Plasma screens can use up to four times as much electricity than old TVs

[Robbien]

Just read an article about the UK worrying about the extra electricity requirements of the new plasma tvs. They are saying that A scientist has warned that if half of British homes buy a plasma-screen TV, two nuclear power stations would have to be built to meet the extra energy demand.

So if you are buying eco-friendly light bulbs and home appliances/cars, you may be blowing it all away by having one of those huge plasma idiot boxes/screens.

[diddlysquat]

1. If we all just stopped watching tv, that would be the end of it.

[BlueManDude]

2. People who can barely pay the rent and can't afford to buy a home

are out there buying this shit. Everyone's gotta have their plasma.

[FormerDittoHead]

3. Plasmas are dead - LCD is the way to go...

Plasma are also **VERY** heavy (hundreds of pounds)...

But the big thing is the contrast. Plasmas project light, versus LCD blocking it off (the light is supplied by a flourencent bulb). Plasmas just can't get the "black" that LCDs can get, let alone the sharpness.

I feel sorry for plasma owners, but they'll go way of the RCA video disk...

[survivor999]

7. Yup. Just got one...

Because my old TV broke after about 7 years. Pretty neat.

[MercutioATC]

13. Plasmas have less ghosting with fast motion.

I agree that LCDs are the way to go, but plasmas DO have their advantages.

[CanuckAmok]

4. I find this very difficult to believe.

Cathode-ray tubes have always been notoriously inefficient (just look at how hot they get... that's wasted energy converted into heat).

Perhaps if he's suggesting that if half the households switched from 20" CRTs to 50"+ plasma monitors, he might be close to being right, but I still doubt it.

My entire industry has switched to flat-panels, specifically for two reasons: portability and power-efficiency.

[Robbien]

6. Just passing along what I read in "The Independent"

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article1218933.ece

It surprised me also, which is why I started the thread.

What isn't surprising is that this is a under-reported fact (if true) because of all the hype about Plasmas and how the industry wants everyone to buy new and throw out old.

[survivor999]

8. I don't believe it either...

LCDs definitely consume much less than CRTs. Not sure about plasma TVs.

[niyad]

5. I also remember reading somewhere that plasmas don't really work well

at high altitudes (not that england has to worry about this), but if that is the case, I wonder why they are being sold here in the rockies. does anyone here know whether this is true or not?

[CanuckAmok]

12. Plasmas are essentially "old" technology.

Consumer plasmas are about ten years old. I was on a movie a few years ago in which we borrowed the very first plasma screen in Canada, which belonged personally to the CEO of Sony Canada, to use in a scene. They hadn't been released to the general public at that point. It was 42", which seemed insanely huge at the time. For the record, it was worth $50,000, and our set-dec guys dropped it while returning it :D .

Anyway... plasma technology is fundamentally the same as regular TV, in that it "projects" an assembled image at the viewer. LCD, simply put, projects a plain monochromatic signal at the viewer, and the individual LCDs use different intensities to "block" some of the light in their sector from being projected. That's what actually creates the colours and brightness in each LCD sector.

Up until about two years ago, LCD technology was prohibitively expensive, so it hadn't caught up with plasma as far as consumer purchases. That changed recently, as the price of LCD units dropped dramatically. Plasma still cannot be made efficiently below about a 37" screen size; the basic cost per unit is just too much, so the mfgrs only make plasma screens in 40"+.

Case in point: in 2001, I considered buying a flat screen for a mobile studio I owned. I couldn't find a plasma screen small enough, and at that time a 20" LCD monitor was about $4000.

Plasma screens, by their very design, require internal focusing, which can distort in time, and at different altitudes. That's why plasma screen images will seem "softer" than LCD images, when compared side-by-side. Also, plasma screens will not last as long as LCD screens. IIRC the estimated lifetime of a plasma screen is 10,000 hours, and a similarly-sized LCD is about 25,000 hours.

[William769]

9. self delete.

I misread.

[Kagemusha]

10. You seriously think half of British homes can/will buy a plasma tv?

That's the reaction I got talking to a friend about that very article within the last day...

[elehhhhna]

11. LOL I clicked onto Growing Up Gotti last week (euwwww) and one kid

was screaming because his monster TV kept blowing athe power upstairs.

L'd my a o