Design Con 2015
Breaking News
News & Analysis

LED-backed LCD TVs need energy efficiency markers

7/18/2011 04:08 PM EDT
10 comments
NO RATINGS
View Comments: Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
PGrayDS
User Rank
Rookie
re: LED-backed LCD TVs need energy efficiency markers
PGrayDS   7/22/2011 8:11:37 AM
NO RATINGS
OK, so it's my research. The consumption comes from EnergyStar, and their test method used a looped video sequence of both bright and dark scenes. The sets compared were the base CCFL and LED backlit models from Samsung, which have the same video processing, so it's an apples-to-apples comparison and does not reflect different pricing power in the market. Data is in my blog here: http://www.displaysearchblog.com/2011/07/why-cant-energy-efficiency-sell-tvs/ For what it's worth, I assumed 2000 hours per year operation and used US EIA figures for energy costs. If consumers are unable to understand energy costs, how come in the USA people are buying more fuel-efficient vehicles, and in Europe over 60% of cars sold are diesels?

jhchang
User Rank
Rookie
re: LED-backed LCD TVs need energy efficiency markers
jhchang   7/19/2011 3:16:40 PM
NO RATINGS
I would claim that for consumers, unless the price is within what they have in their wallets,especially right now,they will rarely care about how much they can save on electricity. Look at all the discussions and conversations about energy efficient lighting ban for example.

Rick_Hille
User Rank
CEO
re: LED-backed LCD TVs need energy efficiency markers
Rick_Hille   7/19/2011 3:05:51 PM
NO RATINGS
Another detail missing is the size of the screen. A 50inch+ screen consumes considerably more power than a 40inch or less. I think LEDs have an even greater edge over CCFL in the incremental power vs size difference, and as Jim C points out, produce a better picture overall. Perhaps a simple marketing campaign could be based on one of the things that impressed me about LED sets. Walking through the aisles at the shop where I bought mine, a quick hand over the cooling grates on the back gave me a sense of the power usage (waste, actually). I'm still amazed at home when, after watching for an evening (4-5 hour span), I can walk by the set and just barely feel a slight warmth along the top edge. One doesn't just save the energy that the set doesn't consume; where we live, in the summer, less heat liberated into the TV room means less air conditioning energy too.

DrQuine
User Rank
CEO
re: LED-backed LCD TVs need energy efficiency markers
DrQuine   7/19/2011 2:14:42 PM
NO RATINGS
A clear way of communicating to consumers the energy cost of a TV would be a win-win. Energy saving technology would be encouraged and consumers would save money and energy. It is scary how many hours some TVs are on. Now if a simple technology could turn off the screen when the room was unoccupied (some people want the background noise), even more energy could be saved.

MeirG
User Rank
Rookie
re: LED-backed LCD TVs need energy efficiency markers
MeirG   7/19/2011 12:06:09 PM
NO RATINGS
LED backlighting saves energy compared with CCFL not only when fully powered (due to better efficiency) but also when illuminating a dark scene. It is then powered down to reduce brightness. This is also the reason for the vastly better contrast or dynamic range performance.

jimcondon
User Rank
Rookie
re: LED-backed LCD TVs need energy efficiency markers
jimcondon   7/19/2011 2:19:59 AM
NO RATINGS
Okay, so I know it's not the focus of the article, but the improved video quality has to be stated. LED backlit TVs are head and shoulders above CCFL backlit TVs. Between this and the energy savings, this should be a no brainer. At best buy, the difference between a samsung 40" CCFL and LED backlit TV is $100-$200. With the numbers Selinz just posted, the payback could be in as low as one year for a vastly better TV.

selinz
User Rank
Manager
re: LED-backed LCD TVs need energy efficiency markers
selinz   7/19/2011 2:04:41 AM
NO RATINGS
Do consumers want to pay for LED's? No, not unless there is a performance advantage. There should not be a $500 premium for LED's. Perhaps $100? Ok, let's do math. Suppose 333 watts which gives us 8 KW/hr per day if it's on 24hr/day (my Dad leaves his TV on all day/night). If we assume 12.5c/kw-hr, then we have a buck/day. $365per year. from CNET.com TVs1 Average plasma: 301 watts Average LCD (standard): 111 watts Average LCD (LED): 101 watts Other gear2 PlayStation 3: 197 watts PlayStation 3 Slim: 96 watts Xbox 360 Elite (2007): 185 watts Nintendo Wii: 19 watts Xbox 360: 187 watts Average PC: 118 watts DirecTV HR20 DVR: 33 watts Nintendo Wii: 19 watts Slingbox: 9 watts Wireless router: 7 watts So yearly saving can be as much as $200.

jfeder
User Rank
Rookie
re: LED-backed LCD TVs need energy efficiency markers
jfeder   7/18/2011 11:37:33 PM
NO RATINGS
Where does this hugely impressive power saving come from? The major consumption of light is the LCD panel itself blocking much of the light due to color filters etc.. This does not change for LED, so why much more efficient? Why does this article, printed for engineers, have no technical content? I will guess what is missing for a stink test. Calculation, $500 premium for LED, 4 year payback makes $125 per year energy savings. There are no details, so I will guess the following, assume 5 yrs per day, every day per year peak time usage, My peak time incremental energy cost is 10.7 cents per kilowatt-hour. For $125 per year I must save 1.1 Megawatt-hrs per year, or 640Watts during operation. My TV specs do not give operating power consumption, but MAX current is 3A, so MAX power is 360Watts. It is impossible to save twice the energy you are using unless you want the TV to pump power into the grid. Engineers, please do not be pushed around by marketing people. Demand to see calculations or do not accept this environmental none-sense. They might destroy our culture unless those capable of doing realistic calculations stand up to those marketing people pushing their nonesense.

JLS
User Rank
Rookie
re: LED-backed LCD TVs need energy efficiency markers
JLS   7/18/2011 11:01:29 PM
NO RATINGS
I'm guessing you are in the minority, c2cthomas. I think the average American is looking at the price out the door, not a payback in 4 years. Even I would think twice about such a long term payback considering the rapid pace of technology and obsolescence in a year or so for consumer products. And look at the savings of CFLs and the reluctance of people to buy them because the take to long to warm up, regardless how much they save in energy cost.. Face it, Americans aren't too bright.

c2cthomas
User Rank
Rookie
re: LED-backed LCD TVs need energy efficiency markers
c2cthomas   7/18/2011 10:02:37 PM
NO RATINGS
One of the 1st things I look for us power consumption vs. usage per day of any electrical powered device in my house. Power consumption is in my "needs" column - not my "wants" column when it comes to making a decision towards my purchase.

Flash Poll
Like Us on Facebook

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed
Top Comments of the Week