4 ms·

For some products, like TVs, it's not clear what 'efficiency' is measured with respect to. The end product is a maximum energy use, not an `efficiency` measure.

For some products, like TVs, it's not clear what 'efficiency' is measured with respect to. The end product is a maximum energy use, not an `efficiency` measure. Efficiency is typically understood to be a the ratio of the useful work performed to the total energy expended. For something like a light bulb, you can calculate a theoretical maximum amount of light that could be produced per Watt of power (assuming for the sake of argument a single wavelength of light) and then compare the amount of light being produced to the number of Watts being used. The ratio is the efficiency. But as the 'output' of the TV is 'entertainment', and there's no ISO unit of entertainment, it's hard to measure what the output is. If one produces a `better` picture quality, but uses an extra 100 Watts of power, you can easily measure and compare the extra power used, but not the picture quality. If a TV produces a brighter picture for the same power, is that a good or a bad thing with respect to efficiency? Surely it must be one or the other? As you can't measure the output in a meaningful way, these limits end up being arbitrary lines in the sand with respect to energy usage. I must concede it might end up influencing manufacturers to make more energy efficient products to `get the grade`, but it still rankles to call these grades measures of efficiency. sidenote: It's slightly amusing that the limits apply to the `default` mode provided on a TV, I wonder whether you'll start seeing TVs ship with very dark picture 'defaults' that end users then have to manually switch from.

tshaddox 4y ago
Couldn’t you calculate efficiency by measuring the energy usage and visible light output, just like a light bulb? A (hypothetical) 100% efficient TV would use the exact amount of energy as it outputs as visible light (and therefore emit no waste heat). Yes, a TV that is bigger and/or brighter would still use more energy, but there are reasonable limits on the practical visible light output of home TVs anyway. And yes, it would also depend on the brightness and other characteristics of the specific video content. A video with less visible light output is obvious not inherently “less entertaining” than a video with more visible light output. But benchmarks could use some reasonable large “corpus” of video content.
- joncrocks 4y ago
  You could potentially have that as another dimension. But imagine you have two TVs, identical sizes. A 4K TV that uses 900W and a 8K TV that uses 905W. Which is more efficient? You have two TVs, one only supports stereo sound that uses 800W and one that supports Dolby Surround, Atmos etc. that uses 801W. (for the sake of argument, we're talking about passthrough to an external audio device with its own power rating) Which is more efficient? It's hard to create non-subjective measurements/comparisons between TV outputs that can be compared as they are potentially multi-dimensional comparisons.
  - tshaddox 4y ago
    > But imagine you have two TVs, identical sizes. A 4K TV that uses 900W and a 8K TV that uses 905W. Assuming the same amount of visible light output, the 900W one is more efficient. What’s controversial about that? It’s no different than how a car might have a more appealing appearance but that causes it to be less fuel efficient. The efficiency calculation is not complicated by the fact that sometimes people value things other than efficiency.
    - joncrocks 4y ago
      The controversial aspect is that this is a TV, not a simple light source. A light bulb would by this definition be a very efficient TV. The 'useful' part of a TV is the moving pictures, and one could argue that a 'quantitatively' better picture should have some bearing on an efficiency metric. I would argue that a TV that can only show 1 frame a second for the same energy that another TV can show 60 should be considered less efficient. The comparison with a car is an interesting one. From that perspective, we would hold all things equal, and then compare the easy to measure metric. i.e. Showing 480p content at 24 frames per second, stereo only, non-HDR content. This might then be similar to the way we measure fuel efficiency for given speed + driving conditions, AC off etc.
      - tshaddox 4y ago
        > A light bulb would by this definition be a very efficient TV. Well, no, it’s not a TV. I never defined the term “TV,” I merely defined “efficiency” for a TV. We could quibble on some edge cases (is a digital photo frame a TV?) and I’m sure any environment regulations would need to go into excruciating detail, but that doesn’t mean we can’t immediately dismiss the notion that a light bulb is a TV. > I would argue that a TV that can only show 1 frame a second for the same energy that another TV can show 60 should be considered less efficient. You seem to be stuck in the mindset that efficiency is the only thing that matters, as if “efficient” simply means “good.” But no, efficiency is just one attribute. A hypothetical TV that clearly can’t function as a TV for the vast majority of people doesn’t illustrate a problem with my straightforward notion of efficiency. If there were strict environmental regulations for this stuff, of course they would need to define some classes of devices and define some reasonable efficiency requirements based on the capabilities of each class of device. > From that perspective, we would hold all things equal, and then compare the easy to measure metric. i.e. Showing 480p content at 24 frames per second, stereo only, non-HDR content. That could be useful information to have, for consumers and perhaps for regulators. I mentioned that benchmarks would probably need to use some large corpus of content. But efficiency would still be defined as I proposed, and it’s very possible and not at all problematic for a less capable TV to be more efficient (just like it’s possible and not problematic for a faster car to be less fuel efficient).
Macha 4y ago
Even light bulbs have this problem - see all the smart bulbs getting F/G ratings because they're being compared to regular bulbs and when the competition is "a handful of LEDs", it's hard to have the margin for your bluetooth receiver.
xsmasher 4y ago
They compare TVs of the same size and give them a rating based on the amount of power used; or fail them if they exceed some maximum power usage. It's linked from the article in GP's post. https://commission.europa.eu/energy-climate-change-environment/standards-tools-and-labels/products-labelling-rules-and-requirements/energy-label-and-ecodesign/energy-efficient-products/electronic-displays-including-televisions_en https://commission.europa.eu/energy-climate-change-environme...

tshaddox 4y ago

Couldn’t you calculate efficiency by measuring the energy usage and visible light output, just like a light bulb? A (hypothetical) 100% efficient TV would use the exact amount of energy as it outputs as visible light (and therefore emit no waste heat). Yes, a TV that is bigger and/or brighter would still use more energy, but there are reasonable limits on the practical visible light output of home TVs anyway. And yes, it would also depend on the brightness and other characteristics of the specific video content. A video with less visible light output is obvious not inherently “less entertaining” than a video with more visible light output. But benchmarks could use some reasonable large “corpus” of video content.

joncrocks 4y ago
You could potentially have that as another dimension. But imagine you have two TVs, identical sizes. A 4K TV that uses 900W and a 8K TV that uses 905W. Which is more efficient? You have two TVs, one only supports stereo sound that uses 800W and one that supports Dolby Surround, Atmos etc. that uses 801W. (for the sake of argument, we're talking about passthrough to an external audio device with its own power rating) Which is more efficient? It's hard to create non-subjective measurements/comparisons between TV outputs that can be compared as they are potentially multi-dimensional comparisons.
- tshaddox 4y ago
  > But imagine you have two TVs, identical sizes. A 4K TV that uses 900W and a 8K TV that uses 905W. Assuming the same amount of visible light output, the 900W one is more efficient. What’s controversial about that? It’s no different than how a car might have a more appealing appearance but that causes it to be less fuel efficient. The efficiency calculation is not complicated by the fact that sometimes people value things other than efficiency.
  - joncrocks 4y ago
    The controversial aspect is that this is a TV, not a simple light source. A light bulb would by this definition be a very efficient TV. The 'useful' part of a TV is the moving pictures, and one could argue that a 'quantitatively' better picture should have some bearing on an efficiency metric. I would argue that a TV that can only show 1 frame a second for the same energy that another TV can show 60 should be considered less efficient. The comparison with a car is an interesting one. From that perspective, we would hold all things equal, and then compare the easy to measure metric. i.e. Showing 480p content at 24 frames per second, stereo only, non-HDR content. This might then be similar to the way we measure fuel efficiency for given speed + driving conditions, AC off etc.
    - tshaddox 4y ago
      > A light bulb would by this definition be a very efficient TV. Well, no, it’s not a TV. I never defined the term “TV,” I merely defined “efficiency” for a TV. We could quibble on some edge cases (is a digital photo frame a TV?) and I’m sure any environment regulations would need to go into excruciating detail, but that doesn’t mean we can’t immediately dismiss the notion that a light bulb is a TV. > I would argue that a TV that can only show 1 frame a second for the same energy that another TV can show 60 should be considered less efficient. You seem to be stuck in the mindset that efficiency is the only thing that matters, as if “efficient” simply means “good.” But no, efficiency is just one attribute. A hypothetical TV that clearly can’t function as a TV for the vast majority of people doesn’t illustrate a problem with my straightforward notion of efficiency. If there were strict environmental regulations for this stuff, of course they would need to define some classes of devices and define some reasonable efficiency requirements based on the capabilities of each class of device. > From that perspective, we would hold all things equal, and then compare the easy to measure metric. i.e. Showing 480p content at 24 frames per second, stereo only, non-HDR content. That could be useful information to have, for consumers and perhaps for regulators. I mentioned that benchmarks would probably need to use some large corpus of content. But efficiency would still be defined as I proposed, and it’s very possible and not at all problematic for a less capable TV to be more efficient (just like it’s possible and not problematic for a faster car to be less fuel efficient).

Macha 4y ago

Even light bulbs have this problem - see all the smart bulbs getting F/G ratings because they're being compared to regular bulbs and when the competition is "a handful of LEDs", it's hard to have the margin for your bluetooth receiver.

xsmasher 4y ago

They compare TVs of the same size and give them a rating based on the amount of power used; or fail them if they exceed some maximum power usage. It's linked from the article in GP's post. https://commission.europa.eu/energy-climate-change-environment/standards-tools-and-labels/products-labelling-rules-and-requirements/energy-label-and-ecodesign/energy-efficient-products/electronic-displays-including-televisions_en https://commission.europa.eu/energy-climate-change-environme...