Proposed ban on LCD and Plasma screens ?

Have a look at

Bob

Quoted from the article: "It would mean all current plasma TVs and many LCDs could be removed from sale by 2011."

It may also mean there will be some very cheap sets available before the deadline. :-)

Don...

--
Don McKenzie

Affiliate Program:   http://www.dontronics.com/affiliate	
Site Map:            http://www.dontronics.com/sitemap
E-Mail Contact Page: http://www.dontronics.com/email
No More Damn Spam:   http://www.wizard-of-oz.com

Serial OLED uses standard micro-SD memory cards.
http://www.dontronics-shop.com/product.php?productid=16659

In the UK, one newspaper claims that flat screens use up to 4x the energy of CRT displays and at the current rate of sales will require 2 extra nuclear power stations.

It sounds a bit exaggerated to me, but we can probably expect similar restrictions here in the UK before long, and very likely in wider Europe too.

"Bob Parker"

** This story from the Herald Sun has less sensationalist bullshit in it.

....... Phil

On the other hand arming the consumer with the knowledge may be all thats needed to make a lot of people turn them off when not actually sitting down watching, constituting a reduction in energy consumption. It's a stretch, but given the price of power is on the way up it could just happen.

James

Here is the follow-up!!!

LCD screens draw far less wattage than the equivalent size CRT types. Both the Plasma and LCD TV sets are less harmful to the environment when disposed of. This type of TV set will outlast most of the CRT sets that were made.

--

JANA _____

Have a look at

Bob

"JANA"

** Knewed it was just another media "beat up".

** With computer monitors, that is so as CRT monitors are not the same as TV sets.

With TV sets, similar size LCD and CRT models usually have similar wattage consumption figures.

** Doubt there is much in it.

** Doubt there is much in it.

....... Phil

I sort-of assumed that everyone would see and follow the link to that page ....

I've often wondered how much power Plasma TV's use , was recently in the local Hardly Normal store and stuck my hand over the copious number of "vents" down the back of a large Plasma unit - and boy she was warm........

I've often wondered how much power Plasma TV's use , was recently in the local Hardly Normal store and stuck my hand over the copious number of "vents" down the back of a large Plasma unit - and boy she was warm........

Smarthouse has reported that there is some scepticism about the report. Apparently the author (one Keith Jones) is a former GM of Panasonic at Penrith.

A search of the ASIC database turned this up.

So he could have a legitimate office somewhere, only not registered with ASIC 'cos someone hasn't gotten around to it. Or he could simply be sitting on a beach somewhere in the Great Barrier Reef with a laptop computer just making shit up.

I think the question should be asked should be "How could this dude get money from the Australian Greenhouse Office to create the report when there is no registed address for his business." No executives for the company have been available for comment either. Neither in all the press I've seen (and I admit it's not much) no one has mentioned the types of tests performed, and on what brand and model CRTs, LCDs and plasmas, nor what testing facility was used to determine their efficiency.

The credibility of the report is somewhat suspect.

In other news, you can register a business name, with no address or other details, and no previous credibility, and con money out of the Australian Greenhouse Office. I think I'll dream up some sort of report about the greenhouse emissions created by powering all the transmitters in Australia, (not to mention the "possibility' of damage to DNA at microcellular levels). ;-)

Better still, how about a report about creating a 5 or 6 star energy efficiency rating for power stations.

Worldwide the greenie weenies are like terrier dogs - once they get their teeth into something they won't let go until they get something banned!

The "ban" on incandescent lamps has all the hallmarks of ill-advised government and/or vested interest. In the first place, the lighting load of a home is the very smallest, vastly dwarfed by heating, airconditioning, hot water etc. In the second, it takes more energy to manufacture flouros and they are most unfriendly to dispose of. The only lighting load that is blatantly wasteful if the vast swathes of advertising on city buildings, which lights up all cities around the world at night. Have we heard anything about that? No. Maybe vested interest again.

It does seem somewhat strange that incandescents have been banned but not halogens. Has anyone done a calculation to determine what the alleged power saving of going to CFLs is , in terms of what percentage of reduction of total generated power in Australia is. Id like to see what energy star rating Aluminium Smelters get.

I have a 19 inch Viewsonic monitor. It is rated at 165 Watts for the power consumption.

I also have a 20 inch LCD monitor. It is rated at 55 Watts for the power consumption.

The digital power monitor in the UPS that is running the monitor showed that the label on the back side of the monitor is fairly accurate to the power rating that it indicates.

The end result is that it is a NO-Brainer to see which type of monitor is best for power conservation.

As for the personal health of the person using the monitor, the LCD monitor does not radiate high levels of electromagnetic radiation as what the CRT monitor does. The LCD monitors does not radiate any X-Ray radiation which all Cathode Ray Tubes put out, and there is no UV radiation which over the long term can cause cataracts.

When the CRT monitor is disposed of, there are rare earth phosphors in the CRT that are very bad for the environment. There is also a high amount of lead in the glass to shield the user from the X-Ray radiation that the electron beams puts out. The LCD monitor life is about two times of a CRT monitor.

--

JANA
_____


"Phil Allison"  wrote in message 
news:5nb8mrFhgij8U1@mid.individual.net...

"JANA"
>
> Here is the follow-up!!!
>
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/11/2056313.htm
>

  **  Knewed it was just another media "beat up".

> LCD screens draw far less wattage than the equivalent size CRT types.


 **  With computer monitors, that is so as CRT monitors are not the same as
TV sets.

With TV sets,  similar size LCD and CRT models usually have similar wattage
consumption figures.


> Both the Plasma and LCD TV sets are less harmful to the environment when
> disposed
> of.


 **  Doubt there is much in it.

> This type of TV set will outlast most of the CRT sets that were made.


  ** Doubt there is much in it.



.......  Phil

A 32 inch Plasma display typically uses about 400 to 500 Watts. A 50 inch is typically up at about 600 Watts or more.

Plasma displays were intended more for commercial use, and not for home use. Because their prices have dropped so much, the consumers started to buy them for at home.

A Plasma display will last about 2 times the life span of a CRT display. It has less of an impact on the environment when it is disposed of. There are a lot less environmentally harmful components in its makeup.

The LCD monitor has everything going for it, except for its contrast ratio, reaction speed, and viewing angle restrictions. But, the big thing that is good about it, is that it pulls typically about 60% less power for the same size screen. A typical 40 inch LCD screen will pull about 150 Watts. A 46 inch LCD will typically pull about 200 Watts. The big part of the power consumption are the back-plane lamps, and the main processors.

At this point, if LCD screens are banned, this will be the end of television, and the end of computers! Lets use our heads about common sense!

--

JANA
_____


"AB"  wrote in message
news:13h10aijdij2h84@corp.supernews.com...
I've often wondered how much power Plasma TV's use , was recently in the
local Hardly Normal store and stuck my hand over the copious number of
"vents" down the back of a large Plasma unit - and boy she was warm........

"JANA"

** The new energy regulations are for TV sets.

** The new energy regulations are for TV sets.

** The new energy regulations are for TV sets.

** Did you read my post at all ??

Top posters usually don't read the post they rudely write on top of.

** Shame about the similar phosphors in the light inside an LCD screen.

And all fluoro tubes.

...... Phil

"dmm"

** The one " making shit up" is YOU - wanker.

** Keith Jones is the chairman of several Australian Standards committees.

The folk who need to know, do know where he is to be found.

** "Digital Cenergy Australia " is ** NOT ** a company.

It is simply a registered business name used by Keith Jones.

** So what ???????

Newspapers are not interested in nor have the space to publish technical details that would bore their readers silly. The paper was presented to the appropriate forum and will be published soon - likely to be 100 pages or more long.

** The one " making shit up" is YOU - wanker. ** The one " making shit up" is YOU - wanker.

Fuck off.

....... Phil

"Mauried"

** Huh ?

You got any proof of this ??

AFAIK halogen bulbs will get the chop too - maybe just a little later than the common ES and BC lamps do.

** The power saving in watts of electricity consumed is a non issue. The *overall cost saving* to consumers by using CFLs in place of incandescents is an issue.

However, to just break even on cost, a CFL has to last 2000 hours or re - the available evidence says that most will fail to do that in domestic use.

Far as the dreaded green house gass emissions are concerned - it will make NO DIFFERENCE.

Main reason being that a coal fired power station cannot quickly reduce coal consumption with reduced load. Domestic lighting is used almost entirely at night, when the demand load on the grid is low and so it does not require any extra coal consumption to supply it.

...... Phil