Hacker News Reader

Comment by CydeWeys | Hacker News Reader

The average power consumption of The Frame is 118 W (figure provided by Samsung). The average power consumption of an e-ink display that refreshes once daily and needs a single annual recharge is effectively 0 W. Using a rough price of electricity in San Francisco of just over $0.22/kWh, The Frame costs ~$230/yr to run.

I don't know if I could, in good conscience, countenance wasting that much electricity on running a TV 24/7 to show a static image that updates once daily. Yes, you'd have to be running the e-ink display for awhile to break even on the power costs, and you could save some money on The Frame by putting it on a schedule where it turns off at night, but it still seems overly wasteful.

View on HN

Realistically, the kWh is used to determine cost of ownership by most people, not environmental impact.

230~ USD a year to run a 600 dollar product versus the initial cost of a 2300 dollar display with little to no electricity overhead -- and both have similar rates of failure with regard to non-display components.. AND that's disregarding 'Samsung Vs. Small-Company-From-Slovenia' being a factor in the purchase.

I understand eink is unique, but that characteristic has to be sold to people as a trait that is worth the difference..

That's a hard sell, if compared directly to one another.

(p.s. backlit displays are tacky, but my house is covered in them. I love it. I'm a tacky kind of person, though.)

Hey, don't hold our heritage against us and rather swing by our Valley office when C-19 allows us to meet.

On the subject of price - I fully agree with you - the price for sure can't be justified just by energy savings. It's a completely different product, with totaly different features and use cases. And yes, using it just for reading the news is costly.

I do like I how it looks tho, but that's just me. :)

I'm not sure where you are getting that 118W number. I can't find it on that page. The energy guide[1] states 87 kWh per year at 5 hours per day so roughly 48W per hour rather than 118W so drop that yearly cost down around $100. Also I don't want to sound like I am shilling for Samsung, but there are various power saving options on the device. I'm not sure if those are included in the estimate. Either way, even in the markets with the most expensive electricity costs, it would take several years if not over a decade for this approach to match the initial price of the e-Ink option.

Also both these options are wasteful in the grand scheme of things. Yes, the LCD option will likely be more wasteful than the e-Ink version, but neither is particularly justifiable if you are concerned about waste. I would also venture a guess that on the full spectrum of environmental waste those two options are much closer together than either is to just throwing up an old fashioned art print on your wall.

[1] - https://image-us.samsung.com/SamsungUS/PVI/20200606/common-e...

> 87 kWh per year at 5 hours per day

I said in my post I'm using 24 hours per day, not 5. Multiply your figures by 24/5 to see the 24/7 costs.

> 48W per hour

1 W = 1 J/s. 48 J/s/hr would be some weird kind of accelerating power consumption, which is I assume not what you meant here.

I am no expert so it is entirely possible I am making a mistake with my conversions, but here is my math:

87 kWh = 5 hours per day * 365 days

87000 Wh = 1825 hours

87000 Wh / 1825 h = 47.7 W

47.7 W * 24 hours per day * 365 days = 418 kWh

418 kWh * $0.22 per kWh = $92

Again, why are you using 5 hours per day? When used as a photo frame, this is going to be on for a lot more than that. The pathological case here is it's on for 24 hours per day, not merely 5.

Because the 87 kWh total is based off the assumption of 5 hours per day. We need to use that to get to the actual wattage. Once I have the wattage, I can use that to get to the 24 hour per day 365 days per year usage of 418 kWh.

Another way of getting there is taking the 87 kWh estimate and multiplying it by 24/5 to get 418 kWh.

Ahhh, now I see what you're doing. I found a source that says 118 W though, so I guess it's just a case of dueling sources at this point. If someone owns one of these and has a Kill-A-Watt then we can find out for sure.

The energy star rating gives you the power use when on.

$10/year over $.12/kWh over (5hours/day*365days/year) is roughly 46W for the 32" version.

https://pisces.bbystatic.com/image2/BestBuy_US/images/produc...

wow in california this will bump you into the next tier.

if you had only these panels in your house, no other electrical use, you would pay:

  # | monthly
  -----------------------
  1 | $108
  2 | $238
  3 | $371
  4 | $530
  5 | $689

[ pg&e: 0-300kwh @ .24, 300-1200kwh @ .31, 1200kwh+ @ .38 ] it gets pricier with time of use + summer up to .48/kwh

Re: power saving

It also shuts off when folks leave the room. I assume it has a passive IR motion sensor.

“Art Mode: [...] Set the Motion Sensor timer, so when you leave the room, the screen turns off automatically to save energy.”

32" Class The Frame QLED HDR Smart TV (2020) - QN32LS03TBFXZA | Samsung US https://www.samsung.com/us/televisions-home-theater/tvs/the-...

Where are you getting the 118 W number from? A LED TV this size will use a fraction of that (30-40 W max, and can be brought down further with power saving options).

> How much electricity does this all use, I can hear you asking. I haven’t tested that out myself, but we do have a note from Samsung. They say The Frame needs almost the same amount of electricity in Art Mode as in TV mode. In hard figures, external reports talk of 100 watts in TV mode and 60 to 130 watts in Art Mode, depending how bright the room is. While Samsung themselves give 118 watts as the average value, they don’t specify if this is while watching TV of admiring art. But we can safely assume this isn’t a top-scoring environmentally friendly product yet.

https://www.digitec.ch/en/page/the-exciting-bit-is-when-you-...

Well there is your problem. That review is not of the 32" version. A bigger screen is going to require more power. I can't tell exactly what size those power numbers are from, but it is at least the 55" version and not the 32" version that was used as a comparison to the 32" e-Ink display in the original post.

Fair. I'll admit that I spent about 1/50th the time Googling it as we've now spent so far discussing it.

Haha, no problem. You had me flashing back to college wondering how I screwed up my unit conversions again.

Well on the plus side we now have figures for the annual electricity cost of both the 32" model and the larger 55" model. $100/year is probably still more than I'd want to pay on a picture frame though, I gotta say. That's about the same cost as basic Netflix.

I am right there with you. I can't say I would jump to purchase either but the $600 upfront and $100 per year option is less outrageous to me than the one that costs $2700 upfront but is practically free in perpetuity.

But light box type backlit art just doesn't look right, it's a cool comparison and worth doing, but with e-ink you get contrast that is proportional to the ambient light (and unless art mode changes significantly the refresh which it might, I haven't checked, LCD screen will still not photograph or film well). It won't photograph as well with flash etc. either. And obviously most important: if you have friends who are pretentious enough to turn up at your house wearing sunglasses, it'll look good for them too...

I get it's sort of priced as an intangible piece of art, that is worth wildly different amounts to different people, but to the people it's worthwhile to, the difference is everything.

Yes, I'm also a sucker for e-ink. I just love the aesthetic.

Thanks for digging into the costs and info then, it's been an interesting conversation to follow.

meanwhile, the e-ink display is black and white, so for the newspaper or some other kind of art might be enough, but the lcd screen on the other side is much more versatile, It can even show animations and video.

For reference, home delivery of the NYT is $10/week...$520 a year.

That does include more than just the front page though ;)

Damn, electricity is expensive in SF.

What's your local rate?

Expensive? Electricity is dirtcheap is the US. Try Germany, i pay 0.32 € per KW/h.

$0.1038/kWh where I live in the states.

Do you guys have variable rate plans? In Texas I pay spot rate updating every 5 minutes. There is a 3c/kwh fee regardless of price. Most of the time it's 2-3c/kwh however it occasionally goes to $1-9/kwh. At night it's usually .01c to sometimes well into the negatives where I get paid to use electricity. As you can imagine I charge my electric car at night and in average it only costs me about $2-3 per 1000 miles of range.

In Southern California, I paid about $0.32 per KwH.

It is expensive comparably. In Seattle, the winter starting price is 0.096$ per KWH, after exceeding a certain limit it goes to to 0.10$ per KWH.

Germany's high costs are a result of their shift to "renewable power" sources.

Renewable Russian gas, more precisely :)

0.05$ per kW*h in Russia.

Oh, that is expensive. Here in northern sweden I pay $0.08 per kWh. However you guys plastered all your houses with solar panels a few years ago so I guess that helps a lot to keep the cost down by not needing to buy so much.

That's what you get for shutting down nuclear plants that were already built and functioning just fine.

California is pretty expensive. PG&E is .24/.31/.38 per kwh - (punitively?) tiered depending on monthly usage.

I think the tiers are ~ 0-300kwh / 300-1200kwh / 1200kwh+ per month

You should try NYC.

Last month, ConEd charged me 12.65¢ per kWh just for delivery (before taxes, surcharges, etc). Then my actual electricity supplier charged me a further 16.90¢ per kWh. Call it 30¢ / kWh.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com