HDTV/LCDTV users...

[Gato_Solo]

I'm going to make my purchase of a 37" Sharp Aquos once I get home and collect my 'war profits'. I've looked around online and I've heard the good, the bad, and the ugly about almost every LCD set out there. The one item that keeps coming up is power consumption. Has anybody's electric bill risen substantially once you've gone LCD, or are we just talking nickles and dimes?

 

[Inkara1]

I got my LCD right about the same time as I moved in, so I can't really make a comparison. I have a hard time believing an LCD would use more energy than a CRT, though.

 

[Gato_Solo]

I got my LCD right about the same time as I moved in, so I can't really make a comparison. I have a hard time believing an LCD would use more energy than a CRT, though.

Me, too, but I've seen comparisons putting the CRT TV at around 90 watts, and the LCD at 245. This varies from place to place on the net, so I'm asking for something more 'real world'. If you bought your set, and your bill jumped more than $5.00 per month, I'd consider that a substantial jump in power usage. Not that it would stop me from buying, but it could have me searching for another manufacturer.

 

[Inkara1]

Mine's a Westinghouse. If my old TV hadn't fallen off the couch during the move, I'd have a better comparison because I might have been able to wait until the next Christmas to get my exact same TV for $400 less, meaning I'd have more of a power bill comparison.

 

[Nixy]

A guy I work with went LCD last fall. I dunno if he was paying hydro in the place he lived then or not...I'll ask him.

 

[Mirlyn]

We went from a 32" CRT to a 37" LCD. I don't notice a difference in billing.

The computers in this house would be a bigger factor to that, I'm sure.

 

[Kruz]

we replaced all the "tube" tv's with lcd.. from 20" to 42"
power consumption is down from last year, and I cant believe lcds consume more power than the old tube sets.

 

[chlopzmazur]

I also have 52" Aquos. Luckily I'm not the person who pay for energy in my house

 

[Gato_Solo]

we replaced all the "tube" tv's with lcd.. from 20" to 42"
power consumption is down from last year, and I cant believe lcds consume more power than the old tube sets.

Thats what I was wondering as well.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Here's why.

A 28-inch conventional television set containing a cathode-ray picture
tube, or CRT, for example, often uses about 100 watts of electricity.
A 42-inch LCD set, a typical upgrade item, requires about twice that
amount of electricity. But the real beast is the plasma set. A 42-inch
model often sucks up 200 to 500 watts, and a 60-plus-inch plasma
screen can consume 500 to 600 watts, depending on the model and
programming, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Makes a difference if you want to be 'green'.

 

[Inkara1]

Once that study starts comparing apples to apples, it will be easier to go with. What does a 42-inch CRT TV consume?

 

[Inkara1]

This 27-inch Daewoo tube TV consumes 120 watts.

This 26-inch Sharp LCD TV consumes 120 watts.

So when comparing TVs of the same size, they seem to have the same power requirements. I'd expected a drop in power consumption, yes, but we certainly don't see a big gain. Your source is, apparently, using the New York Times approach to statistics. The LCD is about 47 pounds lighter, though.

 

[Gato_Solo]

This 27-inch Daewoo tube TV consumes 120 watts.

This 26-inch Sharp LCD TV consumes 120 watts.

So when comparing TVs of the same size, they seem to have the same power requirements. I'd expected a drop in power consumption, yes, but we certainly don't see a big gain. Your source is, apparently, using the New York Times approach to statistics. The LCD is about 47 pounds lighter, though.

So do the others, I'm afraid. The set I'm going to get, the 37" Aquos, uses a 'mere' 165 watts. Seems like its the contrast level which determines the amount of electricity used. The CRT TV's in that size 'class' are 36". They range from 118 (Philips) to over 200 (Panasonic)...Guess I'm going to be actually using less, as my 27" is a Panasonic.

 

[Luis G]

I would suggest going for a slightly bigger TV size, maybe 42"? The price difference is not that big, the only deterrent would be to save space thou.

 

[Gato_Solo]

I would suggest going for a slightly bigger TV size, maybe 42"? The price difference is not that big, the only deterrent would be to save space thou.

When I move to a house, I'll get a bigger TV. Besides...thats the biggest size width-wise my entertainment center can hold. I can afford to spend the $1400 on a TV, but not the $3200+ for a TV and entertainment center (I don't buy cheap furniture).