Energy Star 3.0 regulations set to impact TV designs
By Steven Kim 
posted Aug 3rd 2009 6:38PM
posted Aug 3rd 2009 6:38PM
If you thought there was a row over the Energy Star 3.0 requirements for TVs, you haven't seen anything yet. Research firm iSuppli rightfully calls out some challenges for even the energy-miserly LCD TVs to duck under the numbers in the draft version of the Tier 2 (effective 2010) and Tier 3 (effective 2012) versions of the standard. For example, a 50-inch TV will have do limbo underneath a 153-Watt peak for Tier 2 compliance and 108-Watts for Tier 3. We're confident that some clever engineering will allow LCD to reach those figures; the real impact might be on plasma TVs, however. It pains us to say it, but plasma's going to have a hard time making that grade; of course, that's assuming that plasma TVs are still being made and marketed towards consumers who value the Energy Star label. For those of us who want efficiency and ultimate image quality, it's time to pull for LED-backlit LCDs.Read - Energy Star TV requirements draft [Warning: PDF link]
Read - iSuppli predicts change in LCD design
Ultimate Image Quality? There is no LED backlit LCD TV yet that even has the same quality then a plasma TV (not only the Pioneer or the expensive Panasonics)
True, true. But looking ahead, I think we'd better start hoping for LCDs to pick up the slack. Unless you've got your hopes pinned on OLED (not by 2010, I think) or SED (maybe not ever).
Looks like Mitsubishi is ahead of the curve. LASERVUE FTW
The 65" LaserVue set only needs 135 watts
http://www.laservuetv.com
"LCD" and "Ultimate Picture Quality" are mutually exclusive.
The first two comments are completely correct.
We might have to make some small sacrifices so we can sustainably live on this planet??? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO lol.
Steven Kim are you kidding me??? LED LCD's and Ultimate picture quality??? You might as well said Plasma TV's and Energy Efficient, which I'm more then happy to pay the electricity premium for.
No, I'm not kidding you -- but what I said was "... efficiency and ultimate image quality, it's time to pull for LED-backlit LCDs." Meaning, that if you want both, it's time for you to start hoping LED backlit LCDs will deliver on the quality front.
I'm a plasma owner, so don't get me wrong -- I know plasma offers the best PQ right now. But I think LED-backlit LCDs have more of a shot at getting to plasma PQ than plasma has of getting to 153/108-Watts.
Of course, plasmas might continue on well past 2010 (I hope so) -- but doing so with an Energy Star sticker might not be an option for them; they might be kind of like the gas guzzlers of the HT world. And I'll probably still have one! :)
I know what your saying Steve and agree with you, but you knew you were going to catch flack for that one. Honestly though, I've never really thought about how much energy my TV or Home Theater wastes while on and I'm honestly starting to feel pretty bad about it. I wonder how many people even think about how much energy are toys waste. Usually I think of the AC or heater, lights that are left on and water running. Now I'll have to be more conscience of other power hungry devices. Another question to you, how does the quality of the picture relate to how much power its been fed? In other words, do TV's require a lot of energy to produce the bright, vibrant and clear pictures?
I think the idea is that plasmas are going to be excluded. As it is, there is only so much light you can get from a watt, including processing.
But I'm not all that convinced that plasmas have better picture quality, I've never seen one I was happy with, it's not about the colors or the blacks. They all seem to have some odd crosshatch flicker, almost like a bad TN LCD panel, I do a double take, but they're plasmas. If you don't see that, then good for you.
Plasmas short of a Pioneer or Panasonic is going to have a big border between pixel cells too, making it look grainy.
No problem with the flack -- it's good to hash stuff out in comments! Energy vs. quality is highly variable, but if I put my science hat on, for a given technology (plasma, CCFL, LED, OLED), more power input is required for greater light output. It's all just energy, after all. LaserVue is probably a little different story, and I assume it delivers grayscales through DLP-like means. LEDs are obviously very efficient at producing light, and OLEDs promise even more. We'll have to see about the OLEDs, but certain LED-backlit sets (like Samsung's 46-inch B7000) already are coming in under the Tier 2 figures.
@JeffDM -- from my reading of the Energy Star draft (PDF link fixed, btw), I don't see any exceptions for plasma. Under "Definition 1A," in the document, plasmas are lumped in with all the other TVs.
Does the display have to pass the low wattage requirements in all picture modes in order to get the sticker?
Right now, I believe that - in order to get the Energy Star sticker - only the default mode (out of the box setting) needs to pass the low wattage requirements. Being that these are "peak" power draw numbers, manufacturers are simply making the default picture mode somewhat dim. But you can easily change the picture mode and make the image plenty bright (and, as a result, draw significantly more power).
If the new Energy Star ratings are certified in the same way, then plasma can still pass. Plasma makers can simply make the default picture mode ridiculously dim!
The draft document in the PDF link makes for some interesting -- if terribly geeky -- reading. Section 3D (line 450) says that the specs have to be met in the "home" (default) mode, and the default mode's peak luminance cannot be less than 65-percent of the "retail" mode.
Making the default mode on any set, plasma or otherwise, really dim and crushed is a way around the regulation. But I have a feeling that displays taking that approach will just get badmouthed and returned en masse. I hate it, but most homes I walk into have the TV set to the default, out of box settings. I have suspicion that if the default mode is total crap, most folks will return the set, write a nasty review, or write off the manufacturer entirely.
Thanks for the info about the default mode needing to be at least 65% peak brightness of the "retail" mode.
You're certainly right about most people just leaving their TV in whatever picture mode it was in when it came out of the box! I've found that it's not even ignorance of how to calibrate a TV. It's that people are actually scared of touching any of the menu settings! People don't know what the settings do, they have a memory or a second-hand story of some terrible event where pushing a button ruined something and so they're literally afraid to try and adjust the picture settings! I've had people say, "No! Don't touch it!" when I try to adjust their picture settings for them - and not because they like it the way it is, but because they're literally afraid that I will damage their display somehow!
Anywho - I honestly see plasma becoming more and more of a niche technology. Something that only educated enthusiasts are seeking out and buying anymore. If enthusiasts are the market, there's no worries about us when it comes to understanding that a simple picture setting adjustment can cure our light output concerns. Plasma makers could simply make their "retail" mode dimmer and then make the "default" mode really dim - so that even at 65% of the "retail" mode, the "default" mode is dim enough to slide under the Energy Star requirements.
Of course, going that far really defeats the purpose of the Energy Star rating. If plasma only sells to enthusiasts, we're not going to care about Energy Star stickers and we're going to know about any "tricks" that are being used to fudge the numbers. It's sad to say, the plasma is just being squeezed out of the market from many different directions. Personally, I'm hoping for just one more year. I want to see Panasonic completely match the black level performance of Kuro in 2010. At that point, I will upgrade both of my plasma displays, sit back, and enjoy them until LCD or OLED is equal in performance and affordable :)
Energy efficiency before any minute quality variance, every time.
(and so much for all that nonsense that the latest Plasmas had clever switching which made them as energy efficient as a good LCD)
Honestly, if you're going for the quality of plasma, you're more than likely not worried about a little sticker on the box. I personally don't care, but to get around "feelling bad about how much my toy wastes", why not install a small grid tied solar panel to offset the "waste". The different in overall energy usage would actually go down, considering that the peak energy period for the solar panel is in the middle of the day, while you're at work and the TV is off. The couple of hours of usage would easily be made up.
Quality and prices aside
I wish Energy Star would rethink their Logo.
If i look at a Fridge from 2002, and a TV from 2010, they are the same.
They need to start putting down the Tier Number and Year.
Companies aiming to get this E* logo don't get the credit they deserve when they actually create a greenER product.
The funny part is that many of these sets will be connected to 1000+W home theater systems.
Are you guys serious? Do any of you even understand the differences between energy use of a plasma versus LCD? You do realize that the rated power of a Plasma is not the actual power draw right? That's just the maximum possible power that the power supply can handle. In fact, a plasma uses less power to make a darker image than a white image. Crutchfield has done several extensive reports on the actual power consumption of large scale TVs only to find that size for size LCD and plasma are basically the same in actual power consumption. AND that a properly calibrated plasma will use significantly less power than it's rated capability.
For instance, the Panasonic TC-P50X1 has a manufacturers rated 399 Watts. HOWEVER, in the real world test it only actually drew 182.3 Watts.
On the other hand an LCD actually uses MORE energy to create a darker image. That's because the TV has to block the back light and uses the current to manipulate the LCD structure to block light. The Sony KDL52XBR9 Is rated for 300 Watts from the manufacturer but actually draws on 243.63.
All tests done in default mode. Proper calibration can reduce the amounts even more.
The myth that plasma is defacto higher enrgy use is BS.