TV's; a theoretical experiment

Probably no one out there has a working valve-type TV from the sixties anymore, but I was wondering what results you'd get if you plugged one in to a Kill-A-Watt and compared it to a modern LCD/LED/Plasma set.

You'd expect the pre-transistor set would use more power than even a 60" plasma. When running this would no doubt be true. But when you shut it off ... The old set's on/off switch disconnected the line from the whole of the circuitry (the horrible "instant-on" versions notwithstanding). New sets stay connected and leach a small amount of current all the time. So over the course of a year, which one would actually use more power? That would depend on how much TV you watch. At some point the tables would tip in favour of one over the other as a direct result of this "phantom usage".

In another post, Neil mentions the very old idea of "paddle wheels" - water wheels. This was mankind's first mechanization power source (discounting animals). Originally the mechanical energy was used directly, which limited the placement of any mills/plants. It was only logical to hook the over-shot or under-shot up to the generator and get "transportable" power which could be sent down wires to anywhere. This facilitated use, which as we all know inevitably meant usage increased. The point here is that lower power sources such as solar, wind, and micro-hydro would be more viable alternatives if people would just stop wasting so much energy. As always, conservation is the key.

Now what has that got to do with the TV question? It's the same bugabear as tankless vs. tank-type water heaters; the one that uses less energy over-all is not always the one that uses less energy at the moment. I keep seeing tankless heaters being pushed as energy salvation, but in an application where large volumes of hot water are necessary this simply is not the case.

If we're really going to conserve, our devices must be re-designed to really shut off when they're "off", and our understanding of energy use must be expanded to the long-term time-frame rather than the immediate.

Too many "green" things aren't green at all for the energy used (wasted) in their production & installation and the resultant disposal of whatever they replaced.

Nothing is ever simple, is it? :roll:

Completely unrelated but I have to mention it before I forget: the question about the use of breakers as switches. In agriculture, circuit breakers are routinely used as switches for heavy equipment such as vacuum pumps, compressors, barn cleaners, silo unloaders, grain augers, et cetera. There are thousands upon thousands of such uses all across North America being switched on and off dozens of times a day, every day, year after year without failure. The logical conclusion, therefor, is that circuit breakers can be reliably used as switches.

Forgive me; I'm a ramblin' ol' man.