We use common sense.™
Kevin Muller

The Dark Google Myth

We’ve all been sent this e-mail…

If Google had a black screen, taking into account the huge number of page views it receives, an estimated 750 mega watts/hour per year (sic) would be saved.

With this in mind, Google has created a black version of its search engine called Blackle, which functions in exactly the same ways as its white version, but consumes far less energy. Help to spread the word, use: http://www.blackle.com

Blackle.com

Firstly, that page was not created by Google but by an entirely different company. Blackle is simply hooking into Google’s search engine.

More importantly, other than the warm, tingly sensation you get when you feel that you have done something good, which is disputable in this case, there are few benefits to this proposal. As such, I find this article rather misleading.

The proposal would be appropriate if we were all using old CRT screens but with LCDs, the power usage is constant, with most of the power being used by the back lighting. Mere microvolts are needed to activate the actual liquid crystals in the case of a wristwatch or calculator, so with no back light, a small 1.5 Volt battery powering a watch or calculator can last several years. Similarly, the power used to run a CRT TV for one night would be enough to keep your LCD watch running for several generations. Making a LCD screen black does not use any less back light, unless it is made black by turning down the brightness, but that would be pointless as then you would not be able to see anything.

If anyone really wanted to save energy, it would probably make more sense to promote LCDs over CRTs, as they are generally more power-efficient. Google has been in the limelight for a while on the subject of energy consumption, and I am convinced that they would have better results if they focused their attention on reducing the power consumed by their servers.

Another though – why not search less? Every search you do contributes to the power consumption of Google’s servers, so fewer searches would probably save a lot more power than a black background. Don’t you think?

end of article

7 Comments

Comment feed | Back to Top

minxlj
11 September 2007, 09:55 ( Permalink )

Every time you USE your computer it contributes to power consumption, so here’s the only long-term solution – install renewable energy sources for your own home. Small-scale wind turbines are great in the UK, while solar thermal power would work in more sun-blessed countries :-)

If you can’t afford to install those, switch energy supplier to one who sources their electricity from renewable methods of wind, solar and hydro power.

When your CRT monitor has reached the end of its useful life (and not before, that’s just wasting resources) recycle it properly and switch to a more efficient LCD screen. Always switch off the monitor and computer fully when not in use, and utilise a sleep function if you have one.

valery
11 September 2007, 11:39 ( Permalink )

Anyway why go to the Google homepage when you have a search box in your web browser ?

huphtur
11 September 2007, 13:15 ( Permalink )

Google’s official reply to the nonsense.
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/is-black-new-green.html

Jorge Laranjo
12 September 2007, 02:11 ( Permalink )

Yet, everyone know that Blackle.com is rubbish but nevertheless I true believe that they are making a few bucks with Adsense…

wyclef
12 September 2007, 11:37 ( Permalink )

If google had a black screen, many users have to pay a money to hospital. Because their eyes must be getting hurt.

Communication Agency
24 September 2007, 22:32 ( Permalink )

Empire strikes backs. Dark side of Google.

just curious
17 October 2007, 21:40 ( Permalink )

too bad people wouldn’t use it because it would hurt their eyes. I wonder what the carbon offset of a non useful green page is?

Comments closed for this article.

About the author:
Also by this author
Related Articles

The Dark Google Myth

Tuesday September 11, 2007 by Kevin Muller

We’ve all been sent this e-mail…

If Google had a black screen, taking into account the huge number of page views it receives, an estimated 750 mega watts/hour per year (sic) would be saved.

With this in mind, Google has created a black version of its search engine called Blackle, which functions in exactly the same ways as its white version, but consumes far less energy. Help to spread the word, use: http://www.blackle.com

Blackle.com

Firstly, that page was not created by Google but by an entirely different company. Blackle is simply hooking into Google’s search engine.

More importantly, other than the warm, tingly sensation you get when you feel that you have done something good, which is disputable in this case, there are few benefits to this proposal. As such, I find this article rather misleading.

The proposal would be appropriate if we were all using old CRT screens but with LCDs, the power usage is constant, with most of the power being used by the back lighting. Mere microvolts are needed to activate the actual liquid crystals in the case of a wristwatch or calculator, so with no back light, a small 1.5 Volt battery powering a watch or calculator can last several years. Similarly, the power used to run a CRT TV for one night would be enough to keep your LCD watch running for several generations. Making a LCD screen black does not use any less back light, unless it is made black by turning down the brightness, but that would be pointless as then you would not be able to see anything.

If anyone really wanted to save energy, it would probably make more sense to promote LCDs over CRTs, as they are generally more power-efficient. Google has been in the limelight for a while on the subject of energy consumption, and I am convinced that they would have better results if they focused their attention on reducing the power consumed by their servers.

Another though – why not search less? Every search you do contributes to the power consumption of Google’s servers, so fewer searches would probably save a lot more power than a black background. Don’t you think?