market trends. It certainly gives the post more balance.

I understand frustration with the general idea that "Bigger is Better", but let's be honest here, if somebody is a big sports or movies fan watching a game on a 42" screen versus a 19" screen is typically a more enjoyable experience. Sports and other HD programming (such as the Planet Earth series from the Discovery Channel) is also part of the reason people purchase an HDTV. You can't go out to the movie theater for those programs. Yes I do realize that you could go watch a sports event live, but that too entails its own cost.

I think one of the big issues several of us have had with the post is its tone. I think it would be wise to avoid using the term "prejudice". It's a loaded word and I believe that you are using it incorrectly. Your examples of prejudices makes me question your understanding of the word. Don't get me wrong, I share those same beliefs about littering, driving, and graffiti, but I think your presentation of the information creates a feeling that you are looking down on anybody who may own one of these TVs. I think it is important to educate everybody on their impact (I did take the information to heart and am spreading the word to friends and family who also own such a TV), but I worry that often times the tone of the messages on TH can alienate readers.

And coming out soon are the laser projection televisions which are touted to use 1/4 the energy of an LCD.

I'm waiting eagerly for those.

Actually, I didn't object to the term "prejudices" but rather to the idea of being happy to have them confirmed. It smacked of smugness. See:

Smug Alert! (South Park episode, described on Wikipedia).

I would have been happier to be proven wrong than right on this prejudice. Wouldn't it be great if even media gluttons could enjoy their gigantic flat panels without having a negative impact on the environment? Alas, common sense once again prevails (ie. bigger consumes more). Again, I don't mean to pick on Warren -- this is something I think we all have to watch out for.

Although it was not my intention, I concur that the tone may have come across somewhat haughty. I guess I see TVs, their size, and energy use, as one of those sacred cows of household consumption that rarely is considered or questioned. But concede that choosing less loaded words could have also told the story, just as effectively. I agree that it is better to engage rather than alienate. Thanks for the observations.

Who cares? It will just take an extra solar panel to power one of these. And their life expectancy is much longer than a CRT tube TV.

OLED's could make a huge dent in power consumption too, along with their higher quality.

Not to mention most TV's in responsible households are only on for 4-5 hours a day.

CNET did a comparison of the most efficient televisions, and found that plasma was the least efficient compared to LCD and rear projection. Including standby power consumption, the best LCD they profiled (a 47" one) would use 1.83 watts per square inch per day in the average US household. The best plasma (a 42" one) came in at 2.11. The best rear projection (a 56" one) came in at 0.92.

You're using poor math.

This assumes that everyone is using one of the most efficient Plasma units available. Many plasma units over 40" consume more than 400W.

In fact, you'll find that many 50" models consume nearly 500W. And that 8 hours is very reasonable for the average american consumer. I encounter hundreds of households where the TV sees constant, consistant use through the day. More to the tune of 12 or more hours. Remember that when you spend $2000 on a new plasma, you -intend- to use it a lot, otherwise you wouldn't invest $2000.

You're using poor math.

No, the math is just fine. You seem to be questioning the analytic model.

This assumes that everyone is using one of the most efficient Plasma units available

No, I'm not. I'm simply illustrating that current technology has efficiency levels such as I stated. Given that the original article is making projections about 2012, I'm using conservative figures, since clearly technology will become more efficient for a given level of performance over the next 5 years. My model also doesn't discuss the fact that the median-sized television is almost certainly going to be smaller than the sizes discussed here. Regardless, my numbers clearly indicate that even at current efficiency levels, the average size television would need to be beyond enormous, which won't happen. Some will, but the average won't.

Many plasma units over 40" consume more than 400W.
In fact, you'll find that many 50" models consume nearly 500W.

And there are cars which get 10 mpg and some which get 60 mpg. Outliers have nothing to do with the average, which is what is being discussed. I'm sure there are houses now where the number one electricity consumer is the television, but it is an extreme minority and will remain so. The larger the television, the more likely a household will have larger everything -- refrigerators, freezers, air conditioning units, and so on.

I encounter hundreds of households where the TV sees constant, consistant use through the day.

Great - has nothing to do with the average. I'm sure there's millions of homes where the TV is hardly ever on.

Remember that when you spend $2000 on a new plasma, you -intend- to use it a lot, otherwise you wouldn't invest $2000.

Great, now tell me how many households will actually spend $2,000 on a television set.

Nobody has raised the point yet that if people are buying larger televisions and home theatre sound systems that they're less likely to go to the actual cinema; which means less cars on the road, and if the trend continues, potentially less supermarket-sized air-conditioned complexes using huge amounts of energy even when there is one person watching the film.

I ride a 250cc motorcycle on the weekend, use public transport to get to work, live in a house with a low-maintenance yard, hang-dry washing and recycle.

I have a 42" plasma and very rarely go to the movies these days - and I'm not losing any sleep over it.

Nobody has raised the point yet that if people are buying larger televisions and home theatre sound systems that they're less likely to go to the actual cinema; which means less cars on the road, and if the trend continues, potentially less supermarket-sized air-conditioned complexes using huge amounts of energy even when there is one person watching the film.

I ride a 250cc motorcycle on the weekend, use public transport to get to work, live in a house with a low-maintenance yard, hang-dry washing and recycle.

I have a 42" plasma and very rarely go to the movies these days - and I'm not losing any sleep over it.

Nobody has raised the point yet that if people are buying larger televisions and home theatre sound systems that they're less likely to go to the actual cinema; which means less cars on the road, and if the trend continues, potentially less supermarket-sized air-conditioned complexes using huge amounts of energy even when there is one person watching the film.

I ride a 250cc motorcycle on the weekend, use public transport to get to work, live in a house with a low-maintenance yard, hang-dry washing and recycle.

I have a 42" plasma and very rarely go to the movies these days - and I'm not losing any sleep over it.

Nobody has raised the point yet that if people are buying larger televisions and home theatre sound systems that they're less likely to go to the actual cinema; which means less cars on the road, and if the trend continues, potentially less supermarket-sized air-conditioned complexes using huge amounts of energy even when there is one person watching the film.

I ride a 250cc motorcycle on the weekend, use public transport to get to work, live in a house with a low-maintenance yard, hang-dry washing and recycle.

I have a 42" plasma and very rarely go to the movies these days - and I'm not losing any sleep over it.