Photosales
niJobfinder
niCarfinder
Home Delivery
Propertynews
EU to ban plasma televisions in battle against climate change
Monday, 12 January 2009
Energy-guzzling flatscreen plasma televisions will soon be banned as part of the battle against climate change, ministers have revealed.
“Minimum-energy performance standards” for televisions are expected to be agreed across Europe this spring, they say, and this should lead to “phasing out the most inefficient TVs”. At the same time, a compulsory labelling system will be drawn up to identify the best and worst devices.
The moves, which follow last week's withdrawal of the 100W incandescent lightbulb, are part of a drive to slow the rapid growth of electricity consumption in homes by phasing out wasteful devices and introducing more efficient ones. Giant plasma televisions can consume four times as much energy as traditional TVs that used cathode ray tubes (CRTs).
The number of televisions in homes, together with other electrical devices such as computers, scanners and coffee-makers, has also grown rapidly; there are now 60 million of them, one for every person in the country.
The amount of power needed to run this electronic explosion has more than doubled in the same period, and the official Energy Savings Trust estimates that it will grow by another 12 per cent over the next four years.
Different makes and models of television vary in their use of power, but a 42in plasma television may use some 822 kilowatt hours a year, compared to 350kWh by an LCD flat screen of the same size. A 32in CRT, the biggest available, would use 322kWh.
Now governments are finalising a mandatory EU regulation to set minimum standards for TVs. The worst performers will be phased out, and the rest will have to be labelled with energy ratings. The scheme is modelled on an existing one for white goods which has greatly increased their efficiency.
- Text Size
I have just come across this and am quite shocked. I have a 42" plasma TV it is 3 years old and is vastly superior to most new LCD versions. Looks like I will have to get out and get my 50 or 56" new Plasma TV before they are banned!
I have a large house with lots of 100W light bulbs inside and out side but I am glad to say that I have a replacement stock that should last me 30 years also!
Just doing my bit for the climate change con.
Posted by Martin | 11.09.09, 21:35 GMT
Banning the trade of CO2 emission levels would be a better choice. Allowing the trade of something that ought not to exist implies high CO2 emissions are acceptable.
Posted by Kelly | 27.01.09, 22:39 GMT
Fred,
The digital switch on in NI is not due until 2012, so if your TV is working, hang on to it. If you want to get the additional new digital TV channels in the mean time, buy a set-top box from your local supermarket for around £15.
The energy used in production, shipping, and marketing of you buying a new TV will be saved and you can sleep easy at night.
Gotta say though, the planet will still survive should you decide to splash out and get a new TV!
Posted by Stephen | 13.01.09, 18:34 GMT
In my understanding, the numbers quoted in the article are useless for comparison terms with your existing TV. If an appliance is rated at using 1000W, and if you run it for one hour, you use one kilowatt hour.
Without knowing the actual 'wattage' useage of the TV's in the article, saying a TV uses 822 kilowatt hours per year is a useless statistic. If it is rated at 1000w, this means you can watch it for 822 hours a year, (about 16hours/week). Or if its rated at 200W, for the same amount of electric use, you could watch it for 4110 hours per year (around 80hours/week)
Maybe the 'tele' should clarify how the telly actually uses energy!
Posted by StephenM | 13.01.09, 18:24 GMT
How about this. I have an award winning eco friendly 42" Philips LCD at 75w. Therfore four times is a very conservative estimate and should be as much as five times!
Not BS then Jarkko you just need to research more!
Posted by GDW | 13.01.09, 13:11 GMT
I don't know where that "4 times as much" figure comes from, but with the current crops of TVs that's complete BS:
Pioneer Kuro KRP-500A Plasma: 388W
Sony KDL-52Z4500 LCD: 320W
Granted, Sony has a 2" larger screen but then again, the Pioneer has a vastly superior picture. Anyways, the 4x (or even 2x) factor is totally ridiculous and widely circulated by news outlets as a fact.
Posted by Jarkko Laine | 13.01.09, 10:47 GMT
How long would the old TV's have to run to equal the amount of energy that goes in to making it's replacement and proper disposal. I'll be we'd be better off if everyone kept their TV's and didn't buy any new ones.
That being said, as long as it doesn't take more energy to make the energy efficient ones than they are expected to use in a normal lifetime, I think encouraging all new models sold to be as efficient as possible is a good thing.
Then again, I don't have a TV.
Posted by NtroP | 13.01.09, 00:32 GMT
I have been thinking for some time about replacing my 20year old 16" screen CRT TV as it seems so bulky compared to flat screen, although I would not want a huge one anyway. I am keen to decrease my carbon footprint and worry about the disposal of electrical equipment. Would I be better off keeping my TV and buying a top box for when digital TV becomes mandatory?
Posted by Fred | 12.01.09, 14:52 GMT