Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

TV Manufacturers Accused of Gaming Energy Usage Tests (cbslocal.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the game-mode dept.

The Natural Resources Defense Council has issued a new report accusing Samsung, LG and Vizio of "misleading consumers and regulators about how much energy high-definition screens devour, alleging that the televisions were designed to perform more efficiently during government testing than in ordinary use." The report "estimates that the collective electricity bills during a decade of watching the high-definition TVs will be $1.2 billion higher than the energy ratings imply," and that "the higher energy usage generates an additional 5 million metric tons of carbon pollution." CBS Local reports: The findings are based on an analysis of high-definition TVs with screens spanning at least 55 inches made in 2015 and 2016. The estimates on electricity costs are based on high definition TVs with screens 32 inches and larger. The study concluded that Samsung and LG have gamed the system during government testing in an effort to get better scores on the "Energy Star" yellow labels that appear on the sets in stores. Those scores often influence the buying decisions of consumers looking to save money on their utility bills. The report said Samsung and LG did not break any laws in their manipulation of the tests, but rather exploited weaknesses in the Department of Energy's system to measure electricity usage. The Samsung and LG sets have a dimming feature that turns off the screens' backlight during part of the 10-minute video clip used in government tests. But that does not typically happen when the sets are being used in homes to watch sports, comedies, dramas and news programming. The analysis also found that Samsung, LG and Vizio disable energy-saving features in their TVs when consumers change the factory setting on the picture, a common practice. The energy-saving feature is turned off, with little or no warning on the screen, sometimes doubling the amount of electricity consumed, according to the NRDC report.

8 of 86 comments (clear)

  1. Thats terrible by 110010001000 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I can't afford the extra 75 cents this year. I was counting on the manufacturers numbers to make my budget numbers. I guess I will just need to skip a meal. Damn you, LG!

    1. Re:Thats terrible by JBMcB · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm sure a horde of lawyers would love to charge $50 for each $0.75 refund check cut in their class action.

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    2. Re:Thats terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, let's send the message to large corporations that fraud is a-ok and we aren't even going to bother pretending to punish them any more. There's no way that could possibly lead to further problems down the road.!

  2. No end... by XSportSeeker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Diesel, energy usage... this really has no end, right?
    You start wondering if your home appliances, electronics and whatnot are really all that efficient, or if in fact it's just all the testing procedures that are rigged instead.

    1. Re:No end... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I has Engineer degree...
      I actually am an Engineer, a Test Engineer. An Experimental Physics Test Engineer. Sometimes the Physics Folks get a little too enamored of the Physics, without paying attention to the lowly Engineer tugging at their sleeve and trying to get across the point that something unintended is about to explode...

      In my experience, such Energy Usage Tests are extremely conservative. The Vizio LED Monitor that I'm looking at right now, as stated in the manual, consumes 65 Watts. In reality, and this does vary, it's more like ~21 Watts. The 24" Polaroid Monitor on my boat that has a 12VDC Brick, (That is precisely why I bought it...), consumes at average lighting levels, only 9 Watts off the Ship's Batteries. The manual says 27.

      I've gone around and measured the Energy Usage of just about everything in my house and boat, and consistently, with the exception of the Kettles and one space heater, they use substantially less electricity than advertised. Even this MacBook Air, whose sucking goes all over the place, averages out to about 3 Watts. Playing a Flash video with sound turned all the way up, it goes to 7 Watts. Turn off the Wifi, and just type away in near darkness... 2.1 Watts. Apple was very conservative in estimating battery life; I've gone 14 hours on one charge, typing away like mad until dawn. Apple says I should expect 9.

      But there is one area that concerns none of us here except me maybe, and that is Power Factor. I just happen to have an ancient HP Vector Voltmeter. (A Vector Voltmeter, very simply, compares Phase of two otherwise identical sinusoidal signals, and displays the Phase Difference on a meter.) The absolute values that the VV displays isn't of any real interest to me, as long as a calibrated Resistive source, like a Tea Kettle, centers the meter. Historically, the VV shows how Inductive a load is, like in a refrigerator compressor. It was rare to come across Capacitive loads, except maybe Cyclotrons. But increasingly now, these newfangled switching power supplies do show _Capacitive_ Reactance. That is, they draw more "Imaginary" Capacitive Reactive Watts than Resistive. We don't care, because we pay for Real Watts. But Power Companies, who rely on Energy Usage Tests to forecast demand and allow for it, do care. It gets _very_ complicated to put down in writing just how much Power a device uses under all circumstances, while a VV dances away. So, to make it easy for everyone, just state the worst-case scenario- Fold worst-case Reactance into the measured Resistive load, add a fudge factor, and state that this Vizio consumes 65 Watts. Plan around this accordingly. (I'm not getting any further into this without getting very tiresome indeed; just Google "Power Factor".)
      If everybody plays by the same rules, we have some semblance of Reality, with "Imaginary" Tendrils.

      I don't know the Realities of this Case; I would need to take randomly chosen victims into my Underground Lair and subject them to the Vector Voltmeter, and once the acrid smoke clears, make some calculations. But with the premise of always underpromise and overdeliver for Government Certification, or face the Consequences, "Gaming" Energy Usage Tests makes no sense here. Anybody buying a 55" TV to watch mostly commercials simply doesn't care.

      I call... "Doubtful".

  3. Even bad its good by vux984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Compared to the plasmas, rear projection screens, and even good old fasioned CRTs over the last dozen years the new LED units are positively energy sippers.

    Even so, update the tests and fix the stickers; consumers should know what they are buying.

    Although I do take exception to the idea that the auto dimming during the test is 'unrealistic' -- yeah its true there isn't a minute of blackness during the average superbowl. But I can't tell you how often a movie has ended, or someone walked away from the HTPC, or something and its gone to sleep. Some of the devices go idle/sleep/off the TV basically shuts the screen off. Others it goes to this blue no-signal screen which it doesn't seem to detect as idle, and will sit there glowing blue nothing for hours... so yeah... testing what the screen does when its not being used SHOULD be part of the testing.

  4. What's our take away on this supposed to be? by tlambert · · Score: 3, Informative

    What's our take away on this supposed to be?

    (A) These evil scoundrels are cheating on the government tests

    (B) The people who are designing the government tests epically suck at their jobs, should be fired, and have competent people hired in their places

    I'm going to have to vote "B" here, folks.

  5. So they studied for the test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Unless they did some Volkswagen-esque cheat the detected that a test was running and changed settings on the fly, then all they were doing was optimizing for the test, which is hardly fraud. They can't stop a consumer for switching to ultra-bright or from watching continuous flashing Pokemon episodes. It is impossible to come up with a "standardized" test that perfectly replicates "real world" conditions. My real world conditions are different than yours. All you can do is come up with some standardized test that is hopefully representative. If the government failed, then change the test.