Thread: Black Google

Neat, though 75K a year, split among the entire world, is pretty meaningless

I think if all those same people switched to the power saving lightbulbs in their houses, the savings would go beyond the millions... who wants to do a back-of-the-napkin calculation?



I do have to say that I prefer black backgrounds in general, cause it's less strain on the eyes. When I read long posts on this forum (and most others like it, since the themes are usually very similar), I end up selecting the text to make it nicer on my eyes.

*DV moderator hint: create a theme like this (I'm about to go check if there already is one - yes, after posting this hehe)*

Funny, this idea has been circulating in my school email system for a while and a lot of people are saying how useless it is. It is, well, very, very useless. 75 000 is NOTHING... any incredibly small change that we can do on a global level can save WAY more energy than that. Meh.

on LCD's
black uses more electricity than white

Oh and, http://techlogg.com/content/view/360/31/

A) Blackle increases energy consumption in the majority of cases
B) Where it does save energy, it saves less than what you said it saves. That means a lot less saved than what you said. 75,000 dollars per year is about .000001 cents for everyone in the world. Then detract the fact that it saves a lot less energy than that, and on most monitors it inreases energy.

edit: ynot got to it first... but yeah.

I think the idea is less of how much energy and money it actually saves, and more an idea of how one little change can make a difference. Just think if we made many small changes like this. Little things add up.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

I think the idea is less of how much energy and money it actually saves, and more an idea of how one little change can make a difference. Just think if we made many small changes like this. Little things add up.

I think it's about convenience. A ton of tiny changes is very, very inconvenient and each one saves like, nothing. Yes it adds up, but it's inconvenient. And people are not willing to sacrifice convenience for nothing (in the scope of themselves). What needs to be done are large scale changes that do NOT sacrifice convenience and save people real money. People do things like switch to wood to heat their homes instead of using heating oil where I live. This saves hundreds per month. My family, instead of doing that (wood stoves costs thousands), we put the thermometer down like, 10 degrees (instead of like 1-3 degrees as a lot of people suggest). Our house was always like, 50-55 during the winter. We saved a lot by that, though sacrificing convenience. But yeah, basically, people won't be inconvenienced by something that causes them to have to do anything differently and saves them nothing. What would be better is if manufacturers are not hiring the prices and making their stuff more energy efficient without changing things for the user... this is being done. In this case, small things DO add up.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

I think the idea is less of how much energy and money it actually saves, and more an idea of how one little change can make a difference. Just think if we made many small changes like this. Little things add up.

QFT
I/v always liked that thinking.

Instead of one website changing its color scheme, every one who cares about this sort of thing should just change the settings on their web browser so it uses the least energy intensive color for every page. Not that hard; in firefox; Tools>Options>Content>Colors>Pick color and check off "Allow pages to choose their own colors...

Yea I saw that I was like WTF HAXS. Then I read the bottom and got the idea.