In the Market for an Energy Efficient TV
I’m in the market for a new TV. I think I may treat myself to a plasma . . . why not? I’ve been working pretty hard, and saving up . . . well sort of.
Of course, I’m not going to even consider buying any electronics unless they’re wearing the bright blue ENERGY STAR label. No problem! There are over 100 awesome plasma and LCD ENERGY STAR options and the prices are exactly the same if not better than regular plasmas and LCDs. Best of all, I save money in the long run. By conserving energy, ENERGY STAR appliances can lower my utility bill by 30%.
Considering my room is the size of a large closet, I’ll need a small TV that also mounts on the wall. The 10-19” diagonal screen sizes are a bit too tiny, and the 30-39” a bit too big, but in the words of Goldilocks, the 20-29” ones are juuuuust right.
Now the real question . . . should I spend the extra cash for a built-in HD tuner? Or, should I save a couple of bucks and get one that’s just HD-ready?
Though I hate spending more than I absolutely have to, the built-in tuner offers the most flexibility. For example, if you don’t have a built-in tuner you can’t receive HD programming unless you purchase or rent an external receiver. This gets tricky because once you purchase or rent an external receiver most likely your cable company will make you subscribe to their HD package . . . this can get even more pricey. In addition, the nationwide switch from analog to digital TV broadcasts is scheduled to be completed in 2009—that’s soon enough.
Given the reasons above, it makes the most sense for me to just buy a TV with a built-in tuner. I’m pretty set on the LG Electronics 20″ LCD TV. With 7 reputable sellers including Circuit City, prices range from $339.98 - $479.99. According to a consumer review, the LG has, “excellent Picture quality, colors and sound.” Looks pretty sleek. I’m sold!
Posted on August 6th, 2007 by Olivia Zaleski
RSS
Energy-saving and plasma TV in the same sentence? Pass, thanks… I’ll take an LCD.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:27 amRob will you explain. Maybe I didn’t get all the info. Are plasmas that bad? I was told they are the same if energy star certified, but would like to look into it further. Please let me know.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:32 amTake a look at the top handful of 50″ and up plasma TVs… for those with published specs (I only checked the top five but I expect these numbers are pretty representative), I found:
Panasonic TH-50PX600U* 525W
Panasonic TH-50PZ700U 695W
Pioneer PDP-5080HD 370W
Now, take a look at the LCDs:
TV Power
=============================
Aquos LC-52D62U 270W
Sony LC-52XBR2* 298W
Sony LC-52XBR3* 298W
Samsung LN-T5265F N/A*
*not available because the download time was too slow
Even this quick test (which took me far too long to research because PG doesn’t contain any of this data in their specs) showed LCD TVs with a substantial power consumption edge over plasmas, and that’s with one hand tied behind their backs: the LCDs listed above are 52″ displays, while all the plasmas are 50″.
August 8th, 2007 at 2:54 pmThe Samsung TN-5265F manual finally came back; its power consumption is a pretty piggy 320W, but remember that’s piggy for an LCD, and it’s still 50W less than that for the best plasma screen in the first group, the Pioneer PDP-5080HD.
One thing I found that was that it was impressively difficult to track down power consumption for any of these devices, though the plasma screens seemed to be harder in general than the other units. Maybe that’s a Sign.
August 8th, 2007 at 3:00 pmwow. this is super helpful. Ok, I’m going to look into it and respond in a post as soon as I get enough “accurate” research together.
thanks rob
August 8th, 2007 at 6:51 pm