FAQ: Can flat-screen TVs make the efficiency grade?
Flat-screen televisions are a major upgrade from existing cathode-ray tube TVs, making new high-definition sets one of the hottest-selling items in consumer electronics. But that dazzling picture and bigger screen come with a price: higher energy use.
To individual consumers, a bigger flat-screen TV might mean a noticeable bump in monthly electric bills. But at a national level, the onrush of these new energy-hungry TVs is a growing concern.
On Friday, the California Energy Commission finalized a proposal to regulate energy consumption in TVs sold in California sold after 2011.
The move is significant because California's stringent efficiency standards in appliances have impacted codes across the country in the past. California's efficiency measures in big appliances, such as refrigerators, have been credited with keeping the per capita electricity consumption in the state steady since the 1970s.
But not everyone is happy with the California measure, which is expected to pass in November. Industry association the Consumer Electronics Association opposes the proposal, arguing that any efficiency improvements should come from consumer demand rather than regulation.
To unwind some of the issues around energy efficiency and TVs, we offer this FAQ, which draws on the analysis of CNET Reviews' senior editor David Katzmaier, who has been measuring power consumption in TVs for the past three years. You can see the latest data at CNET's Energy Efficiency Guide and power ratings of 150 HDTVs.
If I buy a new flat-screen TV, will I be slapped with a huge energy bill?
Not necessarily. The primary reason flat-screen TVs consume more power is because they are bigger. The California Energy Commission estimates that per square inch, LCDs consume a bit more than CRTs, but most people are also upgrading in size, which means significantly more electricity use. That's one reason why TV product ratings from the likes of CNET and Consumer Reports now include yearly energy consumption estimates.
Video: In this episode of The Green Show, CNET's David
Katzmaier explains the factors that affect TV power use. (He's
introduced at about 1:38 minutes in.)
From a technology point of view, LCD TVs in general are going to be more energy-efficient than plasma TVs of a comparable size. As one example, consider the Panasonic plasma TC-P54G1. Using a national average electricity cost of 11.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, that 54-inch TV will cost about $70 per year to run. By contrast, a 55-inch Vizio LCD model costs $31 a year to operate.
The third most important factor in energy consumption is the brightness. Obviously, the bright picture is one of the advantages of HDTVs over CRTs, but adjusting that down will not only cut energy use, it will also make your TV last longer.
So my bigger, brighter TV might cost me an extra $50 or $100 a year. What's the big deal?
For some households, spending more to power a new TV may not be a burden financially. But TVs--and electronics overall--are becoming a significant factor in home electricity bills and the national energy picture. This is why energy-efficiency standards have been developed for TVs, as they have already been done for industries that manufacture big home energy consumers, such as clothes washers and refrigerators.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the country's 275 million TVs currently consume about 4 percent of households' electric use--or about enough to power all the homes in New York State for a year. In California, TVs are more like 10 percent of peoples' electric bills. With tens of millions of flat-screen TVs selling every quarter, those numbers are on the rise. At a global level, the International Energy Agency estimates the gadgets--cell phones, game consoles, and the like--already represent 15 percent of the electricity load. Right now, the most energy-hungry appliances are refrigerators, freezers, and clothes washers.
If electricity demand continues to go up, eventually utilities won't be able to keep up and will have to construct more power plants, which are expensive to build and cause more pollution. That's one reason why utility regulators in many states, including California, have established rules giving utilities incentives to reduce the electricity consumption of their customers.
In the case of TVs, California estimates that its efficiency codes would save households between $18 and $30 per year per television in electricity. After the existing stock of TVs is replaced, savings are on the order of 6.5 gigawatts hours, enough to power 864,000 homes. A large coal or nuclear power plant is about one gigawatt in size.
I hear that some flat-screen TVs consume as much electricity as a refrigerator. Is that true?
Yes, but remember size is what matters most. If you purchase a plasma TV with a 54-inch screen or bigger, electricity consumption while you're watching it could go as high as 600 watts, which is on par with your refrigerator. However, most TVs aren't running all day, so a refrigerator will consume more electricity in total.
The good news is that efficiency has been improving steadily over the past few years and there's a lot less variability among models. So LCDs with a similar-sized screen will have about the same energy consumption rating. That's also true, though to a lesser extent, for plasma TVs, according to CNET's Katzmaier.
Part of the efficiency increase can be traced back to EnergyStar. The program didn't rate TVs' power consumption in the "on" mode until late last year, but those rules have now been updated. More stringent version 4.0 standards are set to go into effect next May, which will mean that only about 25 percent of TVs will get the label, versus 80 percent right now. And those giant TVs are going to have a tougher time getting the EnergyStar label: TVs over 50 inches in size will have to meet the same power requirements--108 watts in the "on" mode--as TVs under that size in order to be EnergyStar compliant. The 5.0 EnergyStar specification, set to go into effect in May 2012, will represent a 65 percent efficiency improvement over today's models.
One benefit of the EnergyStar program now in place is that TVs' stand-by power--blamed for the vampire load in people's homes--is below one watt for almost all new models, CNET tests have found.
Ecos Consulting and the NRDC have developed a recommendation to the FTC on how TVs can be labeled on energy consumption.
(Credit: Ecos Consulting, NRDC)So why the fuss with California's TV efficiency proposal?
EnergyStar is voluntary and the label is meant to show consumers that one product is more efficient than one without the seal. By contrast, the California Energy Commission's plan is a mandate that says TVs sold in the state after 2011 need to be 33 percent more efficient on average. In 2013, manufacturers need to make products 49 percent more efficient on average.
That approach has raised the hackles of the CEA, which says that setting an efficiency bar--equivalent to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard for autos--will "kill jobs and thwart innovation."
Those claims are discounted by regulators, efficiency advocates, and even some TV manufacturers.
The California Energy Commission notes that almost 850 models already meet the 2011 standard. Environmental advocacy group National Resources Defense Council estimates that almost 20 percent of today's models already meet the 2013 standard, according to NRDC senior scientist Noah Horowitz. Once in effect, the California standards will save the state $1 billion a year in electricity and prevent the need to build a 500-megawatt power plant, he said.
LCD TV maker Vizio publicly came out in support of the standard, saying in a letter to the California Energy Commission that "the incremental costs involved in achieving the greater energy efficiency are tempered by the unrelenting innovation in technology." (Click for PDF) The LCD TV Association, which uses its own GreenTV logo, has endorsed the plan (click for PDF).
Do TV manufacturers have the technology to improve efficiency?
Overall, yes. Some LCD manufacturers are starting to use LED-based backlights, rather than fluorescent backlights, to be more efficient. The added costs from this are projected to come down dramatically because they are on a "Moore's Law-type trajectory," said NRDC's Horowitz.
In general, plasmas don't have the same efficiency improvement potential as LCDs, according to Katzmaier. But at the Consumer Electronics Show this year, Panasonic--the largest plasma vendor--announced that it has developed technology to cut electricity by up to one half compared to 2007 models.
The proposed California standards are fairly lenient, which means that the majority of the TVs will be able to meet the standard without sacrificing image quality, Katzmaier said. The TVs most in danger of not meeting the California mandates or getting an EnergyStar label are the very large plasmas, particularly those that are more than 54 inches, he said.
Meanwhile, there is movement to ratchet down gadget use in other states.
I want to buy an energy-efficient TV. How do I find one?
When shopping around for HDTVs, seek out energy information in reviews and documentation. Screen size, technology, and brightness will be main factors in energy performance.
The EnergyStar standard coming next year should significantly narrow the field of compliant TVs and bring a 40 percent improvement over today's models. Even more detailed, standardized labels should be on the way as well. In 2007, the Federal Trade Commission was given authority to label electronics with efficiency ratings. If done well, consumers will have better tools to make energy efficiency a priority when shopping for electronics.
Updated September 24 at 2:05 p.m. PT with correction to measurement of potential electricity savings in California. Updated September 30 at 1:15 p.m. PT to note conditions for maximum energy consumption of large HDTVs.
Martin LaMonica is a senior writer for CNET's Green Tech blog. He started at CNET News in 2002, covering IT and Web development. Before that, he was executive editor at IT publication InfoWorld. E-mail Martin. 
I don't think so. Somebody is smokin' the drapes.
I did an energy audit using a Kill-A-Watt meter and here's what I found...
Washer (1 cycle) 0.27 kWH (not including the hot water usage- washing in cold water would yield the figure stated.
Refridgerator - 1.23 kWH per 24 hours.
Freezer - 1.16 kWH per 24 hours.
Clothes dryer - 7 kWH per cycle.
Hot water tank (electric) - 20 kWH per 24 hours (tank set at 122 degrees F).
Computer - 2.46 kWH per 24 hours.
25" CRT TV - 2.4 kWH per 24 hours (60W).
25" CRT TV on standby - 4W.
http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/appliances/index.cfm/mytopic=10040
You lost me there.
You'll pry my crt from my cold dead fingers. Well until a viable alternative that doesn;t suffer from motion blur, poor contrast at the darker end of the spectrum or screen burn from Digital Onscreen Graphics.
Sure every single technology change includes the loss of certain qualities but they are balanced by a gain in other qualities. No technology is perfect but you are exaggerating the problems with flat screens (all the issues you mention were true many years ago but have been largely overcome in newer models) while you seem to ignore the many problems of CRT's. For a start they are huge and take up a lot of space in your living room (you don't realize how much less the box impacted on your living space until you live with a flat screen for a while - and they weigh a ton. Another thing is the visual distortion built into the CRT picture due to screen curvature, even on so-called flat CRT's. When you get used to flat screens the CRT distortion is not something you want to go back to. And although widescreen CRT's exist, most of them are the squarer standard shape that means movies from DVD's are watched as a smaller picture with big letterboxing.
Flat screens are not perfect but their shallow profile, low weight, widescreen formats, and larger sizes, make them the first choice for many many people for very good reasons.
I've been repairing TVs for over 20 years, and I've never seen a CRT even come close to a full 1080p LCD playing HD content.
You must like looking at scan lines, and putting up with interlace flicker.
Also I got news for you. If you use a satellite system, or your cable provider does, then you likely get "digital artifacting" whether you realize it or not. Most TV signals are compressed at one time or other. If you are referring to just playing video from a DVD or Blu-ray player, there is no comparison. HD LCD TV wins every time (unless you buy a cheap POS).
If a person uses double the power that the average person uses (for example), then I say his rates should be higher since he is "demanding" more power and the "supply" has not increased. Supply and demand would dictate that person pay more for their power since they are demanding more. If you're OK with this, I see no reason why you couldn't use so much power that it empties your bank account if that's what you want.
I kinda like that idea. It seems to me the most effective way to change a person's habits are by hitting them in the pocket book. Kind of like tax brackets the more you make/ use the more you pay. This could lead to consumers demanding outright more efficiency from their electronics/ appliances while making them more conscientious users. Consumers would vote with their pocket book and then it would not be profitable for companies to make inefficient products.
Although as I understand electrical billing (and this is very limited knowledge, I could be wrong) the more you use the cheaper price you get (like buying in bulk). I think the price tiers are something like residential, commercial, and industrial. I'm not sure how or if one could move themselves from a residential user to another tier.
We should be finding ways to move away from oil to a clean alterative/s. I agree with you that the electrical grid should be upgraded and made as efficient as possible, after all what good is all the energy from one location if it can't get to where it is needed.
When ever I see that claim I always take whatever comes next with a healthy dose of skepticism.
When will you "greenies" stop stomping all over the Constitution and leave people alone! This legislation is just another power grab. I hope the industry comes out swinging against the state of California. It's a soft tyrany and now Obama is trying to impose these regulations nationwide. It's economic suicide.
When it is so obvious the industry is doing a fine job of self-regulating and the energy efficiency of new TVs improves with every year, WHY BOTHER WITH THE LEGISLATION? I don't see throngs of people demanding the government set efficiency standards on TVs. The politicians are the ones wasting everyone's time and money. Try fixing your own power grid so the people can actually turn their TVs ON.
I have no sympathy for the people of California. You have the government you deserve.
I'll admit I can't name all of the amendments or recite the constitution, but I'm having a tough time recalling the part about energy regulation. But I'll bet it was Franklin that added that part.
And everyone (in the US anyway) deserves the government they have because the government WAS ELECTED... more or less (Electoral College, appointments and all that).
Hybrid cars cost on average $5000 more than their non-hybrid counterparts and their advantages are mostly restricted to stop-and-go city driving. If I live in the city and don't drive very far, will I save enough on gasoline to warrant purchasing a more expensive hybrid vehicle? Maybe not. Should energy costs go down, people will consume more, not less. That's why all these green initiatives are directed at subsidizing more expensive green technologies and increasing the cost of using fossil fuels. They're not even willing to discuss carbon-free nuclear power because you can't charge a nuclear powerplant for carbon credits.
"Once in effect, the California standards will save the state $1 billion a year in electricity and prevent the need to build a 500-megawatt power plant, he said."
California can barely keep the lights on as it is. Now the bill is killing jobs, too? Lose-lose
Read the article.
These MTF should be fined not using the best tech for larger screens.
- by sexydarin October 3, 2009 12:55 AM PDT
- How much is the ever expanding big government beurocracy costing in energy use. BAN THE FECKING BIG GOVERNMENT COMMIES!
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(39 Comments)