Black Friday Shopper's Guide to Energy Efficient TVs
Posted November 24, 2009 in Living Sustainably, Solving Global Warming
The countdown to Black Friday has already begun and for many of us who choose to brave the crowds, our shopping lists include big ticket holiday items such as the latest and greatest HD flat screen TVs.
Luckily - right in time for the holiday season - there is a brand new generation of energy-efficient TVs on the market. These models may use two to three times less energy than other TVs on the store shelves - meaning these former home energy hogs are on a liquid diet, just sipping a fraction of the energy it takes to run their not-so-distant cousins from just a few years past.
But there is one small catch - it's not that easy to tell which TVs are the most efficient ones. That's because the current version of ENERGY STAR, Version 3.0 is not very stringent and almost all models in the store today have the ENERGY STAR label on them. To their credit, the EPA has created a new version called Version 4.0 that goes into effect in May 2010. Unfortunately there is no easy way for consumers to easily determine which models meet the more efficient ENERGY STAR 4.0. That's where NRDC comes in....
To find the models on the market today that meet the ENERGY STAR 4.0 power requirements, we've written up a shopping guide for you.
These models are smart buys -- they'll keep your electric bills down but still give you the same great picture and sound quality provided by the high tech TVs of today.
Of course - while making sure the TV you buy meets the Energy Star 4.0 power limits is the most important step you can take to shopping energy-smart, there are a few more tips to enjoying your TV while keeping your energy bills in check:
First (or really second) - Only buy as big a TV as you really need. In general, bigger TVs use more energy and cost more to operate than smaller ones.
Second (or really third) - Adjust the brightness. When setting up your new TV, be sure to pick the "home" mode setting. This setting may cut your power use by up to 25% compared to other settings such as "vivid" or "retail" which are unnecessarily bright for most users.
Lastly - if you're swapping out an old TV for a new one, be sure to dispose of the old one properly (after all - older CRT televisions contain 4-8 pounds of lead, along with various other toxic materials, and no one needs that in our landfills). So....
Recycle your old TV. This helps reduce the pollution and energy use tied to the production of new electronics, and keeps hazardous materials out of landfills.
- The Electronics TakeBack Coalition (NRDC is a member of ETBC) provides this map with links to responsible recyclers in each state.
- ETBC also provides this guide of TV companies that have take-back programs.
And while you're taking steps in your own life, I should note what NRDC is doing on its end to ensure all TVs become as energy-smart as possible. Beyond our work with Energy Star, we were also a part of a recent victory in California - last week the California Energy Commission adopted the most advanced TV energy efficiency standards in the world. The new standards will make new TVs sold in California 30-50 percent more efficient and put almost a billion dollars a year back into the California economy in the form of lower electricity bills. Plus, the electricity saved will be equal to the amount used by all the homes in Oakland and Anaheim annually, and the new standard will also eliminate the need for California to build a new, large-sized 500 MW power plant, reducing carbon emissions equal to removing 500,000 cars from the road. Sounds like a pretty good plan, right?
Hopefully, that win will become the model for things to come around the world. Stay tuned.
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
peter dublin — Nov 30 2009 05:28 PM
RE California TV efficiency standards:
Clearly saving energy can have cost savings benefits,
but regulations are in my view wrong....
1.
Where there is a problem - deal with the problem
Energy:
There is no energy shortage
(given renewable/nuclear development possibilities, with set emission limits)
and consumers - not politicians - pay for energy and how they wish to use it.
Notice: If there was an energy shortage, its price rise would
-- Limit people using it anyway, and make renewable energy more attractive
-- Make energy efficient products more attractive to buy.
No need to legislate for it.
It might sound great to
"Let everyone save energy and money by only allowing energy efficient products"
However:
Energy efficiency is only one advantage a product can have,
and mandating for energy efficiency unfortunately means that product features have to be sacrificed in other areas
- or the products would be energy efficient already.
Products that use more energy can have performance,
appearance and construction advantages
Examples (using cars, buildings, dishwashers, TV sets, light bulbs etc):
http://ceolas.net/#cc211x
For example, with current California TV legislation, big plasma TV screens have image contrast and other
advantages along with their large image sizes.
Conversely, using other examples:
Energy efficient lights may be slower to come on, bulkier, less bright, mercury containing.
Energy efficient buildings are often sealed buildings - not always what users want.
Energy efficient cars tend to be unsafe (light in build and weight) and slower
- and so on.
Also, imposing energy efficiency usually means increasing cost
or, as said, the products would be more energy efficient already.
There might therefore not be any total running cost savings either,
depending on how much such a cheaper product is used.
Other factors also contribute to a lack of savings:
If households use less energy as a result of the various bans,
then utility companies make less money,
and will just raise electricity prices to cover their costs.
So people don't save as much money as they thought.
Conversely,
energy efficiency in effect means cheaper energy,
so people just leave TV sets etc on more, using more energy, knowing that energy bills are lower,
as also shown by Scottish and Cambridge research
http://ceolas.net/#cc214x
Either way, supposed energy - or money - savings aren't there.
Emissions?
Do electrical products give out any CO2 gas?
Emissions (for all else they contain too) can be dealt with directly via energy substitution or emission processing
See http://www.ceolas.net/#cc1x
The argument that
"dealing directly with energy and emissions takes too long and costs too much"
does not hold up:
http://www.ceolas.net/#cc201x
- there is also the taxation alternative......
2.
The Taxation alternative
While still wrong, taxation is better than bans for all concerned.
Bans on TVs, light bulbs etc are not like a ban on dangerous lead paint!
They are simply bans to (supposedly) reduce electricity consumption.
TV set taxation based on energy efficiency - unlike bans - gives Government income on
the reduced sales, while consumers keep choice.
This also applies generally,
to cars, buildings, dishwashers, light bulbs etc,
where politicians instead keep trying to define what people can or can't use,
which unfortunately alienates many from more important environmental cooperation.
2 Billion ordinary light bulbs are sold annually in the USA, so just on them, significant tax income can be raised.
The tax money raised can be used to fund home energy/insulation
schemes, renewable projects etc that lower energy use and emissions
more than remaining product use raises them.
Energy efficient products can have any sales taxes lowered, making
them cheaper than today.
People are not just hit by taxes, they don't have to buy the higher
taxed products - and at least they can still buy them.
Of course, to avoid smuggling, bans (and to a lesser extent taxes) have to be applied nationwide or internationally.
Both bans and taxes can be seen as unjustified,
taxes just being a comparably better option, also for ban proponents.