All Set

Umbra on LCD vs. plasma TVs 5

Dear Umbra,

My husband and I are going to be buying a new television soon. Between an LCD and a plasma set, which is the more environmentally friendly?

Lorraine B.
Ossining, N.Y.

Dearest Lorraine,

Welcome to the promised follow-up to our previous examination of the digital television revolution. This week we finally take an opportunity for tortured reference to the revolution being digitized. I suppose everyone is probably making that joke. You heard it here last.

Two too many?

To recap the situation as seen from television-free floor 2B: there are around 275 million TVs in the U.S. These historically were cathode-ray sets receiving analog signals. All stations are to convert to digital signal by mid-June, hastening the obsolescence of analog-only CRTs, the sale of digital converter sets, and the potential change to LCD, plasma, or rear-projection televisions. Last time we learned that CRT recycling is possible and urgent, that Energy Star certifies digital converter boxes, and that Umbra thinks Jon Stewart is cute. Luckily for me I can watch his digital likeness over the internets.

Some have the money and desire, or need, to buy an entirely new television, which unfortunately means wading into the electronics shopping vortex. Not for the faint of heart—or for the broke. I can’t believe how much these things cost. Anyway, here is some advice relayed from various savvy organizations.

First of all, Energy Star requirements for televisions became more stringent last November, and Energy Star TVs are touted as “up to 30 percent more efficient than non-qualified models.” So they are an obvious, good choice. The ES site lists all certified models in a comparison chart, and also provides an energy savings worksheet.

In general, from what I read on CNET and Consumer Reports, when per-inch consumption is measured, LCD televisions are more efficient than plasma, and rear-projection is slightly more efficient than LCD. Screen size is key to power consumption; a smaller plasma, for instance, will be comparable to a larger LCD.

Big plasma sets are scary. For instance, Consumer Reports’ chart shows a 42-inch plasma running yearly costs similar to an efficient 25-cubic-foot refrigerator. In fact, it’s possible the EU will set energy standards for TVs that will effectively ban large plasma screens altogether.

Beyond energy consumption, there are also manufacturing impacts to think about. LCDs contain a bit of mercury, and their manufacture uses the potent greenhouse gas nitrogen trifluoride (NF3); plasma screens can contain lead (though Panasonic has apparently found a way around that).

These are sad facts, but please consider long-term carbon footprint above all other issues. First of all, you should keep your television for a long time—it’s the ecologically correct thing to do. In a long-term appliance relationship, the operating phase is the most significant phase environmentally. If you are buying new (or new to you), use the CNET reviews and Consumer Reports to figure out a range of TVs that will suit your family’s needs for years to come. Choose the one with good performance reviews and small energy footprint. These steps are important.

After you bring your new TV home, continue to be mindful. Phantom power is a big problem: unplug the thing, and its accoutrements, when you are not using it. Use a power strip. And far in the future, recycle your TV.

UHFly,
Umbra

 

Yours is to wonder why, hers is to answer (or try). Send your green-living questions to Umbra.

Umbra Fisk is Grist Research Associate II, Hardcover and Periodicals Unit, floors 2B-4B.

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. fkaser Posted 10:40 am
    24 Feb 2009

    keep your old or a buy a new?If the operating phase has the biggest impact, then it could make sense to buy a new appliance rather keeping your old one "for a long time." If your old one is super inefficient, then buying a new, more efficient one could, over time, make up for the added impact of manufacturing it.
  2. kurtwg Posted 4:23 am
    25 Feb 2009

    One point that's missedWhat Umbra (and most of the world) miss is that what's good for conserving electrons ain't so hot for your health. The short explanation: CFLs, most other electronics that use inverters and variable speed motors create prodigious amounts of "distorted" electricity, which, due to an outdated electrical distribution system, flood into the environment -- and your household wiring. Think of it as converting rooms into low-power microwave.

    Longer story: Industry spend billions annually to deal with this problem (i.e., improving power quality) but the rest of us remain completely ignorant. On the bright side, the proliferation of electronic gizmos certainly has the potential to mrarkedly reduce human overpopulation...

    The Russians figured it out decades ago. Search for "radio wave sickness."
  3. anchAK Posted 5:45 am
    25 Feb 2009

    projectionWhat about those units that project onto your wall? Wouldn't they be the most efficient because there is no screen to power?
  4. dirtyfrank10 Posted 1:40 am
    26 Feb 2009

    projectorsI was wondering how projectors fared as well, but you have to take into consideration the bulb. Projectors use 150-200 watt bulbs that typically need to be replaced every 1000-2000 hours. So if you're talking just power to run, the projector probably wins out. But when you consider the cost of new bulbs and the disposal of the old ones, an LCD may be a better option, both economically and environmentally.
  5. esc Posted 7:25 am
    01 Mar 2009

    lcd/plasmasWe gave up on our tv a year ago and catch watch we want to see on hulu and our netflix subscription on our laptops.
    If you use earphones, the experience on a laptop is pretty good.

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Advertisement