Tougher Energy Star Standard Now in Effect
Tougher Energy Star Standard Now in Effect
Posted 05/04/2010 at 5:49am
| by Paul Lilly
9
Comments
Print
Things just got a whole lot tougher for HDTV makers, or at least those hoping to slap an Energy Star label on the box. That's because the new Energy Star 4.0 standard has officially gone into effect, and passing muster is no easy task.
As part of the new standard, the maximum amount of power an Energy Star TV can consume has dropped by about 40 percent, and any television manufactured on or after May 1, 2010 must meet this requirement in order to qualify for an Energy Star 4.0 logo. Models that are only 3.0 compliant can still qualify for the logo, but they must have been manufactured no later than April 30, 2010.
The newly stringent requirements come as a welcome change to environmentalists. Under the outgoing 3.0 specification, a 50-inch HDTV could consume 318 watts when turned off and still qualify for the Energy Star logo, but under the 4.0 specification, that same set would not be allowed to consume any more than 153 watts to be considered Energy Star compliant.
This means that several TVs will drop from the EPA's online list of compliant televisions, but at the same time, several manufactures are already looking ahead with Energy Star 4.0 compliant models slated for a 2010 release, including ones from Panasonic, Samsung, Sharp, Sony, and Vizio.
Looking further ahead, Energy Star 5.0 will go into effect on May 1, 2012 and reduce power requirements even more. TV sets 50 inches and larger will be able to consume no more than 108 watts when 5.0 goes into effect.
More like this
9
Comments
Comments are closed on this article
Keith E. Whisman
May 04, 2010 at 3:52pm
Damn 153Watts is crazy for a device thats turned off. Come on. With LED TVs I think it's possible to produce a large screen TV that can sip power at 108Watts but the sound system is going to suffer. We are just going to have to accept that some devices are going to be power hungry when turned on but when off they should be off except for the trickle thats needed to keep data alive in volatile memory or user adjustable settings in a ROM. There just is no way in hell a surround sound speaker system is going to pump out wonderful sound with a limit of 108watts. So TVs can get the all important energy star seal that actually I've never used as a basis for making a purchase but I'm sure someone out there only buys ES devices.
violian
May 04, 2010 at 10:58am
Can't be right....320W when turned off? If that's the case, I'm thinking of leaving work early just to go unplug my tv from the wall - lol.
NAYRhyno
May 04, 2010 at 9:52am
Wait, wait, wait... 320 W while powered off? Revised to 150 W while OFF?? Is this a typo or the real spec? If it is true, that is insane. My television uses <3 W while off (meaured at the wall with a Kill-a-Watt).
EDIT: Ok I read the source article. The spec refers to when the TV is on. So 150 W for a 50" is decent. Of course it depends on the brightness and backlight settings, but still it is something.
__________________________
Game-Central.org
timmyw
May 04, 2010 at 8:40am
While people often forget the load all these devices use when they are "off" the referenced article states that 318 watts was the maximum allowable while turned on not off as you state.
This is also part of the problem, most people have no idea what a watt is or what it represents. 300+ watts is a significant amount of power. I looked at that figure and immediately thought no way, that figure has to be wrong. Most people understand MPG and how much a gallon of gasoline costs. Very few understand KWh and how much one costs. This is why trials of meters that show usage in dollars and located inside the home lead to as much as a 20% reduction in electricity usage.
I have to concur that Energy Star rating is all but useless. The companies do there own certification and can configure the product in a way that a consumer would never use it just to get the rating. The GAO report on the Energy Star program shows that outright fraud is easy.
big_montana
May 04, 2010 at 7:02am
Energy Star Cert is a worthless, sham and bogus program. IF you read the Washigntom times you would know that in March "the Government Accountability Office [GAO] released a report on a $300 million Department of Energy program designed to promote commercial products that boast fashionable 'green' credentials. A team of GAO investigators with an uncharacteristically fine sense of humor submitted 20 bogus products to the department and walked away with Energy Star certification for 15 of them, including a gasoline-powered alarm clock." All this Energy Star program does is cost the consumer billions of dollars in the end with no perceived benefit as they stamp anything that comes through with Energy Star approval without testing.
violian
May 04, 2010 at 7:33pm
yeah, I agree. I did some work in this field where we submitted our products' specs to get the E-Star ratings - and although we never lied because we have high reputation in the industry, there are many loop-holes in process. The E-Star program just simply cannot afford to look into every submission they get - just impossible.
major_tom
May 04, 2010 at 8:57am
Let's be practical: no one's buying a gas powered alarm clock (aside from one in their car or a backup generator when the main line goes dark). Energy Star isn't the police, but it's not a scam either. It's propaganda, it's a commercial, it's an ad campaign, and if just a few manufacturers take it seriously then it's not only worth it, it's working.
As tech moves from Edison's incandescent tungsten filaments, to CFL, to LED, to OLED, energy savings are becoming more important in marketing products (especially battery powered products). Sure, Energy Star could label any product as "green", but as a consumer who only has so many dollars to vote with, I usually research and verify that claim before I buy. In fact, there are several consumer magazines who usually report when a given product uses more than it's fair share of the electricity and help me decide if there's a trade-off that's worth the extra watt or not.
big_montana
May 05, 2010 at 4:58am
But the purpose of Energy Star is so you do not have to do all the above research before purchasing to make sure they live up to the label. Any product labeled as Energy Star is supposed to be Green, but not all are, as the manufacturers know they do not test the products. The size and scope of governemnt has been growing for teh last 10 years, so do not tell me they cannot test teh products, they can, if they stayed off the net and quit surfing for porn and just did their job. Not having enough time is no excuse in my job, and is definetle not an acceptable for a government agency as well.
tri8gman
May 04, 2010 at 8:22am
The device still has its power rating printed on it... If you really care and aren't just a sucker for marketing, you read that label or buy something like the Kill-A-Watt.
Connect with MaximumPC
Featured Content
The gang discusses the GTX 690, Trinity, Ivy Bridge, Amazon, big-box stores, MMOs,...
This month's issue
Feature
Build a PC On Any Budget
Feature
Cloud Services Showdown
How-To
Encrypt Your External Drive
Build It
Upgrade an X58 Rig
Most Commented Articles
Latest Max PC Tweets
- maximumpc: Original RickRoll Video Returns to YouTube After 24-Hour Copyright Hiatus http://t.co/MaH9Sxyy2 days 4 hours ago
- maximumpc: Corsair has decided not to go forward with its $78 million IPO, citing weak equity market conditions http://t.co/A5a4DAzj2 days 4 hours ago
- maximumpc: Want to work at Maximum PC? Our Online Managing Editor, Alex, is moving away, so we need a new one. http://t.co/9Z7JCh0E4 days 2 hours ago
