Energy Star Rating For Tvs And Plasma's To Be Banned ? Options

[Ajax9000]

Graphs for Energy Star Rating For Tvs And Plasma's To Be Banned ? post#77

 cNet_plot_Av_1StDev_2StDev.PNG ( 9.81K ) Number of downloads: 7
Power consumption, averages, and 1&2 standard deviations (cNet data)

 cNet_UK_MTP_stars.PNG ( 8.51K ) Number of downloads: 5
UK MTP star ratings for cNet data

 cNet_US_EPA_stars.PNG ( 8.25K ) Number of downloads: 5
US EPA star ratings for cNet data

[Ajax9000]

I have had a further look at the DCE discussion paper and whilst I now understand how they are doing their analysis, my previous concerns remain. What the consultant did was analyse actual power consumption measurements against suggested US EPA and UK MTP standards. These putative standards take the approach that current energy consumption for televisions is not good, is known to be able to be improved, and so must be improved; thus the suggested standard/star-rating is deliberately designed to give poor rankings to what is currently on the market.

In and of itself this is fine (to me), but there is a key problem -- plasmas are inherently much more variable in their power consumption patterns and this makes it hard to give a "fair" energy consumption figure. I.e. it is easy to design a test that will artificially benefit or penalise plasmas. This is fairly well known and the discussion paper has a whole Appendix devoted to the subject. The upshot is that a new international test methodology has been proposed to address the problem.

The discussion paper tested 116 CRT, LCD, and Plasma TVs using the new methodology and they found that when energy efficiency is measured as Watts per square cm:

The data makes it hard to single out Plasma for special attention although it appears on average that they do not perform as well as LCD. In fact the 2 worst performing televisions are a CRT and an LCD.

They do not publish their raw data but it appears that in statistical terms the average for plasmas falls within the +/- 1 standard deviation range of LCDs and the average for LCDs falls within the +/- 1 standard deviation range of plasmas.

(BTW, this is the result from this data set -- http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-6400401-3.html -- which used a methodology that is a crude version of the new international test.)

The implications of the two sets of results are very important:- the energy consumption pattern of plasmas substantially overlaps that of LCDs.

So why then are the reports of this paper scaremongering about plasmas, and make little or no mention of LCD?

It gets back to the fact that the report analysed the measurements against the suggested US EPA and UK MTP standards. Under the MTP proposal roughly two-fifths of LCDs fall below the standard for 1-star, and roughly four-fifths of plasmas fail. I.e. the MTP proposal sets the benchmark between the averages of the two technologies.

Personally I find this deeply suspicious -- it looks like one technology is deliberately being targeted/penalised and the other favoured. Whilst it could be argued that this is a result of the MTP possibly using the average of the whole population and it is simply plasmas tough luck that on average they fall just below the threshold, as someone who has worked in an environment protection department I can say that good policy development tries to avoid such complications.

The US EPA proposal is more balanced in that it places the threshold well below the average for plasma, CRT, and LCD -- i.e. all the technologies are given an equally bad rap. :-)

Interestingly, it would appear that rear projection displays would rate in the range 4-star to 6-star under the suggested US EPA and UK MTP standards.

(See here for graphs of the cNet data.)

As I said, I don't mind the suggested standard/star-rating being deliberately designed to give poor rankings to what is currently on the market. But I do mind the standard/star-rating being designed such that two technologies that perform so similarly are treated differently.

I think it would be better if the standard/star-rating was designed such that (say) most current plasmas/LCDs/CRTs rated in the range of 0.5-star to 1.5-star, and most current RP sets rated about 4-stars.

Adrian

PS The discussion in the middle of the thread Plasma Power Usage, How much will my electricity bill rise???? has some additional power use links.

[Roderick]

I have two LED torches for work, really good quality ones (powered by 2 * CR123 batteries), but they still don't pump out the light that a 2 * D-Cell Mag Light does.......More like a Mini-Mag light.

Austen.

Ultimately, LEDs will take over for flat screens and home lighting -- as well as a lot of other applications. All new traffic lights are now LED lit.

LEDs are slowly but surely getting better and brighter with each passing year. Current LED downlights are not yet bright enough, but Ozram have demonstrated in the lab a 1000 lumen LED downlight that outshines your standard 50 Watt halogen downlight -- they estimate 2 years to get it to the market. LED torches may not be very bright, as yet, but they have the tremendous advantage of not blowing bulbs. I use a small one for travel, knowing it will always work in the middle of the night when I get up to have a pee.

When they finally work out how to manufacture an LED or OLED screen cheaply, they will ultimately sweep away both plasma and LCD screens. Power consumption will no longer be an issue, as they are inherently very efficient. LED screens are the Holy Grail of flat sceens. Emissive technology is much better than the obstructive system used by LCDs.

Rod

This post has been edited by Roderick: Oct 12 2007, 12:33 PM

[Ajax9000]

Graphs for Energy Star Rating For Tvs And Plasma's To Be Banned ? post#77
...

Eh??? Did a moderator move these here?

Ta!

[Scalpel]

LEDs are slowly but surely getting better and brighter with each passing year. LED torches may not be very bright, as yet, but they have the tremendous advantage of not blowing bulbs. I use a small one for travel, knowing it will always work in the middle of the night when I get up to have a pee.
Rod

Just a small off topic comment Rod -

I have found that LED torches have the capacity for very significant brightness ( I confess - I love these lights and seem to have a nerd-like collection growing a little too rapidly for my comfort)

Whilst my brightest torch is a halogen, it is not much brighter than the good LED ones.

eg LED Blaster Junior : 4000 lux at 1m, LED Fenix L2D 3000 lux at 1m - That's bright! (and just 2 AA batteries)

Even my pocket Fenix L0D (used for peering into body cavities at short notice and which is only marginally bigger than the AAA battery that powers it) is still 400 lux at 1m - that is way to bright to shine into someones eyes, even from a lot further away than 1m! (link to L0D)

We are also replacing our incandescent globes on our scopes at work (bronchoscopes etc) with LED lightsources as well. There is no issue with light output using the LED (and you dont need to have a separate 240V powerpack attached)

J.

Back to the topic .....

This post has been edited by Scalpel: Oct 15 2007, 05:41 PM

[Fusion]

From APC Mag http://apcmag.com/6983/the_case_for_plasma_hdtvs

Plasmas don’t consume more power than LCDs

Jaga Park-Ross tested the power consumption of the HDTVs

A funny thing happened in the APC Labs. We were convinced that Plasmas were going to be the runaway electricity hogs, because everyone says they are. So to check their power consumption, we turned to the experts. Jaga Park-Ross, an Environmental Consultant with Neco Environmental Solutions (www.neco.com.au) used a Power-Mate meter to measure the wattage of all the TVs, taking readings in standby mode, with a dark screen and with a bright screen. He also measured the energy consumption over a one-minute period using the same piece of Apollo 13 footage being played from an HD DVD player connected via HDMI. You’d think the big Pioneer 50in PDP-5000EX plasma would be by far the highest consumer of power. But, its estimated hourly usage of 0.252 kilowatts is not as high as the Grundig 40in LCD’s 0.276 kilowatts. In a direct comparison between two similarly sized TVs, the LG 42 inch plasma (42PC1DG-AA), used 0.216 kilowatts per hour, vs the 0.228 kilowatts of the LG 42 inch LCD — (42LC7D-AB). Like many of the plasma TVs’ supposed weaknesses, high power consumption appears to be a hangover from the first generation of plasmas which needed a nuclear power station each. If you think the power consumption of a HDTV will kill your budget, consider this. A flat-panel LCD or plasma uses roughly a kilowatt hour of electricity per day, assuming you have it switched on for four hours. That’s about a quarter to half of your fridge’s power consumption, depending on its size (they typically use 2-4 kilowatt hours per day).

Hey Pieter!!
Don't you know the golden rule of government and journalism is never to let facts get in the way of the politics or a good story.

Away ye facts.....away!

Fusion

[hermes_2k5]

FYI - Update on topic
This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/10/24/1192941120182.html

Asher Moses
October 24, 2007 - 12:48PM

How green is my plasma?


Consumers, instead of waiting for government action, will force television makers to develop more energy efficient flat screens by voting with their wallets, says the chief executive of a green comparison shopping site.

Comparison.com.au, which helps shoppers compare TVs based on their price and technical specifications, this week added a new feature allowing users to sort TV models by their energy efficiency rating and the amount they cost to run per annum.

The annual power cost savings earned by upgrading to a greener TV are rarely more than a few hundred dollars, according to the site's measurements, but CEO Robin Jowett said protecting the environment alone was enough of an incentive.

"People are becoming much more conscious of the environment and of the impact of these complex electrical items they're putting in their homes," he said.

"What we're trying to do here is help the consumer vote with their wallet and guide the manufacturers about how they can improve their products and the impact they have on the environment."

The Federal Government is considering imposing tough mandatory energy requirements on TV manufacturers following the release of a number of government-commissioned reports, which found TV power consumption was increasing at an alarming rate as consumers upgraded from low-power cathode-ray TVs to energy-guzzling plasma and LCD behemoths.

They found TVs would soon rival fridges, heaters and air-conditioners as a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions from households.

The latest report, prepared for the Australian Greenhouse Office by consulting firm Digital CEnergy, recommended the implementation of a star-based energy rating scheme similar to that mandated for most consumer whitegoods from 1992.

The report stated that star rating stickers on TVs would encourage consumers to think about energy consumption before buying. Manufacturers would then be under pressure to develop more energy efficient TVs, it found.

A spokeswoman for Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull said: "The Government is currently negotiating with industry on a voluntary labelling scheme for all TVs to provide consumers with information on the relative energy efficiency of different TV products."

Federal Labor says it has long supported mandatory energy labelling for TVs and in August proposed a 10-star rating system for most household appliances.

But in lieu of new government regulations, comparison.com.au has devised its own energy efficiency rating scheme for TVs in its database.

Using figures provided by the manufacturers, Mr Jowett and his team determined the screen area that a single watt of energy could power - a higher rating means the model is more energy efficient.

These measurements are then converted into an efficiency rating index from 1 to 5 using the same Australian Energy Star Ratings index algorithm used by the Government to compare whitegoods.

"In general, a TV with a rating of 4 will be 20 per cent more energy efficient than a TV with a rating of 3," Mr Jowett, who previously held the post of chief technology officer at Fairfax Digital, said.

In determining the per annum running costs of each model, comparison.com.au assumes six hours of TV viewing per day at a cost of 17 cents per kilowatt.

Larger sets typically cost more to run than smaller models, while plasma technology generally guzzles more power than LCD, but comparing between similar competing models has always been difficult.

Mr Jowett acknowledged using power usage data provided by the manufacturers was an "interim" measure, but said he did not have the resources to conduct independent testing.

"When the government brings in the energy star ratings for televisions then we'll obviously start reporting that information," he said.

Mr Jowett also cautioned the energy efficiency rating was a relative measure and should not be looked at in isolation, as a large plasma panel could achieve a higher star rating than a smaller LCD set. Therefore, an absolute power consumption figure is listed next to the energy ratings, he said.


--

[flashman1207]

Apologies if this has already been posted.....

Questions Raised Of Plasma Ban Author

http://www.smarthouse.com.au/TVs_And_Large...dustry/A7V5R4G3

[Alioop1]

FYI - Update on topic
This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/10/24/1192941120182.html

Asher Moses
October 24, 2007 - 12:48PM

How green is my plasma?
Consumers, instead of waiting for government action, will force television makers to develop more energy efficient flat screens by voting with their wallets, says the chief executive of a green comparison shopping site.

Obviously knocking plasma tvs does get more attention if you go by the headline. This site compares Plasma and LCD TVs using an energy rating based on the screen size that 1 watt can power. The top ranking plasma tvs are Pioneers achieving a 3 star rating,

I agree, let consumers make the choice by having easy access to comparisons like this. One place to compare actual specs, a relative energy rating plus a estimate of running costs (especially for those of us who can't easily convert a spec of 155 watts to $ on our electricity bill).

[Ajax9000]

Questions Raised Of Plasma Ban Author

http://www.smarthouse.com.au/TVs_And_Large...dustry/A7V5R4G3

Attacking DCE and Keith Jones isn't very helpful in my opinion. As I said earlier, the DCE paper is essentially just looking at the potential application of the US EPA or UK MTP proposals to Australia. And I think it is a fairly well done research paper from a technical perspective (from a policy development perspective I think less of it).

Obviously knocking plasma tvs does get more attention if you go by the headline. This site compares Plasma and LCD TVs using an energy rating based on the screen size that 1 watt can power.

The Comparison.com.au approach has some merit, but it has two main failings. Firstly it uses the manufacturers power consumption figures, which are a poor approximation to actual in-use consumption. The new international test looks a far more reasonable method to use, but Comparison.com.au have said they can't/won't test given their resources. Secondly, the Comparison.com.au approach essentially sets three stars near the current market average. Put another way, there is a better than 50:50 chance that people will pick a TV and it is 3-stars or better. Most people will feel that 3-stars or better is pretty good, and even 2-stars "isn't all that bad" -- i.e. the Comparison.com.au approach sucks as a market transformation driver, all it does is give most people the feeling that their choices are OK.

My opinions expressed in post 78 still stand.

This post has been edited by Ajax9000: Oct 25 2007, 02:44 PM