work for you?
The hottest deals voted on by our community.
Selected and verified by our team of deal editors.
These deals are currently popular in the
community based on votes and comments.
Save big on this year's
The deals and coupons you see on Slickdeals are
contributed by our community. It's what makes
us different. Do you have a great deal to share
with the Slickdeals community?
Never miss out on a great deal again. Set up deal alerts for your favorite stores, categories, or products and we'll instantly alert you when a new deal is posted. Here are a few of our most popular alerts. Give one a try.
Create or manage deal alerts from the Deal Alert Management pageCreate & Manage Deal Alerts
You last visited: Today at 12:37 PM
|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|10-24-2012 01:42 PM|
As an FYI follow up to power usage for this 60" plasma - on full screen 16x9 content after setting the limited picture setting controls to an acceptable quality picture my watt meter bounces around between 250 and 310 watts. A little higher than my 10 year old 42" Panny for a display that has double the viewing area. Using the as shipped "out of the box" standard mode it was considerably less showing around half of those numbers. Of course with those settings it's such a bad picture it's not even close to being watchable.
So it seems that while plasma models have improved their efficiency over the last decade they are still power hungry compared to other technologies. At least in the Midwest winter that extra power being used will help keep my viewing room a little warmer.
|10-19-2012 09:54 PM|
|10-15-2012 06:55 AM|
|10-08-2012 04:24 PM|
|10-08-2012 01:16 PM|
|hilaryshotlips||I took a look at the 60" 60UT50 at Bestbuy last week. It was on top of a Sharp or Samsung 60" LED LCD and didn't look nearly as bright. The colors were much more outstanding on the LCD. Is that because of the way the store had it adjusted? Can a plasma's color and brightness/contrast controls be adjusted so that the set looks as bright as an LCD?|
|10-08-2012 04:49 AM|
First I still pay less then you do for Electric
2nd I still pay less then you do for Electric
3rd My bill has only gone up $50 a year for running 3 plasma's
4th My bill has only gone up $50 a year for running 3 plasma's.
Who uses 100W light bulb these days?? I have all LED's in my house..
Let's just say I pay a $700 year for all 3 of my plasma's even though my electric bill is like $42/month. It use to be $38 until we redid our house and added 4 Large Screen TV's, 3 plasma's and one LED/LCD which never gets any play time.
|10-07-2012 04:00 PM|
Even a lamp with a 100W light bulb that is always on is going to cost the avg person $100 a year.
|10-07-2012 03:37 PM|
I bet I pay less then you for energy and I will bet my 3 plasmas my bill only has gone up $50 a year!
|10-07-2012 02:25 PM|
Current reality is using a TV that is calibrated, not at the default factory settings, will give you a clearer comparison in energy consumption. c/net estimated the annual cost of $81 using the 65" Plasma TC-P65VT50 5.2 hours a day after calibration 370W after, 180W before http://reviews.cnet.co
The Panasonic TC-P55ST50 , 5.2 hours a day $54 a year after calibration 247W after, 143W before http://reviews.cnet.co
The Sharp Elite PRO-60X5FD 60" LCD/LED ( the c/net review doesn't measure the before or after calibration power consumption of the Panasonic LCD/LED TC-L55DT50) drops in power consumption after calibration from 132W to 64W , being used 5.2 hours a day cost $14 a year http://reviews.cnet.co
Now multiple that by three plasma sets, that are always on. No, lets say on 2/3 of the time. You get $740 a year for the 65" plasma, $506 a year for the 55" plasma or the criteria c/net uses that the avg plasma consumes 301W you get $595 a year.
Versus $135 a year for the 60" Sharp LCD
|10-07-2012 08:30 AM|
Walmart has it for $898 now: http://www.walmart.com/ip/Panason...93&ve
Thanks for the link Adam
|10-07-2012 07:54 AM|
|10-06-2012 11:44 AM|
I actually own two plasma TV's and love them . I was just pointing out the accurate energy cost..
|10-06-2012 06:50 AM|
Walmart has it for $898 now: http://www.walmart.com/ip/Panason...93&ve
|10-05-2012 01:14 PM|
Unfortunately your assumptions are nonsense
You tried to come up with the best case scenario, and couldn't even come close to backing up the statement that it would only cost a $50 year increase to run three plasma TV sets that"are always on " That was the original statement that I didn't find accurate. In fact after being properly calibrated the TV you used in your example the 65" TC-P65VT50 would cost $282 annually, or $374 using the 11.55 cents a KWh criteria c/net uses. *See c/net review below. We have two plasma TV sets in our home that are in use approx 8 hour a day. I have seen my electric bill go up 10-15 a month. That is a far cry from running three sets all the time and only seeing a annual increase of $50. If you don't find that statement as nonsense you have blinders on. Look at post #200 where someone used a KILL A WATT meter, it falls in line with what my 2011 Panasonic and 2010 LG draw.
I stand by my original estimate the cost to run three plasma TV sets that are "always on" and you could see a energy cost of over $500 annually. I picked a 42" plasma set from the Panasonic website that was similar to the TV I own. I provided you with PDF that showed a range of 295-397 watts ranging from 42" to 55" TV's. In fact you provided a link from c/net in one of your earlier posts that list the avg power consumption of plasma TV's is 301W versus 111W for LCD's. When I calculated my estimate of running three sets on all the time I came up with over $600.00 a year using 300W x 3 multiplied by 8 cents a KWh, the rate I pay here in MN which is lower than the national average. I didn't fudge any figures, if you are finding an error point it out. I could have easily used a higher rated Panasonic from the list you provided from c/net that consume in excess of 500W. The variables of not knowing the power consumption of the three plasma's grif32 owns, the estimate could be lower or higher, though in the real world most plasma owners are in the 301W range listed on c/net link you provided
I did some testing with my LG 2010 plasma that is also rated at 295W, and is it Energy Star rated like my 2011 Panasonic. I found it draws anywhere from 119W-411W. During daylight, blinds closed it draws 250W or more 75% of the time and over 295W 18% of the time. The power consumption drops at night with no lighting, 250W or more 38% of the time. The picture settings are, energy saver on/set to low, intelligent sensor on/set to low, to adjust to room light, contrast 75%, brightness 50%, color 50%, sharpness 50%. By no means are my picture settings high, and the power consumption I get using it in a mixed lighting environment is going to be close to 295W.
My original reply to grif32 was in his response to someone that had three concerns about plasma sets versus LCD, and they weren't thread crapping. Those concerns were 1. More heat generated 2. Image retention/burn in 3. Energy cost.
Part of his response was "Power consumption is not even an issue. I have 3 Plasma's that are always on (thanks to the kids) and my electric bill probably went up $50 for the YEAR.. It's a non issue!" Does he literally always have his sets on, probably not.
Owning two plasma's, my cost has gone up approx $140.00 a year running them an avg 8 hours a day. My sets run in the range of the c/net link you provided, listing the avg plasma consuming 301W. Obviously during daylight hours my 295W energy star rated LG TV is consuming over 295W 18% of the time. Plasma sets manufactured after May are required to be more energy efficient, hence the improvement in power consumption. What criteria is Panasonic using to get the lower power consumption ratings, and how accurate are they going to be in real life use? Many times plasma sets after proper calibration will draw more power. The TV you used as an example was reviewed on c/net TC-P65VT50 65" plasma was rated 180W at the default settings, after proper calibration it jumped to 370W. *http://reviews.cnet.co
|10-05-2012 01:02 PM|
If you think you can run 3 plasma sets all the time and only see an increase of $50 a year, you aren't the sharpest knife. I've seen some of your other posts. Do you like being rude?
|This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|