"You have touched on the subject that there needs to be another LCD vs. plasma shootout with the best LCDs vs. the best plasmas of right now."
Yes, I would love to see that. I think the LCD camp has more to gain (since they have traditionally been second to plasma in quality), so I could see them pushing for it.
In regards to plasma energy consumption, I haven't physically touched my EDTV plasma in a long time, but I am curious, so I will touch it to see how warm that it feels. It is probably 3 year old technology, and made by a lesser brand (LG), so it may not do as well as the newer plasmas when it comes to energy efficiency, but it would still be a fun thing for me to check. If you checked out the plasma site that I linked, the reason they say that plasmas can use less energy than LCDs is that the plasma energy output is variable. If you have a movie that just displays a white background and compare the plasma to a LCD, the plasma will use a lot more power than a LCD. On the other hand, if your movie was just a black background, the plasma would use almost no energy, and LCD would still use the same amount, causing LCD to comparitively use more power. Depending on the amount of darkness in the picture will determine whether plasmas or LCDs use more energy. Regardless, I don't think that most people spend 2k+ on a TV set and then worry about how much energy the TV set uses. I just highlighted this issue since the article was making some questionable claims about plasma TVs.