I connected a simple energy meter to my old (inherited with a house purchase so don't know exact age) 720p non-smart plasma TV to an energy meter just to get an idea of its power consumption. It was pulling between 350-400W! For comparison my 10 year old 1080p LED smart TV pulls about ~90W.

That's a benefit during winters in Canada, when it's on, I don't need to turn up the heat...

This trope is getting tired, heat pumps exist.

Maybe give it up, the energy savings associated with replacing it with a LCD/LED TV will quickly add up, environmentally and economically. Depends on how much TV you're watching though.

I still have a 50" 720p Toshiba plasma, from 2006.

Won't die... Been wanting to upgrade to a newer larger tv for years, but this thing keeps running along without issue...

I don't understand why people think electronics are supposed to die. Even if they do, it's often just some capacitors that died in the power supply. An easy fix!

this is about justification. The current thing works fine but I would like the new expensive thing. I cannot justify expense of replacing working thing, but if it would die, then it's justified expense.

it isn't about that it's more economical purchase when it dies, but I even saw people breaking stuff just so they "had to" buy new thing that they want.

Perhaps you’ve noticed this already but having bought my last TV in 2008 I had no idea how cheap they’ve gotten! Checking Amazon right now I see a 50” 4k Samsung for $450.

Expense doesn’t always mean purely financial. There is an environmental cost to buying something new as well, and a social cost in supporting the manufacture of electronics that may have less than perfect supply chain ethical standards.

I’m not saying this to be snarky or judgemental - your comment genuinely made me think about the issue and this was my response.

Yes absolutely.

An inevitable consequence of consumerism: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throw-away_society

Back in the day, there was a strong public perception/rumor that plasma screens would fail much sooner than other kinds. Maybe it was just a FUD campaign, after all.

Plasma did have an issue with 'burn in' on static images. If you did a lot of gaming on them, you could see it. Same with banners on news programming.

If you watch a lot of movies, it isn't an issue. Plus, the TVs came with a 'burn in' reduction program that you could run a couple times a year, but that operated by sweeping an intense white bar across the screen, so you were effectively 'wearing' the pixels down to a similar level to reduce the obvious burn in. If you ran that cycle to often, it would kill the maximum brightness.

Could have been FUD from manufacturers looking to push thier LCD TV over the competition plasmas.

Depending on how much it's on in a day, and the price of energy the cost of replacing it with an LCD might pay for itself.

wouldn't LCD be downgrade? i never owned plasma tv, but AFAIK biggest advantage are perfect blacks, so I guess OLED should be more natural upgrade path?

OLEDs have very good blacks, but as soon as a pixel needs to emit any light at all, it will be significantly brighter than what a regular IPS pixel can emit at it's lowest brightness.

LCD with full-array local dimming can get really close. It also gets much brighter than OLED. It's a much tougher decision than it used to be.

Also depends on the TV you upgrade to: replacing a 50" plasma with an 84" LCD will do nothing to decrease your energy usage.

While plasma uses a bit more energy than LCD it's not that big of a deal (especially if you've got one of the last gen plasma panels) if you don't use it as some sort of moving wallpaper but just turn it off when not in use.

Probably still would, if you interpolate this graph: https://www.rtings.com/images/power-consumption.png

Still, wouldn't recommend buying a huge TV. Jevons paradox and all.

Depends on the generation. I've got one of the last plasma's made (2013 model), it's a 42 inch panel and has a max consumption of 180W (only when at full brightness viewing a white screen).