LCD v LED TV's annual Running cost difference

grandadsmith

Just how much is it in £ sterling (approx),
Like LCD TV says 183watts on the back,
LED says 113watts on the back ,
(but it says 65watts on a screen sticker ?):cool:

MillicentBystander

The only accurate way of finding out the actual consumption is to invest in one of those plug in energy monitors that monitor individual items.


http://www.amazon.co.uk/Energenie-ENER007-Power-Meter/dp/B003ELLGDC/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1320431458&sr=8-2

Cardew

grandadsmith wrote: »

Just how much is it in £ sterling (approx),
Like LCD TV says 183watts on the back,
LED says 113watts on the back ,
(but it says 65watts on a screen sticker ?):cool:

That is a real ‘how long is a piece of string’ question.

Firstly what is on the back of the set is meaningless as a guide to consumption.

There is little to choose between the two. LED sets are slightly more economical and the ‘in use’ consumption ranges from 20watts to 300watts with, say, 50 watts being a reasonable figure; with LCD perhaps 60 watts.

So assuming a TV is on for 6 hours a day, with electricity @ 10p/kWh it will cost 3p to 4p a day for an average modern set, but could range from around a penny to 20 pence.

It is also worth noting that modern TVs use virtually nothing in standby, often around 0.3watts and almost never exceeding 1 watt. So if you left your set on 24/7 for 365 days a year it would cost between 30 pence and 90 pence a year.

I mention the above because so many people think that TVs left on standby are the reason for a huge bill – and they ain’t.

earth1986

Hi,

my experience is slightly different...
power used is dependent on a number of factors. These include size of screen, LED or standard LCD backlight and also how the screen is setup.
Generally most LCD manufacturers quote different power usage depending on whether a TV is setup in Shop (bright) or home mode.
I've recently purchased a 46" LED backlight LCD TV and it uses about 80-90 watts. This compares with an older 40" standard backlight LCD TV that was using nearly 180 watts. These figures are approximate and they are not accurately measured but they are supported by manufacturer's data.
Based on my experience and manufacturer's data an LED backlight LCD will use significantly less power than a standard backlight LCD TV.
Smaller screen TVs will use less power and larger screen more. However, at the moment an LED TV will cost a bit more so the payback period may be a quite a few years over an standard LCD TV.

I agree with Cardew's standby mode info.

Pincher

There's standby mode, and there's Powersave standby mode.

My two year old SONY 40" has several power saving options, one of which allows fast startup. Basically, if I'm happy to wait about 20 seconds every time I switch it on, it uses less power in standby. It obviously keeps something warm for hot standby.

LED TVs are a marketing ploy. All it means is the LCD backlighting is done by LEDs, as opposed to a fluorescent light tube. Genuine OLED TVs are quite small, because they can't mass produce large panels yet.

JamesK10

earth1986 wrote: »

Hi,

my experience is slightly different...
power used is dependent on a number of factors. These include size of screen, LED or standard LCD backlight and also how the screen is setup.
Generally most LCD manufacturers quote different power usage depending on whether a TV is setup in Shop (bright) or home mode.
I've recently purchased a 46" LED backlight LCD TV and it uses about 80-90 watts. This compares with an older 40" standard backlight LCD TV that was using nearly 180 watts. These figures are approximate and they are not accurately measured but they are supported by manufacturer's data.
Based on my experience and manufacturer's data an LED backlight LCD will use significantly less power than a standard backlight LCD TV.
Smaller screen TVs will use less power and larger screen more. However, at the moment an LED TV will cost a bit more so the payback period may be a quite a few years over an standard LCD TV.

I agree with Cardew's standby mode info.

Agreed, and what you'll find when you google the models you're looking at and check for any reviews, is that once they're calibrated to a mode for use at home, the power consumption drops. 40" is too big for my room unless I re-arrange anything, so for a first flatscreen, 32" will do, and I want to get the Sony CX523 that uses just under 60W as that's nearly 60% less than the CRT it's replacing.

[EDIT] Should've said that the 40" in the same family of Sonys, uses 90W. For a 40 that's pretty good, but long-term I just don't have the dosh to run it, sadly!

MillicentBystander

Whilst i totally accept that power saving is an important consideration don't end up with a !!!! TV just by using that as the only factor in your buying decision. As a big watcher of sport on TV, I'm almost ashamed to admit I have a plasma. From my calculations it probably costs maybe 1p/hour more to run than an equivalent LCD/LED TV. But when I'm watching something like footie on it in HD I figure that's money well spent. LCD/LED just can't cope with fast moving action like plasma can. They are better than they were but still nowhere near as good. To counteract the extra cost I try to be always on the cheapest leccy tarrif I can be on at any one time.

PS 100% agree with Pincher - don't get the idea that an LED TV is actually an LED TV, if you catch my drift. Like he said, it's essentially a LCD TV with LED backlighting.

System

Get an led 100%. My current bedroom LCD uses 60W. Can get a couple of inches bigger LED that uses 20W (similar figures for PC Monitor).

6 hours per day = 240W saved. In a year, this means 88000W saved!
If you pay 13p per kwh, this results in a saving of £11.44. Quite good.

That doesn't sound huge but if you go for an LED monitor too, then every little helps. Also the standby power is decreasing all the time with modern gadgets. I find the biggest savings can be made on desktop PCs, like £50+ savings per year. I am hugely interested in this subject, bills can become extremely low if you buy the lowest power electricals.

The 20W LEd tv I was talking about would cost just over £5 to power per year.

System

Also check this website, it is the best for finding low power stuff:
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=products.pr_find_es_products

Go to televisions, and then at the top right "find a model" and you can sort by lowest power. For example, have just found a Samsung LED 32" that uses 36.5W.

Cardew

Whilst of course the posts above are correct about backlighting, the OP was asking about LED and LCD TV's and that is how they are marketed.


On consumption this lists most TV's on sale in UK http://www.sust-it.net/energy_saving.php?cat=3&ss=37


Whilst I would wholeheartedly agree(as we usually do!) with MillicentBystander's point about not sacrificing standards to save a few pennies per year on running cost, on the never ending Plasma v LCD debate I suggest he is using for comparison yesterday's technology.


The latest WHICH report states:

LCD TVs have a definite edge over plasmas in the rigorous Which? testing regime, and find most favour with our exacting viewing panel.

http://www.which.co.uk/technology/tv-and-dvd/guides/lcd-vs-plasma-tvs/lcd-tv/#ixzz1cp6Vkvib

MillicentBystander

If you read my post instead of getting all excited that I'd written in the same thread as you, you would see that I chose plasma because I watch a lot of sports (mostly fast moving). I witnessed many different sets (LCD, LED and plasma) with optimal settings in a properly set up demo room and the plasma (FOR MY NEEDS) was easily the best. Maybe Which reviewers don't like sports, who knows? Although it's nice to see you taking Which's word as gospel for once. Mind you, I also have a Linn Sondek LP12 so maybe I am an old luddite at heart (the Linn p*sses on any CD player I've ever heard, btw).