No more inefficent plasma screens

User avatar
Pete
Posts: 7167
Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 13.36
Location: Dundee

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... blitz.html

so the EU are considering getting rid of worst, most power hungry plasma screens, although the wording at the start of the mail would imply all nice tellies being banned and all their readers are screaming about how evil the EU is and how its all a con. Not that they shitstir of course.

I did wonder a few years ago when there was something on Breakfast about "flat screens use more power" which I was confused about as the LCD ones use less. So what type of screens are these? I take it they are the old fashioned type and the newer ones are getting better?
"He has to be larger than bacon"
User avatar
Sput
Posts: 7506
Joined: Wed 20 Aug, 2003 19.57

I seem to think LCD ones also use more. My 26" is rated at 160W whereas my old one was 60W for 20"
Knight knight
User avatar
Gavin Scott
Admin
Posts: 6430
Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 13.16
Location: Edinburgh

Here's hoping this will drive OLED screens forward to the mass market faster than we're seeing. They are very efficient - but I'm not sure of they've overcome the size limitations.

They've known about inefficient plasmas since they were created - perhaps they delayed this legislation long enough to make sure all MEPs have got one now.

Not that I'm a cynic.
User avatar
Sput
Posts: 7506
Joined: Wed 20 Aug, 2003 19.57

The article is poorly written (SHOCKING) but isn't it saying plasmas are a no no but LCDs are okay? If so, is this a problem for most people? I thought plasma was dying out.
Knight knight
User avatar
dosxuk
Posts: 570
Joined: Thu 07 Feb, 2008 21.37
Location: Sheffield

I love that anyone who sends in a vaguely sensible comment get's it voted down. Like the bloke who mentioned the more power your TV uses, the more money you have to give your electricity supplier.

Currently on a rating of -25...
User avatar
marksi
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed 07 Jan, 2004 05.38
Location: Donaghadee

My 37" plasma uses only very slightly more than the 28" CRT it replaced. I'd contend that it uses less electricity than a 37" CRT would, should one be available. LCDs are generally a bit less power hungry than plasma, but given that I prefer the picture quality on a plasma than LCD (gap closing I admit), I'm happy to pay an extra few quid a year on the power cost.

I'm not even going to read the article as I know it will make me cross.

Just mention energy saving light bulbs to a Daily Mail reader and they'll be out hoarding 100w bulbs in the time it takes to say "weekly bin collection".
User avatar
Gavin Scott
Admin
Posts: 6430
Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 13.16
Location: Edinburgh

Sput wrote:The article is poorly written (SHOCKING) but isn't it saying plasmas are a no no but LCDs are okay? If so, is this a problem for most people? I thought plasma was dying out.
On average, the power consumption of a cathode-ray screen is 3.4 watts per screen inch, while plasma uses 9.4 watts per screen inch - based on figures from 2005. LCD falls somewhere (on the high end) between the two. Phillips did bring out an "eco-friendly" 42" LCD but, crucially, the screens are getting bigger all the time, so any energy savings are negated when you move up to a 46, 48 or 50" +

Its difficult to make fair comparisons to CRT televisions, as they are nowhere near as large in screen size - and of course the public now have an expectation that "large television" equates to a mammoth 50".

It remains to be seen how much energy a large OLED tv will use - but it will certainly be less than LCD/plasma - and may be more on par with CRT.
User avatar
MarkAshley
Posts: 3288
Joined: Tue 28 Oct, 2003 13.53
Location: Near the Bottom

Gavin Scott wrote:Here's hoping this will drive OLED screens forward to the mass market faster than we're seeing. They are very efficient - but I'm not sure of they've overcome the size limitations.
I've been somewhat out of touch in this area recently - the largest on the consumer market is Samsung's 40", isn't it?
Image
Hairy.
User avatar
Sput
Posts: 7506
Joined: Wed 20 Aug, 2003 19.57

It's the backlight that uses most of the power though, right? So it doesn't HAVE to be OLED, just LED backlight. In principle that will work better as you're at full brightness straight away, have longer product lifetimes and low power consumption.

That's not to say OLED won't be fab.
Knight knight
User avatar
Gavin Scott
Admin
Posts: 6430
Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 13.16
Location: Edinburgh

nodnirG kraM wrote:
Gavin Scott wrote:Here's hoping this will drive OLED screens forward to the mass market faster than we're seeing. They are very efficient - but I'm not sure of they've overcome the size limitations.
I've been somewhat out of touch in this area recently - the largest on the consumer market is Samsung's 40", isn't it?
I though the problem was getting past 30" - so that would seem to suggest that they've surmounted the technical problems - but of course manufacture will be expensive to set up initially. They'll probably start with a common manufacturing site for many brands as they did with plasma.
Sput wrote:It's the backlight that uses most of the power though, right? So it doesn't HAVE to be OLED, just LED backlight. In principle that will work better as you're at full brightness straight away, have longer product lifetimes and low power consumption.

That's not to say OLED won't be fab.
Yes a fair proportion of the energy consumption is in the backlight for LCD, but its not the only factor. I've seen LED backlit screens, but I think they also use fluorescent and maybe even cold cathode.

Even with LED arrays, you're looking at 0.3 Watt per diode per inch - so it also adds up when you get to large screens. Fine if you've got a 20" desk monitor, not so fine for your cinema sized main telly.

OLED - its the only way forward.
User avatar
Sput
Posts: 7506
Joined: Wed 20 Aug, 2003 19.57

I don't understand your units there. Do you mean 0.3W per diode or per inch? If it's per inch it seems rather good; 42" only takes about 13W.
Knight knight
Post Reply