Archives

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/05/black_google_sa.php

A few months ago, TreeHugger Mark Ontkush wrote a post on his blog EcoIron titled Black Google Would Save 750 Megawatt-hours a Year. The post lays out the following train of thought. “An all white web page uses about 74 watts to display, while an all black page uses only 59 watts.” Google, which has a white background and gets about “200 million queries a day” could reduce global energy use by 750 Megawatt-hours a year by simply changing the color of its homepage to black. (For more detailed calculations and assumptions check out the original post here.)

In response to this post a black version of Google emerged called Blackle.com. According to Blackle’s homepage at publication time, 4,408.917 Watt hours have been saved by. The site encourages users to “make a difference today [by] … Blackling "energy saving tips" or visit[ing] treehugger.com a great blog dedicated to environmental awareness.” Nice ideas. But how does the search measure up? Very well indeed. Give it a whirl yourself and start saving energy one search at a time. :: Blackle.com

I thought this was really cool - maybe pass the word

Just remember that this savings is only for CRTs. LCDs can display white at little to no added wattage.

good point - still lots of crts out there correct ?

Hey thanks ! I like the dark display with white search font - much easier on my eyes too .

I, otoh, found Blackle (sp?) very hard on the eyes, and am all too happy to go back to google which is my homepage. I turn down the contrast on my flat screen monitor as I find that even that bothers me a little.

I think it is pretty well proven that black on white is easier to read than white on black. (The earliest screens were white on green or black (and sometimes black on green.) I've heard such comments are anecdotal... hmm.

Maybe when you're a kid it doesn't matter. Heck at age 18 I would have read something red on red. :-)

Anyway, yesh.

--des