I just bought a 32" set which draws 117 watts. My incremental cost for
electricity is about 10 US cents per KWH or 1.17 cents/hour. Hardly
seems an excessive waste to me.
Chuck Norcutt
On 1/16/2011 3:58 PM, Wiliam Wagenaar wrote:
> You are probably quite right about that. Energy efficiency had no part in
> this option. Large screens still cost more energy than smaller ones,
> although the LED's are already much better than the LCD's and those are
> better than Plasma. Maybe in the near future the screens like the ones found
> in e-books will be large enough and good enough to display photos, at least
> in B&W. They only cost energy when displaying something else.
>
> Wiliam
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Barker [mailto:ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: zondag 16 januari 2011 21:33
> To: Olympus Camera Discussion
> Subject: Re: [OM] Re :OT photo frames (was: OT A one-milion dollar
> photographic print)
>
> I'm sure that they would look good, but what a waste of energy.
>
> Chris
>
> On 16 Jan 2011, at 19:27, Wiliam Wagenaar wrote:
>
>> I'm quite sure this can not be too much of a problem. Several LCD or LED
>> TV's are available with WiFi and/or memory card slots. Quite sure it will
> be
>> possible to show a slideshow on them without any additional devices.
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|