Chuck
I wasn't referring to the cost to you, but to the planet. That's 117w more
than a picture uses (after allowing for its manufacture, of course).
Chris
On 17 Jan 2011, at 12:21, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> 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.
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|