Question 13 - We're told that putting your TV on stand-by uses almost as much power as leaving it on. Is this true?

The question is too long for the subject line of this posting and so I have reproduced it here in full:

We're told that putting your TV on stand-by uses almost as much power as leaving it on. My question is in three parts:
1) Is this true?
2) If so, what's using all the power if the TV is simply primed to receive a signal from the remote?
3) Does this also apply to plasma, LCD and LED TVs?

I cannot claim to have conducted thorough research into the history of televisual standby arrangements but I have a hazy recollection of some manufacturer once launching a telly that would spring back to life from standby more quickly, mainly due to the fact that it didn't switch itself off properly in the first place. I assume this sort of thing is responsible for the claims of energy-hungry standby modes.

In the cold light of 2009, I find it hard to believe that any television made in the last ten years or so would fall into this category. Indeed, an estimate for the power consumption of televisions, taken from the internet (so definitely true) is as follows:

Cathode Ray Tube (remember them?) 200W (5W)
Liquid crystal display (LCD) 210W (2W)
Plasma 275W (4W)

Standby power rating is given in brackets. All of these sets give a similar size of picture.

As you can see, standby power consumption is very low, typically costing two or three (Great British) pounds per year. You may well consider that such a paltry amount of money is a small price to pay for the benefit of never having to walk over to your television and press a button. On the other hand, consider that with around twenty million tellies in the UK, this could amount to around forty million extra quid going to energy companies. People of Britain (and elsewhere), the choice is yours.

Followers Of This Blog

A quick note to any followers of this website... (Yes, I know that's currently one person but, as the cliché would have it, from small acorns, mighty oak trees will certainly grow.)

If you are following this blog using a user-name substantially different from your real-world-name, please sate my curiosity by sending me an email telling me who you are.

Thank you. It's much nicer to know when there are friendly faces in the audience.

Question 12 - If your website becomes a success will you be able to successfully off-shore answering questions to a staff of thousands...?

Due to the limitations of Blogger, the original question was truncated above. The full question is:

If your website becomes a success will you be able to successfully off-shore answering questions to a staff of thousands somewhere in Bangalore?

Clearly I am disappointed by the lack of faith shown by your use of the word 'if' at the top of the question. Nevertheless, I shall keep calm and carry on.

Once this website has established itself as the "go-to" place for those posing questions, dilemmas, paradoxes, worries or those seeking ready-made opinions, it may become tempting to outsource information gathering, while maintaining strict quality and stylistic control of the replies.

Nevertheless, people of the world, I give you my guarantee that this will not happen. I will not allow it to be happen. I will not allow the careful accumulation of facts by a team, whether in Bangalore or Bangor or Balham, to colour the replies that are posted here.

Instead, all answers will be carefully honed from the knowledge already within my head, unless I'm sufficiently interested in your quandary to bother to look up a few minor points (probably on Wikipedia). All sentences will be written using the two hands at the ends of my arms, directed only by thoughts from my brain.

In particular, once we are out of the initial phase and you are parting with your pounds by the thousands, it is important that you know precisely what you will be getting. It will be my advice, it will be my answer, it will be written by me for you.