The hidden costs of PC monitors
by Alan Penman

PC Monitors have never been cheaper. The price of conventional CRTs starts from around £99 and even new-technology Flat Panel (LCD/TFT) screens have fallen below £299. But look beyond the capital cost to the total cost of ownership and the differentials disappear, the buying decisions become more complex.

World-wide, computers have been estimated to consume 240 billion kilowatt hours per year (the same as the energy consumption of the entire Brazilian economy). In the USA, one university calculated that their total spend on energy costs for their IT systems and associated air conditioning was in excess of $600k per annum. Further research showed that by investing in energy-efficient hardware and encouraging ‘best-practice’ energy efficiency by users the same university could effectively half their energy costs saving in the region of $300k per annum.

One of the most likely candidates for an energy-efficient upgrade is the PC monitor. A typical legacy computer system running a 17” CRT monitor and ink-jet printer has a total power consumption of between 100 and 250 watts. Of this, the monitor represents around 45% of the total power consumed. Upgrading a legacy 17” CRT monitor to a 15” energy-efficient LCD/ TFT monitor gives the same viewable screen area but halves power consumption from 70W to 25/35W during operation and slashes it to just 5W during standby. A significant saving in energy costs.

And there are other advantages. LCD monitors are half as deep as CRTs, enabling a significant reduction in desk-space and increased staff density. They are twice as bright, generate significantly lower heat and electromagnetic emissions than conventional CRT monitors and are flicker and glare-free.

Despite these advantages, not every company will be willing to make the higher capital investment in LCD monitors, which would achieve such dramatic long-term savings in energy costs and desk-space. For these companies, the potential lies in new technology CRT monitors which offer a the lowest capital investment yet still deliver more energy efficiency and lower cost of ownership than typical legacy systems.

To effectively balance capital cost against cost of ownership can be as simple as adding the power rating and ‘sleep-technology’ to the list of buying criteria for your hardware. Another is to check for approval to recognised standards of energy efficiency. Of these, the United States’ Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Energy Star programme is probably one of the most stringent. Hardware which complies with this standard will display the Energy Star logo.

Environmentally-aware manufacturers such as Hansol will also make the additional, optional, investment in TCO99, which regulates the level of radiation emissions and gives added assurance that the products have minimum environmental impact.

With hardware prices falling, energy consumption and total cost of ownership will increasingly occupy the minds of IT and Facilities managers, as well as monitor manufacturers such as Hansol, for some years to come.