Put a coin-op box on the thing. If the kids want to watch TV, they have to put in 50 cents an hour. J. Paul Getty did that with the phone.

I find watching these large sets fatiguing to the eyes. Also HDTV brings out all the flaws and even good-looking people look ugly. Maybe people will watch less as a result. I might be wrong but in a few years this gigantic screen innovation may be seen as a big mistake.

it is terrible how much electricity is wasted on those big TV's. But actually then computers are even worse. A normal CPU from Intel or AMD uses about 70-80 watt - even when idle (compared to a C7 CPU from VIA that uses less than 1 watt when idle), The graphics card uses another 30-60 watt when idle (compared to on-board graphics cards that uses 1-2 watt). The harddisk uses 25 watt even when idle (compared to notebook HDD that only uses 1-2 watt). That is a waste of about 150 watt per hour - 8 hours a day=1200 watt per day multiplied with, say, 300 million computers...

Only good thing is that old CRT monitors are being replaced with new flatscreen that uses 70% less energy (30 watt for a 17" flatscreen versus 100 watt for a 17" CRT monitor) - but, since people are now buying 22" monitors (and soon probably 30") - then those savings are lost again.

However, in cold countries (if anyone left) the wasted energy reduces need for heating. But, in warm countries then 1 watt generated requires another 2 watt for aircondition to get rid of the heat. So, 1200 watt for 8 hours is actually 3600 watt when including the aircondition bill...

It is really sad that companies with energy saving CPU's like VIA (whose chips are also very cheap) have less than 2% world market share.

It gets worse...In warm countries then for every 1 watt generated inside a house or office then another 2 watt is needed for aircondition to get rid of the 1 watt. So, 1 watt extra used =3 watt total. Most computers (unless they use VIA C7 chip and on-board graphics card and 2.5" notebook harddisk) uses 150 watt per hour on nothing=8 hours day=1200 watt a day. That multiplied with aircondition needs x3=3600 watt. Multiply that with the 500 million computers buzzing every day and you have a catastrophy.

Does this translate into heating watt "savings" in cold countries?

I think your average reader of Treehugger is well aware that having an old CRT TV is, environmentally, the best option for time spent in front of the bube tube. LCD's may eventually match the energy efficiency when the backlight issues are solved inexpensively, but virtually every TV at your local Best Buy is an environmental nightmare today.

The question is, how do we fix this? Much like other environmental issues, this one is not likely to be solved by people researching the environmental damage of their purchase before plopping down the bucks. In fact, it is a safe bet that half of the people buying a TV upgrade today could care less about the energy use. With that in mind, regularly placing annual energy use on the front of every tv at the retail outlet is not likely to change someone's opinion.

Unfortunately, the only solution that I can think is to adjust the price of energy. As long as it continues to be as inexpensive as it is, people will continue to make bad choices. Unfortunately, only a fraction of the population will be okay with an energy tax (even one that returns the tax evenly to tax payers) -- which leaves us back as square one.

I think it raises other questions, like is the TV becoming more of a status symbol now than a car? An inefficient car is worse than an inefficient TV, and some of theses TV's can cost as much as a decent used car. I could go on, but that's my general take on this.

I went to pick up a micro SD card the other day, and I asked about LED LCDs. The guy at best buy said they were only available from their Magnolia Home Theater branded storefronts but we got to talking and he said something along the lines of "but all of our TVs are energy star rated."

Oh brother.

I don't know what I'm going to do in 2009 when my POS no longer works with the ditigal conversion. I guess it'll be time to give up television again.

Comparing the TV's energy use to the fridge's is "hackneyed"? Whatta jerk. The comparison is very apt if the TV replaces the fridge as the #1 electric user in the home. And it points out the irony that this is an elective use, hardly a necessity or even part of the home's core function.

I can't understand why anyone would want to spend more time in front of the tube, and siphon off more money to support it. Most folks' new year's resolutions are to be more active and accomplish more. A bigger, badder TV works if you've resolved to increase your mass, raise your blood pressure, spread your posterior and drop your metabolism.

The average American watches TV about 30 hours a week. That's more time than most elite athletes train and compete. More than it takes to be a virtuoso at any instrument. Is there anything on TV that good?

Wow, I mustve missed the Boxing Day sale on fuzzy math and the iNONESENSE 4gb..... or am i safe to conclude that people in cold climates should consider buying a plasma to help heat their homes? And how did the cost of powering a tv and complete entertainment system go from $200/year to $500/year just for the tv? How come you dont give it 'credit' for reducing your heating bill for the 8hrs per day its running during the colder winter months?

Now if someone has info on power consumption of lcd vs plasma vs CRT and what brands are more efficient- thats info anyone in the market for a new tv (like i am) could use. Some brands show an EnergyStar symbol....but no real power usage....I would hope that its nowhere near what my fridge uses...and wont undo all the good ive done by switching to cfl bulbs etc.

One important factor to keep in mind is that the default power consumption of plasma and LCD tvs is usually determined by the factory settings of the sets, which are almost always set to eye-searing max brightness that most people would find much too bright.

Usually the backlight is set to maximum (10) when it usually looks best at around 5-6, turning it down along with a few other settings will not only cut the power consumption way down, but make the picture much easier on the eyes and better looking with better contrast. It also doesn't account for the power save mode on these tvs either.

I have a (very new) 46 inch Samsung LCD tv that is rated at 260 watts or so. When properly calibrated though, it takes less than 100 according to cnet's excellent power consumption tests.

Between the two though, most LCDs are far more power efficient than plasmas, before and after calibration. As for the whole phantom power issue, it's quite easy (and recommended) to hook it up to a power strip along with all the other vamp power electronics in your entertainment system so you can *truely* turn them off with the flick of a switch.

"when was the last time the family gathered around the refrigerator to be entertained."

What a dumbass.

The issue about AC use to get rid of the TV heat is huge for plasma sets. LCD is usually better and the new laser TV is expected to be much better still. Look for an announcement from the CES this month about Mitsubishi and laser TV for introduction later this year. Cost will be competitive according to company statements.

How much of plasma's energy usage is from "vampire" usage?

Wonder what is the expected energy consumption for the still-on-the-horizon laser tvs and the just released -sony- oled tv. Anyone?

Rollie,

Here's your info on energy usage of various types, brands, and sizes.

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-6400401-2.html

solar seems like the only solution, or don't turn anything on.

How about using a Smart Strip for the TV setup? At least that way the plasma could be always on to retain the settings (I'm assuming it needs to be, is this true?) but at least the peripherals (DVD, VCT, Cable box, etc, I don't know, I don't watch much TV) could be turned off when not being used-- which is most of the time.

"when was the last time the family gathered around the refrigerator to be entertained."

Has this guy never witnessed that the best gatherings/parties always end up in the kitchen?

As for the plasma heating offset in the winter ... yes it works but is the most inefficient form of heating (equivalent to electric resistance). Your refrigerator is actually a more efficeint "heater" (3 to 4 times so) by operating like a heat pump, extracting the heat from the food and interior space and dicharging it thru the condenser coils.

I had no idea about the fact that Plasma sucked more energy that LCD. I was lured into buying a 42" LG Plasma by a ridiculously low sale price...I noticed a jump in my electricity bill in the first month. After crawling through buyers remorse and realizing I cannot sell it without losing a boatload of money, I have decided the only thing to do is hook it up to a power srtip, turn it off at night and when we are at work, and turn it on as little as possible when we are home. The TV's box had an energy star logo on it, but that is always relative anyway, so it is difficult to say how much more or less energy efficient my set is. One word of advise...don't buy it unless you feel you truly need it. I had a serious consumerism moment where I thought I needed a flat screen for mine and my wife's first house...Research before you buy.

I bought a plasma. I don't unplug it at night or when I'm at work. I leave sattelite receiver on all the time. and my 4 computers run 24x7. I don't care about how much power I use. If this makes anyone mad, oh well. If you want me to turn my equipment off and conserve energy then you should pay my electric bill. Until then I PAY FOR IT SO I WILL USE IT HOWEVER I WANT!