Jump to content


Photo

Running Costs Plasma,led,lcd


  • Please log in to reply
116 replies to this topic

#1 jagguy

jagguy

    AV Forum Member

  • Member
  • 30 posts

Posted 28 March 2010 - 05:37 PM

I want to know a rough guide o how much it costs to run a lcd, (new)neo plamsa or led TV per year in $'s

I have found some old data but it is 2010 now. Old data has plasmas costs bout $50 a year more to run than LCD

#2 Owen

Owen

    AV Forum Member

  • Senior Member
  • 11,946 posts

Posted 28 March 2010 - 06:35 PM

If you have to be concerned about the running cost of a TV you are too poor to own one.
I can’t see how $50 per year would be significant, even to someone on social security. Hell, you can run a 65” Plasma for about $130 a year or $2.50 a week so why be concerned about TV running costs?

#3 SHO

SHO

    AV Forum Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 166 posts

Posted 28 March 2010 - 07:26 PM

Just take a look at the star ratings for each of them...LCD & LED are by far 'cheaper' to run. Just do not go on what an LG tv says....infact do not go on the star rating of any LG product.

#4 Owen

Owen

    AV Forum Member

  • Senior Member
  • 11,946 posts

Posted 28 March 2010 - 07:40 PM

The star rating does not give a useful indication of running cost. The difference between a 46” LED LCD and a 65” Plasma is about $90 a year or $1.70 a week, who cares?

#5 SHO

SHO

    AV Forum Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 166 posts

Posted 28 March 2010 - 07:44 PM

The star rating does not give a useful indication of running cost. The difference between a 46” LED LCD and a 65” Plasma is about $90 a year or $1.70 a week, who cares?

You may not care, others do.

#6 Owen

Owen

    AV Forum Member

  • Senior Member
  • 11,946 posts

Posted 28 March 2010 - 07:58 PM

Dude, if you can’t afford $1.30 per week ( the running cost of a typical 50” Plasma) you can’t afford a new TV.
There are plenty of ways to save MUCH more cash than a more “efficient” TV, its false economy. You can run that Plasma for 2 months for the price of a kebab. :lol:

Edited by Owen, 28 March 2010 - 08:04 PM.


#7 pgdownload

pgdownload

    AV Forum Member

  • Senior Member
  • 11,619 posts

Posted 28 March 2010 - 08:03 PM

The star rating does not give a useful indication of running cost. The difference between a 46” LED LCD and a 65” Plasma is about $90 a year or $1.70 a week, who cares?

As mentioned, some might. However I'm interested in what the star rating actual does if not reflect running costs/power consumption? Do they just make it up?

Regards

Peter Gillespie

#8 Owen

Owen

    AV Forum Member

  • Senior Member
  • 11,946 posts

Posted 28 March 2010 - 08:07 PM

Does a 5Kw air conditioner with a 4 star rating use the same power and cost the same to run as a TV with the same 4 star rating?

#9 SHO

SHO

    AV Forum Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 166 posts

Posted 28 March 2010 - 08:12 PM

Well it is a "controlled" scheme as such....Just ask LG that.

A saving is a saving, if it was a one dollar difference a day over the term of a full year guess what! $360.00 odd dollar saving.

#10 :)

:)

    AV Forum Member

  • Senior Member
  • 31,392 posts

Posted 28 March 2010 - 08:12 PM

As mentioned, some might. However I'm interested in what the star rating actual does if not reflect running costs/power consumption? Do they just make it up?

Regards

Peter Gillespie


well we know what it means incase its an LG product dont we :lol:

yeah I cant beleive its around a dollar a week thats been quibbled about.

in reality it relates probably more to how much TV you actually watch. So perhaps best not to watch any TV at all and save another dollar a week ! :P

#11 SHO

SHO

    AV Forum Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 166 posts

Posted 28 March 2010 - 08:26 PM

Does a 5Kw air conditioner with a 4 star rating use the same power and cost the same to run as a TV with the same 4 star rating?

Well answer the question then.

All i know is plasma on general day to day viewing will use up to twice the power of an LCD, the star ratings reflect that.

Evan a saving of $90.00 per year carried over 5 years is a saving of $ 450.00.

Edited by SHO, 28 March 2010 - 08:32 PM.


#12 Owen

Owen

    AV Forum Member

  • Senior Member
  • 11,946 posts

Posted 28 March 2010 - 08:30 PM

Well it is a "controlled" scheme as such....Just ask LG that.

A saving is a saving, if it was a one dollar difference a day over the term of a full year guess what! $360.00 odd dollar saving.



Since the running cost difference between a “LED” LCD and a Plasma of the same size is around 5 cents per day how do you expect to save $1 per day dude? :huh:

#13 Owen

Owen

    AV Forum Member

  • Senior Member
  • 11,946 posts

Posted 28 March 2010 - 08:40 PM

Well answer the question then.

All i know is plasma on general day to day viewing will use up to twice the power of an LCD, the star ratings reflect that.

Evan a saving of $90.00 per year carried over 5 years is a saving of $ 450.00.


The 4 star rated air conditioner used 5000 watts (90 cents) per hour compared to the 4 star rated TV which used more like 170 watts (0.3 cents) per hour. Obviously the “star” rating gives no indication of actual running cost.

The “star” rating is an indication of relative efficiency compared to other similar products not an indication of actual running cost.
A 1 star difference in a high power consuption device like an air conditioner is worth much more in dollar terms than a 4 star difference in a low power consumption device like a TV.

Edited by Owen, 28 March 2010 - 08:49 PM.


#14 dlpnut

dlpnut

    AV Forum Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 612 posts

Posted 28 March 2010 - 08:43 PM

I want to know a rough guide o how much it costs to run a lcd, (new)neo plamsa or led TV per year in $'s

I have found some old data but it is 2010 now. Old data has plasmas costs bout $50 a year more to run than LCD


Any savings you may make from say LCD over Plasma is more then offset with the price diff. So just buy something with good PQ and enjoy it, that is what TVs are for.

#15 jagguy

jagguy

    AV Forum Member

  • Member
  • 30 posts

Posted 28 March 2010 - 10:01 PM

Any savings you may make from say LCD over Plasma is more then offset with the price diff. So just buy something with good PQ and enjoy it, that is what TVs are for.


I am just interested that is all.

Snyway when we are talking about plasma are we talking the new neo plasma or just plasma.

I was looking at neo plasma by Panasonic and the LED by SONY . IN a shop full of TV's the sony had far better quality but for a 46 inch I am looking at new neo plasma's. The energy rating for these guys was really poor.

#16 digitalj

digitalj

    AV Forum Member

  • Senior Member
  • 12,945 posts

Posted 28 March 2010 - 10:32 PM

I've been monitoring my tv listed in my signature, on average, it is using ~200W, but it depends on the scene, i.e. dark scenes use less than a fully lit scene.

#17 Owen

Owen

    AV Forum Member

  • Senior Member
  • 11,946 posts

Posted 28 March 2010 - 11:45 PM

Since even the most power hungry TV cost bugger all to run base your purchase decisions on something more important.

#18 OakenShield

OakenShield

    AV Forum Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,365 posts

Posted 29 March 2010 - 05:31 AM

It all depends how much tv you are watching. If you "Plan" on watching 30 hours of tv a week. Well if we're going to penny pinch, watch only 15, there's your saving :P

If you base your purchase on power consumption rather than quality, you'll regret it within months!

On the other hand, how much power is whatever you are currently using consuming? You may actually SAVE money if you go to a 50" plasma as opposed to a 76cm CRT (Don't know, just a hypothetical).

I wouldn't base any purchase EVER on how much power it consumes, just buy 5 less BRs a year, smoke less, drink less, walk to the shop instead of drive, whatever you do, there's your saving :D. And no, I wouldn't sacrifice any of the above (Except the fags, I don't have that problem though!)

#19 pgdownload

pgdownload

    AV Forum Member

  • Senior Member
  • 11,619 posts

Posted 29 March 2010 - 07:58 AM

Does a 5Kw air conditioner with a 4 star rating use the same power and cost the same to run as a TV with the same 4 star rating?

Of course its a relative rating. No need to go comparing apples and oranges. That said, the energy rating sticker provides both stars and actual average power consumption figures. So its quite possible to ignore the stars and look at the underlying values.

Noted, the Panasonic website has quite a neat calculator that gives running costs of various models. Although I'd suspect it errs on the conservative side its likely representative.

Four hours viewing a day:

- a 37" LCD (4 stars) costs about $30 a year to run. A five star version would save another $7 a year.

- a 42" Plasma (2 stars) G10 costs about $55 a year to run. A three star version would save another $13 a year.

So yes, I wouldn't be factoring in running costs in making a purchase, I'd be finding the TV type and size (and PQ) that suited me - after that you're pretty much stuck with whatever star rating it has. If you turned off two 100W light bulbs while watching TV you'd cover your running costs.

That said, if you have a 65" plasma you like to leave on in the background half the day, that'll cost about $400 a year...

Regards

Peter Gillespie

Edited by pgdownload, 29 March 2010 - 08:00 AM.


#20 jsmith

jsmith

    AV Forum Member

  • Senior Member
  • 5,980 posts

Posted 29 March 2010 - 08:30 AM

If everyone had LED lit LCD's (or at least a CCFL LCD) or a CRT, then it would be much more environmentaly friendly than everyone owning a plasma... per person/panel it isn't much, but the cumulative effect worldwide would be quite large.

I'm all for green based energy but until it is supplied in a green way, we need to think about how much we use.

JSmith :ninja:

edit: spelling

Edited by jsmith, 29 March 2010 - 09:19 AM.


#21 myrantz

myrantz

    AV Forum Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,181 posts

Posted 29 March 2010 - 08:39 AM

I have a LED TV... The power consumption when new is ~150W when displaying a pure white screen (you can turn on energy saving to cut that down to ~130W).

Having a lower bill is a good thing I guess, however the initial cost of the TV is kindda high. And depending on how long the TV last, and how much electricity costs in your state, the savings in power may not be enough to offset the "starting cost".

We use the TV alot.. ~5-6 hrs on weekdays and around 12-14hrs weekends :P. So it actually does save power for us.But will be years before we can "recoup" it back,and I'm pretty sure the TV will not last that long.. :ninja:

That said, there are other advantages, lower heat output, if you sit near the TV, and don't have A/C, this is really a really good thing to have.. :) Lower heat = no active cooling = no fans. Less heat also means the electronics can last longer (hopefully)...

#22 jsmith

jsmith

    AV Forum Member

  • Senior Member
  • 5,980 posts

Posted 29 March 2010 - 08:40 AM

... also some plasmas run very hot, so if you don't care about the energy usgae, you may care about having a hot room in the summer.

JSmith :ninja:

#23 Basil

Basil

    AV Forum Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,295 posts

Posted 29 March 2010 - 08:46 AM

I think power consumption for TV's is going to be an issue in the future,particulary when Power Bills double over the next few Years,we are are just in the early stages at the moment.My Niece(Sydney based Journo.) has heard that Govt's.(Feds & State) are looking at methods to Tax. high energy use appliances that are already in use,a return to Home TV licenses,based on Energy use,has been floated again.

#24 OakenShield

OakenShield

    AV Forum Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,365 posts

Posted 29 March 2010 - 09:56 AM

... also some plasmas run very hot, so if you don't care about the energy usgae, you may care about having a hot room in the summer.

JSmith :ninja:

This is a VERY good point.

Over summer, actually even yesterday, our plasma was on, and the fans in it were working a bit to keep itself cool, I put my hands above the plasma and can understand why - they throw some heat!!

#25 yrneh

yrneh

    AV Forum Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 138 posts

Posted 29 March 2010 - 10:20 AM

This is a VERY good point.

Over summer, actually even yesterday, our plasma was on, and the fans in it were working a bit to keep itself cool, I put my hands above the plasma and can understand why - they throw some heat!!

is it still the NEC XR50 you're using?