Why more LCD than Plasma?

amf1932 · 03-06-2008, 10:22 PM

Power consumption compared

LCD - 52" Sony XBR 4/5 = 330 watts

Plasma - 50" Panasonic = 705 watts

Plasma's are the most power hungry, inefficient type of TV's manufactured today.........although, they're very good at keeping a cold room warm.

Codes20 · 03-06-2008, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amf1932

Power consumption compared

LCD - 52" Sony XBR 4/5 = 330 watts

Plasma - 50" Panasonic = 705 watts

Plasma's are the most power hungry, inefficient type of TV's manufactured today.........although, they're very good at keeping a cold room warm.

You do know that a plasma on a dark scene uses less energy than a similar sized LCD on the same dark scene, right?

The Panasonic 50" will use a mean of probably 400-450 watts, as all pixels are not lit to full brightness all of the time.

BobY · 03-06-2008, 10:33 PM

Not claiming to be an expert, but I'm one of those who thinks a good Plasma looks better than the best LCD's.

LCD's are popular because they are considerably cheaper to manufacture in smaller sizes (less than 50"). LCD's are manufactured using pretty much the same technology used for manufacturing semiconductors, like memory chips and, like memory chips, the price is pretty much controlled by the yield of good parts. Also like memory chips, the yield goes down as the part gets bigger. That's why LCD's don't have nearly the price advantage over Plasmas in larger sizes as they do in smaller sizes.

Additionally, it is more difficult and expensive to produce high-resolution Plasma displays in smaller sizes due to the physical characteristics of the pixels in a Plasma display--essentially tiny glass ampules with metal electrodes. At 42" and below, a 1080p (1920 x 1080) LCD is not uncommon, but there are few 1080p Plasma displays in that size range.

The major cost factor in an LCD is the size of the panel, not the resolution of the panel. Although higher resolution LCD's require more driver circuitry and are apt to have lower yield as there are more pixels and therefore statistically there is a greater chance of a bad pixel, it is difficult to manufacture a high-resolution Plasma panel in smaller sizes at all.

The only downsides of Plasma in the real world are glare from the glass panel (although some Plasmas have an anti-reflective coating) and the heat generated. There are those who will warn you about power consumption (which, IMHO is a total red herring--comparing a larger Plasma panel against a smaller LCD doesn't prove anything. The power consumption of a Plasma display is trivially more than LCD per square inch and the impact the difference would make on your electric bill is irrelevant. You can save more money by changing a few 100 watt light bulbs in your house to fluorescents, than by choosing an LCD over a Plasma display).

People will also warn you about burn-in. It's true that there is little chance of permanently damaging an LCD by continuously displaying an image, regardless of picture settings, but it's harder to permanently damage a Plasma display with burn-in than people think. If you take the display off the factory preset "torch" setting, designed to make the display look punchy in a typical overly-bright store environment, and are reasonably careful during the break-in period you should have no problems.

The downsides of LCD are still black level, viewing angle and motion blur. All of these have gotten significantly better over the years but to my eyes even the best LCD's are not good enough. Plasma displays work by generating light, while LCD's work by filtering light coming from behind. In order to produce a deep black, they must be capable of fully blocking the light from behind. Only the best LCD's can do that and even then, as you move off axis you can see the backlight bleeding through turning "black" into dark grey or purple.

Motion response of a Plasma panel is essentially instantaneous, while LCD's have an inherent lag since each pixel is a capacitor that takes time to charge and discharge. Some of the newer 120Hz LCD's blank the screen during the time the pixels are changing, so you don't see any blur, but most LCD's do not, so, to me, at least, the picture on an LCD just doesn't look as sharp on moving objects.

I tend to watch movies in a darkened room, so glare is not an issue for me and I love the color saturation and image depth of a good Plasma display.

If it really matters to you whether you spend an extra $3.00 a month on electricity for a Plasma over an LCD (compare equal screen sizes):

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-...3.html?tag=arw

pappylap · 03-06-2008, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amf1932

Power consumption compared

LCD - 52" Sony XBR 4/5 = 330 watts

Plasma - 50" Panasonic = 705 watts

Plasma's are the most power hungry, inefficient type of TV's manufactured today.........although, they're very good at keeping a cold room warm.

Holy crap, another one who doesnt understand that that number is measured "full on"... Dont you know that Plasmas are dynamic in their power consumption, during very bright scenes they use all their available power during dark scenes their power consumption drops ...we have already shown in previous threads that it is generally $3.00 to $4.00 more a month to own and use a Plasma over a comp sized LCD....

these numbers from Crutchfields own testing of comp sized models

Panasonic TH-50PX75U
50" plasma HDTV

Power Consumption
Power On (Manufacturer) 499 maximum watts
Standby (Manufacturer) 0.20 watts
Power On (Crutchfield-tested) 365.50 watts
Standby (Crutchfield-tested) 0.07 watts
Estimated Cost per Month (Crutchfield-tested) $6.67

Sony KDL-52XBR5
52" BRAVIA® XBR® 1080p LCD HDTV with 120Hz refresh rate

Power Consumption
Power On (Manufacturer) 320 in use watts
Standby (Manufacturer) 0.40 watts
Power On (Crutchfield-tested) 304.98 watts
Standby (Crutchfield-tested) 0.06 watts
Estimated Cost per Month (Crutchfield-tested) $5.57

Trying to make an informed decision...

Codes20 · 03-06-2008, 10:51 PM

There you have it, a whopping $1.10 more to operate a plasma over an LCD per month. Under $0.04 a day.

gosmosis · 03-07-2008, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobY

Not claiming to be an expert, but I'm one of those who thinks a good Plasma looks better than the best LCD's.

LCD's are popular because they are considerably cheaper to manufacture in smaller sizes (less than 50"). LCD's are manufactured using pretty much the same technology used for manufacturing semiconductors, like memory chips and, like memory chips, the price is pretty much controlled by the yield of good parts. Also like memory chips, the yield goes down as the part gets bigger. That's why LCD's don't have nearly the price advantage over Plasmas in larger sizes as they do in smaller sizes.

Additionally, it is more difficult and expensive to produce high-resolution Plasma displays in smaller sizes due to the physical characteristics of the pixels in a Plasma display--essentially tiny glass ampules with metal electrodes. At 42" and below, a 1080p (1920 x 1080) LCD is not uncommon, but there are few 1080p Plasma displays in that size range.

The major cost factor in an LCD is the size of the panel, not the resolution of the panel. Although higher resolution LCD's require more driver circuitry and are apt to have lower yield as there are more pixels and therefore statistically there is a greater chance of a bad pixel, it is difficult to manufacture a high-resolution Plasma panel in smaller sizes at all.

The only downsides of Plasma in the real world are glare from the glass panel (although some Plasmas have an anti-reflective coating) and the heat generated. There are those who will warn you about power consumption (which, IMHO is a total red herring--comparing a larger Plasma panel against a smaller LCD doesn't prove anything. The power consumption of a Plasma display is trivially more than LCD per square inch and the impact the difference would make on your electric bill is irrelevant. You can save more money by changing a few 100 watt light bulbs in your house to fluorescents, than by choosing an LCD over a Plasma display).

People will also warn you about burn-in. It's true that there is little chance of permanently damaging an LCD by continuously displaying an image, regardless of picture settings, but it's harder to permanently damage a Plasma display with burn-in than people think. If you take the display off the factory preset "torch" setting, designed to make the display look punchy in a typical overly-bright store environment, and are reasonably careful during the break-in period you should have no problems.

The downsides of LCD are still black level, viewing angle and motion blur. All of these have gotten significantly better over the years but to my eyes even the best LCD's are not good enough. Plasma displays work by generating light, while LCD's work by filtering light coming from behind. In order to produce a deep black, they must be capable of fully blocking the light from behind. Only the best LCD's can do that and even then, as you move off axis you can see the backlight bleeding through turning "black" into dark grey or purple.

Motion response of a Plasma panel is essentially instantaneous, while LCD's have an inherent lag since each pixel is a capacitor that takes time to charge and discharge. Some of the newer 120Hz LCD's blank the screen during the time the pixels are changing, so you don't see any blur, but most LCD's do not, so, to me, at least, the picture on an LCD just doesn't look as sharp on moving objects.

I tend to watch movies in a darkened room, so glare is not an issue for me and I love the color saturation and image depth of a good Plasma display.

If it really matters to you whether you spend an extra $3.00 a month on electricity for a Plasma over an LCD (compare equal screen sizes):

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-...3.html?tag=arw

Maybe not an expert, but you know a hell of a lot more than I do about this subject. Thanks for that thorough, easy to understand comparison. Makes it much clearer to me at least. Luckily, my electric bill is out the roof anyway due to having teens in the house and high cost of heating. So, I could care less about a few cents per day. I need to save a few dollars a day to make any kind of difference.

Your comments about the downside of LCD is what I suspected. I also suspected that plasma excelled in those catagories. I didn't realise that plasma generated some heat though. Interesting.

So, I guess after reading all this, IMO, if LCD can vastly improve blacks and viewing angles - I would be very pleased

Scottnot · 03-07-2008, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pappylap

Think of it this way Gosmos....do they sell more Hondas and Fords or Farrari and Lamborghini?.....

That's a good point pappy. And I certainly am not going to put on my armor nor join any crusade to defend LCD.
But, my take is that plasma has a marginal edge over LCD and this gets us into "phile -ism".
I am not a videophile . . . I like my LCD . . . I have no grudge against those who prefer plasma.

Quote:

from the sound and vision link:
"The real irony here is that although the three seasoned AV experts on the panel agree on which produces the best picture, the average consumer probably prefers the "LCD's dynamic pop" and unrealistic bright colors to the almost perfect realistic colors of the Plasma."

While I disagree with "dynamic pop" and "unrealistic bright colors" as I believe these can be taken care of with calibration,
I guess I am not an "AV expert", but rather just an "average consumer".

scootski · 03-07-2008, 08:55 AM

In general...
what happened to GREENER IS BETTER !

ALL the WATTAGE being sucked-up by any of these
big-screens is NOT "GREENER IS BETTER."

and yes... i just bought 2 LCD during the last month...

I think it is all BS about GREENER IS BETTER !
Somewhere, there is stink & smoke being fired-up
just so YOU & I can watch our kinky new TVs....

**rbinck** · 03-07-2008, 09:00 AM

It boils down to light control in the room. If you have a high ambient light area the LCDs will be a better choice for you. If you have a darkened room the plasma will give you a better picture. Most commercial installations will favor LCD as well as brightly lit family rooms.

We put a plasma in a gymnasium with a lot of windows and mirrors and it was completely unwatchable. It was replaced with a LCD.

Also when pondering this subject, people tend to think all situations are like their own. A natural point of reference. But the truth is there are a lot more situations that will favor a LCD than plasma displays. Chances are you may find a single large screen TV in a house whereas in a car dealership there may be 10 or 12. Move into an airport and between the displays that display travel information to the TVs it could be in the hundreds for a large airport all would be better with a LCD over plasma. Sports bars and clubs tend more toward plasmas due to dimmer environments, but all in all commercial installations are better served by LCDs.

When looking at what a manufacturer offers it is instructive to consider the entire market for a given technology not just your home theater.

gosmosis · 03-07-2008, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rbinck

It boils down to light control in the room. If you have a high ambient light area the LCDs will be a better choice for you. If you have a darkened room the plasma will give you a better picture. Most commercial installations will favor LCD as well as brightly lit family rooms.

We put a plasma in a gymnasium with a lot of windows and mirrors and it was completely unwatchable. It was replaced with a LCD.

Also when pondering this subject, people tend to think all situations are like their own. A natural point of reference. But the truth is there are a lot more situations that will favor a LCD than plasma displays. Chances are you may find a single large screen TV in a house whereas in a car dealership there may be 10 or 12. Move into an airport and between the displays that display travel information to the TVs it could be in the hundreds for a large airport all would be better with a LCD over plasma. Sports bars and clubs tend more toward plasmas due to dimmer environments, but all in all commercial installations are better served by LCDs.

When looking at what a manufacturer offers it is instructive to consider the entire market for a given technology not just your home theater.

Also good points about the lighting aspect. I'm a sucker for a great picture and accurate colors. If I had a theatre room (and I currently don't), I would lean plasma. Most of my viewing is done at night. Do the plasmas reflect typical lights, say from 60 watt bulbs in a lamp? If they do - I would not be happy. My LCD (Sansung 4061f) that I had did not reflect light. It was very adequate during the day too.

pappylap · 03-07-2008, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scottnot

That's a good point pappy. And I certainly am not going to put on my armor nor join any crusade to defend LCD.
But, my take is that plasma has a marginal edge over LCD and this gets us into "phile -ism".
I am not a videophile . . . I like my LCD . . . I have no grudge against those who prefer plasma.

While I disagree with "dynamic pop" and "unrealistic bright colors" as I believe these can be taken care of with calibration,
I guess I am not an "AV expert", but rather just an "average consumer".

Hey Im an LCD man currently as you can see and LCD fits my needs better than plasma I game alot and I use my 37" as a PC monitor...I do feel I am a better informed consumer now than I was in 06 and I will buy Plasma next time as I plan to level up so to speak......I feel that Plasmas do best what these displays were engineered to do in the first place, give an almost theater like experience to movies and show HD sports without the pixelation of the LCDs 2 big +s IMHO anyway...

Loves2Watch · 03-07-2008, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gosmosis

Most of my viewing is done at night. Do the plasmas reflect typical lights, say from 60 watt bulbs in a lamp?

No, that doesn't bother it at all.

Frank123 · 03-07-2008, 09:25 AM

There's a place in our area that sells apples. They have a huge orchard and have many different varieties. They have Golden delicious, Jonagold, Jonathan, McIntosh, Gala, Fuji--just all kinds of apples. I happen to like the Jonagold, myself. Now that doesn’t mean that the Jonagold is the better apple. It's just the one that I happen to like. My wife likes the Golden Delicious. I don't think that I am better at judging apples than my wife. She just happens to like the Golden delicious and I happen to like Jonagold. Because I like one type of apple and my wife likes another, it doesn’t mean that one or the other is better. It just means that we all have different tastes. That’s the way it is with apples. Now--we have Plasma and we have LCD. I wonder if comparing Plasma and LCD is something like comparing apples.

gosmosis · 03-07-2008, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank123

There's a place in our area that sells apples. They have a huge orchard and have many different varieties. They have Golden delicious, Jonagold, Jonathan, McIntosh, Gala, Fuji--just all kinds of apples. I happen to like the Jonagold, myself. Now that doesn’t mean that the Jonagold is the better apple. It's just the one that I happen to like. My wife likes the Golden Delicious. I don't think that I am better at judging apples than my wife. She just happens to like the Golden delicious and I happen to like Jonagold. Because I like one type of apple and my wife likes another, it doesn’t mean that one or the other is better. It just means that we all have different tastes. That’s the way it is with apples. Now--we have Plasma and we have LCD. I wonder if comparing Plasma and LCD is something like comparing apples.

IMO - no. Apples are old technology, HDTV is new (new to me). If you tell me an apple is crisp and very sweet - I know exactly what you mean. If you tell me plasma gives a better picture than LCD and then I go to BB and they all look the same...well, what to do? I do need all these opinions. They help educate me. Currently, I'm slightly educated on the pros and cons of HDTV, but hearing all these opinions (sprinkled with fact) help me a lot. It does boil down to what you like - but, there are so many variables and the BB and CC can't show you all the variables. Everything changes when you get it home. For example - I had not heard plasma run warmer than LCD. Well, what if I bought plasma and stuck it in a tight corner and the heat coming off it screwed up my thermostat? I guess I'd be ticked. So - all these comments are awesome.

s2mikey · 03-07-2008, 09:40 AM

The main issue is that LCDs are widely available in smaller sizes which gives them a quantity advantage right away. Also, I feel that stores tend to pimp LCD more for whetever reasons although Im quite sure its monetary since thats the whole point of being in business.

The bottom line is that the average user has VERY low standards and picture quality is secondary to price & whatever the guy at Sears tells you. The sad thing is that sometimes for even LESS than a similar sized LCD you can have a plasma that kills it in most picture quality areas. Again though....picture quality is not very high on the average buyers list. Reproducing the obnoxious, completely inaccurate look of the jacked-up LCDs at Best Buy is high on their list. Hey, thats cool.

The best measured contrast & black-levels are consistently achieved by plasmas. This is not debateable. Of course, Joe Six Pack runs his LCD in Torch mode anyways so what does he/she care about image quality? "Its a flat-panel man... coooool.". Thats about the extent of their involvement in the hobby.

Oh yeah, on a sidenote.... to those whining about power consumption.... leave the greenpeace propoganda on another forum. Im on a villiage power grid and my electricity is almost free so the more power my Pioneer gobbles up, the better.... YUM!!!!

03-06-2008, 10:33 PM	#18
BobY What's all this, then?... Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,197	Not claiming to be an expert, but I'm one of those who thinks a good Plasma looks better than the best LCD's. LCD's are popular because they are considerably cheaper to manufacture in smaller sizes (less than 50"). LCD's are manufactured using pretty much the same technology used for manufacturing semiconductors, like memory chips and, like memory chips, the price is pretty much controlled by the yield of good parts. Also like memory chips, the yield goes down as the part gets bigger. That's why LCD's don't have nearly the price advantage over Plasmas in larger sizes as they do in smaller sizes. Additionally, it is more difficult and expensive to produce high-resolution Plasma displays in smaller sizes due to the physical characteristics of the pixels in a Plasma display--essentially tiny glass ampules with metal electrodes. At 42" and below, a 1080p (1920 x 1080) LCD is not uncommon, but there are few 1080p Plasma displays in that size range. The major cost factor in an LCD is the size of the panel, not the resolution of the panel. Although higher resolution LCD's require more driver circuitry and are apt to have lower yield as there are more pixels and therefore statistically there is a greater chance of a bad pixel, it is difficult to manufacture a high-resolution Plasma panel in smaller sizes at all. The only downsides of Plasma in the real world are glare from the glass panel (although some Plasmas have an anti-reflective coating) and the heat generated. There are those who will warn you about power consumption (which, IMHO is a total red herring--comparing a larger Plasma panel against a smaller LCD doesn't prove anything. The power consumption of a Plasma display is trivially more than LCD per square inch and the impact the difference would make on your electric bill is irrelevant. You can save more money by changing a few 100 watt light bulbs in your house to fluorescents, than by choosing an LCD over a Plasma display). People will also warn you about burn-in. It's true that there is little chance of permanently damaging an LCD by continuously displaying an image, regardless of picture settings, but it's harder to permanently damage a Plasma display with burn-in than people think. If you take the display off the factory preset "torch" setting, designed to make the display look punchy in a typical overly-bright store environment, and are reasonably careful during the break-in period you should have no problems. The downsides of LCD are still black level, viewing angle and motion blur. All of these have gotten significantly better over the years but to my eyes even the best LCD's are not good enough. Plasma displays work by generating light, while LCD's work by filtering light coming from behind. In order to produce a deep black, they must be capable of fully blocking the light from behind. Only the best LCD's can do that and even then, as you move off axis you can see the backlight bleeding through turning "black" into dark grey or purple. Motion response of a Plasma panel is essentially instantaneous, while LCD's have an inherent lag since each pixel is a capacitor that takes time to charge and discharge. Some of the newer 120Hz LCD's blank the screen during the time the pixels are changing, so you don't see any blur, but most LCD's do not, so, to me, at least, the picture on an LCD just doesn't look as sharp on moving objects. I tend to watch movies in a darkened room, so glare is not an issue for me and I love the color saturation and image depth of a good Plasma display. If it really matters to you whether you spend an extra $3.00 a month on electricity for a Plasma over an LCD (compare equal screen sizes): http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-...3.html?tag=arw Last edited by BobY; 03-06-2008 at 10:49 PM.

03-07-2008, 09:00 AM	#24
rbinck Administrator Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Katy, Texas Posts: 12,338	It boils down to light control in the room. If you have a high ambient light area the LCDs will be a better choice for you. If you have a darkened room the plasma will give you a better picture. Most commercial installations will favor LCD as well as brightly lit family rooms. We put a plasma in a gymnasium with a lot of windows and mirrors and it was completely unwatchable. It was replaced with a LCD. Also when pondering this subject, people tend to think all situations are like their own. A natural point of reference. But the truth is there are a lot more situations that will favor a LCD than plasma displays. Chances are you may find a single large screen TV in a house whereas in a car dealership there may be 10 or 12. Move into an airport and between the displays that display travel information to the TVs it could be in the hundreds for a large airport all would be better with a LCD over plasma. Sports bars and clubs tend more toward plasmas due to dimmer environments, but all in all commercial installations are better served by LCDs. When looking at what a manufacturer offers it is instructive to consider the entire market for a given technology not just your home theater. __________________ www.highdefinitionblog.com www.BlogOfHawaii.com

03-07-2008, 09:25 AM	#28
Frank123 High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Ohio (The Buckeye State) Age: 78 Posts: 39	There's a place in our area that sells apples. They have a huge orchard and have many different varieties. They have Golden delicious, Jonagold, Jonathan, McIntosh, Gala, Fuji--just all kinds of apples. I happen to like the Jonagold, myself. Now that doesn’t mean that the Jonagold is the better apple. It's just the one that I happen to like. My wife likes the Golden Delicious. I don't think that I am better at judging apples than my wife. She just happens to like the Golden delicious and I happen to like Jonagold. Because I like one type of apple and my wife likes another, it doesn’t mean that one or the other is better. It just means that we all have different tastes. That’s the way it is with apples. Now--we have Plasma and we have LCD. I wonder if comparing Plasma and LCD is something like comparing apples. __________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My life-time goal is to be as nice a guy as my daughter's dog already thinks I am. __________________________________________________ ________________ What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us. ~Oliver Windell Holmes~

03-07-2008, 09:40 AM	#30
s2mikey Flat Panel Luvr Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Upstate, NY Posts: 972	The main issue is that LCDs are widely available in smaller sizes which gives them a quantity advantage right away. Also, I feel that stores tend to pimp LCD more for whetever reasons although Im quite sure its monetary since thats the whole point of being in business. The bottom line is that the average user has VERY low standards and picture quality is secondary to price & whatever the guy at Sears tells you. The sad thing is that sometimes for even LESS than a similar sized LCD you can have a plasma that kills it in most picture quality areas. Again though....picture quality is not very high on the average buyers list. Reproducing the obnoxious, completely inaccurate look of the jacked-up LCDs at Best Buy is high on their list. Hey, thats cool. The best measured contrast & black-levels are consistently achieved by plasmas. This is not debateable. Of course, Joe Six Pack runs his LCD in Torch mode anyways so what does he/she care about image quality? "Its a flat-panel man... coooool.". Thats about the extent of their involvement in the hobby. Oh yeah, on a sidenote.... to those whining about power consumption.... leave the greenpeace propoganda on another forum. Im on a villiage power grid and my electricity is almost free so the more power my Pioneer gobbles up, the better.... YUM!!!! __________________ Pioneer KURO 5080HD Sharp LCD 32" Toshiba A30 & A2 PS3 80gb Sony STRDG810/All Polk Speakers

03-06-2008, 10:22 PM	#16
amf1932 Sony 52" XBR4 Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 546	Power consumption compared LCD - 52" Sony XBR 4/5 = 330 watts Plasma - 50" Panasonic = 705 watts Plasma's are the most power hungry, inefficient type of TV's manufactured today.........although, they're very good at keeping a cold room warm.

03-06-2008, 10:51 PM	#20
Codes20 In need of speakers Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: CA Age: 24 Posts: 1,347	There you have it, a whopping $1.10 more to operate a plasma over an LCD per month. Under $0.04 a day.

03-07-2008, 08:55 AM	#23
scootski US Coast Guard -retired- Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Northshore Lake Superior, Minneosta, USA Posts: 700	In general... what happened to GREENER IS BETTER ! ALL the WATTAGE being sucked-up by any of these big-screens is NOT "GREENER IS BETTER." and yes... i just bought 2 LCD during the last month... I think it is all BS about GREENER IS BETTER ! Somewhere, there is stink & smoke being fired-up just so YOU & I can watch our kinky new TVs....