Posted on 01/05/2009 12:50:05 PM PST by Sig Sauer P220
That’s the whole point.
ONLY the elites should use unlimited amounts of energy and enjoy luxuries like air conditioning, heating, lights, travel, big screen TVs, etc.
This is criminal because it is simply not true.
When I got my first TFT monitor about 10 years ago, I remember a graph on the side comparing it to a CRT monitor. It used about 15% of the energy of the traditional monitor. Televisions are no different.
Not sure where this article is getting their “facts”.
Well, you and I both know that the “green” movement is nothing but a vehicle for elitist socialist control of the “commoners”.
These fascists would love nothing more than a return to a system similar to feudalism.
Recently we got a Wii and that is proving fun for all ages.
I can see folks driving to Tiajuana and Las Vegas to purchase illegal, energy hogging flat screen t.v.s.
Thus another underground economy was born.
PS, I got a "Spelling okay" on this post, thanks!
“...they give out alot of heat, even more than the equivalent CRT.”
I don’t believe that. CRTs of equivalent picture size use more energy and generate more heat. Holding the picture size constant, LCD computer monitors are more energy-efficient than CRTs.
The thing is, today’s LCDs and plasmas are so much bigger. The chart attached to the article is misleading (intentionally, I believe) because it compares TV technologies based on average screen size FOR THAT TECHNOLOGY.
Tricky, tricky MSM.
The chart is for the "average size" TV in each category. While not quite their typical apples vs. oranges comparison, it is a grapefruit vs. tangerine comparison because the average CRT is probably 20-27 inches, while the average LCD, projection or plasma is a lot bigger TV with a lot more area to light up.
I’ve got a 50” plasma. It loves energy, and I love it.
The government can go **** itself for all I care.
They need to get the he*l out of our houses...
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp
We should all cache this link and send it to everyone we know - put it in a “letter to the editor” of all our local papers. Maybe people will start to get a clue.
Move out of California if you are American.
Giv’em an inch, they take a mile.
A 29’ CRT takes about 130W to run. That’s .32 watts per square inch of viewing pleasure.
An 52” LCD rated “average” in energy consumption pulls around 250 watts, about .22 watts per square inch.
An LCD rated “poor” in energy consumption may pull as much power per square inch as a CRT TV.
Most 32” LCDs rated “good” in energy consumption pull LESS overall energy than that smaller CRT.
At worst there’s no improvement. The article twists the truth to gain support for the liberal agenda. Most LCD TVs pull more overall power because they’re a lot bigger, but they are more energy efficient than CRTs.
A big diesel bus sure uses a lot more fuel than my commuter car, but then again it can also carry a lot more people, making it overall more fuel efficient in getting people around.
I could have sworn that was the case, but then was informed that that was untrue, however, it looks like you (and I formerly) are right. Most LCD's use more energy because they are simply larger.
Like I said though, new technologies are just coming to the fore that will take care of the problem, like LED backlighting and OrganicLED displays.
Flee.
Just flee.
Given the actual energy consumption numbers I found, it looks like their "average" CRT is around maybe 27" and their "average" LCD is over 32".
So is "telling me" I can't have a HOT/warm wash/rinse cycle, by not allowing manufacturers to include it in the cycle options of a washing machine.
OTOH, turning off the cold faucet while it's filling....
I think they got it wrong. I'm told that plasma takes more, but my LCD takes much less.
Same for the one on my computer.
If eco-warriors were concerned with Facts, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. :-)
FWIW, unless they're including the "trickle charge" where the LCDs never really turn off, LCD sets are far, far more energy efficient than Tube TVs, or Monitors.
Now, they do cost a little more to run when "off" (since they never really shut off unless you unplug them) but we're talking just a few watts/hour here. Even tens of thousands of sets wouldn't amount to a hill of beans.
Not exactly, from the way I read it.
The CRT is a smaller "average" size screen than the other types' "average sizes", and they were NOT comparing same size TVs, but "average" size of each type.
A 26" screen is basically 1/4 the area of a 52" screen, so (over simplified) a huge set that is twice as efficient will still use twice as much power--their measure--than the less efficient smaller set.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.