Article
30
commentsThe Backlight is On, But Nobody's Home
Published at 8:07pm on 29 Jul 2007
Environmentalism is turning the world mad. Obvious nonsense suddenly becomes gospel truth if it is uttered in the course of "saving the world". Apparently even Google is not safe from the ravages of the environmentalist movement. So where will it all end?
I don't mind admitting that I'm not a big fan of environmentalism. This confession is often met with shock and outrage - "don't you care about the planet? Think of your unborn grandchildren!", etc - but believe me, I have nothing against the environment, nor any desire to see it destroyed without good reason.
My hostility towards environmentalism in fact has nothing to do with its central tenet of protecting the environment - what I object to is the way that all logic, reason and any semblance of scientific rigour go out the window as soon as environmentalism is brought to the table.
Never was this effect more aptly demonstrated than by Mark Ontkush at ecoIron.
Mark reasoned that because displaying white pixels on a screen uses more energy than showing black ones, and given that Google is one of the most popular sites on the Internet, Google should change the background of its search page to black. He estimated that this would save "around 3000 Megawatt-hours a year", or $75,000 on energy bills. It was such a good idea that Heap Media actually went and implemented it. The result was Blackle.
This is wrong in so many ways that it's almost worth coining a new word for wrong to use in cases as extreme as this one, because ordinary "wrong" doesn't seem sufficient... "Ecoillogical" perhaps...
-
Even though Google is one of the most popular sites in the world, people hardly spend any time on it, they mostly just type in a search query and go somewhere else right away. Even for the people who have Google as their home page, the only time when it is showing for an extended period is when they are away from the computer, and most computers already have the power-saving feature of turning the monitor off when not in use for an extended period, which is much more energy-efficient than simply showing a black screen anyway. Besides which, many of the millions of queries that Google receives each day are via 3rd party tools or interfaces (such as the search fields in Firefox and IE7, or the Google toolbar, or even Blackle itself) and would therefore be largely unaffected by this change.
-
Most CRT-type monitors are now being phased out in homes and offices in favour of LCD flat screens because of various, mostly environmental reasons such as the fact that flat screens use fewer materials, take up less space and use considerably less power than a CRT monitor does.
Flat screens do not illuminate pixels on the screen, like CRTs do, but instead the screen is transparent, and a backlight is shone through the pixels. The brightness of this light is uniform across the whole screen and is not affected by the colour of the pixels. Colouring the screen black on an LCD display is equivalent to putting a lampshade on a light bulb - it makes it appear darker but it does not reduce the power consumption in any way.
In other words, for the ever-increasing majority of PC systems being sold now, (by Mark's own estimates, 75% of PCs in active use are now using LCDs) running the black version of Google will have zero reduction in their power consumption. But here's the real kicker...
-
Although the vast majority of power consumed by an LCD goes into powering the backlight, a small amount is used to colour the pixels on the screen. The liquid crystals used by these screens are naturally transparent, and only become opaque when a current is applied. Varying the current varies the opacity. So a white pixel is produced by turning the power off completely, and a black pixel is produced by turning the power up to maximum.
So yes, that's right, turning the screen black on a modern display without dimming the backlight means that the display is using the maximum possible power consumption.
Going on G4techTV's measurements for Samsung LCD TV power consumption, a predominantly white screen on an LCD saves around 1 watt over a black screen. So if 75% of screens are running LCDs, then the power saving of running the white version of Google is 4/15 of Mark's savings estimate for CRTs - 800 megawatts. You can subtract this from his figures, which are dubiously high anyway.
As adoption of LCD screens rises to 100% over the next few years, it is just barely conceivable that widespread adoption of Blackle may actually produce a measurable increase in power usage. Of course that 1000-odd megawatt increase would be an absolute drop in the ocean compared to the total power usage of computers, which one would expect to vary much more due to other components such as CPU's etc, but the point remains that the only possible effect of widespread adoption of this policy would be the exact opposite of its intention.
Some have suggested that by making the majority of the screen black you could then dim the display without any significant impact on legibility - but this is not the case either. If you can read white text on a black background with the display dimmed, then you can usually read black text on a white background at the same brightness level. In fact, Blackle's use of grey text on a black background is barely legible on the screen I'm using now even with brightness turned up to maximum. And you can't just dim the backlight behind the bits that are black either - at least not with any screen technology currently on the market.
Basically it's just a really moronic idea. It is so stupid that it beggars belief that anybody actually went so far as to implement it (although when you consider that every time someone uses Blackle to do a Google search, Google pays Heap Media some money, it suddenly seems like a much better idea from their point of view). The only reason I can think of why it got this far is the Reality Distortion Field (RDF) surrounding all things environmental.
This is the same effect that means self-confessedly ineffectual measures like the Kyoto protocol are praised for "taking a step in the right direction", as if wasting trillions of dollars on doing something that is not even supposed to have any significant impact on global warming is somehow the "right direction". Even its supporters admit that:
Even if the Protocol were implemented by all parties to the Kyoto conference, it would result in a just a 5.2% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels, reducing anthropogenic emissions from around 7.2 billions[sic] tons per year to about 6.8 billion tons per year. From an environmental standpoint, this agreement falls woefully short of measures needed to head off the warming of the earth.
...and yet somehow this doesn't seem to bother them. Even though Kyoto will simply serve to squander money that might be spent on real, effective environmental measures, they are happy to do it anyway.
It's not uncommon when times get desperate for people to want to try to do something, anything, to try and prevent disaster. And when nobody has any good ideas that might actually work, people resort to things that won't. This is presumably how the idea of the rain dance, or the human sacrifice came about.
When scientists started telling us that the Earth might be screwed, nobody wanted to hear that they had no practical solutions for how to prevent it, so the respectable scientists took a step back and we called for the shamans of climate control to do their rain dances and perform their sacrifices in the hope that it might help us.
"Bring forth your garbage and let us read its entrails!" they cried "We must separate the plastic from the paper and the aluminium, for mixing of our waste products angers the gods!"
"You must forsake your earthly trappings, sacrifice your holidays to the Bahamas so that the gods of carbon may be appeased. Give up your four-by-fours and embrace the holy hybrid-electric chariot. May the fumes from your biodiesel appease the mighty ones".
And so we go through this ridiculous rigmarole of separating and subdividing our waste into new categories and abandon luxuries such as patio heaters, sports utility vehicles and recreational air travel. We go to pop concerts where tiresome manufactured bands blare out songs about how we've destroyed the Earth and then spend the money on planting trees to absorb the CO2 generated by flying them to the concert arena. And at no point do we even pretend that any of this might actually have more than a trivial impact on the environment. We do it not because it is the right thing, but because it is important that we be seen to be doing something.
But no matter how desperate the situation gets (and the assertion that the situation is desperate, or even existent, is hardly uncontroversial at this point), it is never so desperate that it becomes a good idea to do the wrong thing. The wrong solution is, by definition, wrong. It may seem that taking small ineffectual measures is a step in the right direction, but in fact all it does is squander time, effort and resources that are now no longer available to devote to finding a solution that might actually work.
Environmentalists are trying to tell us that the only way to save the planet is to take a technological step backwards. The logical conclusion of their arguments is that we must revert back to a pre-industrial society to curb the byproducts of modern living. They are telling us this because they are too ignorant and short-sighted to realise that the best way to solve a problem is by actually solving the problem rather than second guessing all previous solutions to all previous problems, in case they somehow brought about the current one.
The industrial revolution was not just an example of western greed - it was how we dug ourselves out of the feudal gutter. It was how we set ourselves on the path to curing disease, eliminating poverty and generally giving the citizens of our society a chance to aspire to something better than tending cattle or digging ditches all their lives. The industrial revolution was the solution to a vast number of really horrible problems that faced humanity, many of which had a much more pronounced impact on our lives than the ice caps melting would do now. But one solution often introduces new problems, which must themselves be solved. This isn't some big disaster, it's what life is all about.
We encounter a problem. We solve it. We move on.
The really crazy thing about environmentalist thinking is that it somehow blinds us to actual plausible solutions in favour of ridiculous ones. Somehow vast, impractical, expensive, long-term plans become favoured over simpler ones that might actually work. For the cost of Kyoto we could equip tens of millions of houses with solar panels for example, or construct a giant orbital mirror to deflect radiation from the Sun. These ideas sound far-fetched and too expensive to be practical - and indeed they probably are - but I for one would rather waste a trillion dollars on an impractical solution that would probably work than waste the same amount or more on one which we already know for a fact won't.
And of course the final appeal of the environmentalists is to our guilt. They tell us that it is the third world that will be worst affected by climate change. Yes, those poor starving kids in Africa that we all feel so bad about are the ones who are going to be the first to get flooded when the ice caps melt because we refused to stop taking foreign holidays.
This is of course the very worst hypocrisy of the environmental movement, because it is partly our refusal to help the third world to develop the gas-guzzling, coal-burning technologies of our own industrial revolution that is preventing them from becoming "first world" societies in the first place. Our treatment of the third world is like some kind of twisted Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy, where we keep them poor and starving so that we may forever be in charge of looking after them and coddling them so people can see how selfless we all are.
So enough of this nonsense. By all means spend time and effort trying to save the planet, but please stop trying to ram half-baked ideas like Blackle or oppressive and pointless measures like Kyoto down our throats. A stupid idea does not automatically become good just because its inventor was worrying about the environment when he had it. An ineffective solution is not worth implementing anyway just because its inventors are well-meaning.
The time to buy electric cars is when they become a practical and affordable alternative to petrol cars. If we really are running out of oil then that will happen soon - if it doesn't then it suggests that something is wrong with the theory of why we need them in the first place.
And the time to start worrying about which colours on your screen are most energy efficient is about the same time that you want to check yourself into an institution and ask for a jacket with really long sleeves.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are those of the author and are not shared by Charcoal Design unless specifically stated. The material is for general information only and does not constitute investment, tax, legal or other form of advice. You should not rely on this information to make (or refrain from making) any decisions. Always obtain independent, professional advice for your own particular situation.
Comments
Blackle and the answer to Liff as we know it
Wonderful article, made me laugh and wish more people thought the same way.
ReplyPosted by a reader at 03:20am on 08 Aug 2007
Blackle and the answer to Liff as we know it
Well done, well done! Stop the madness eco-freaks
ReplyPosted by Jon McClintock at 12:54pm on 29 Aug 2007
"You should not rely on this information..." !
"...what I object to is the way that all logic, reason and any semblance of scientific rigour go out the window as soon as environmentalism is brought to the table."
"Environmentalists are trying to tell us that the only way to save the planet is to revert back to a pre-industrial society."
Generalize much?
If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem. And you, sir, are part of the problem. "...construct a giant orbital mirror to deflect radiation from the Sun"? Laughable. You have some good points but they are undermined by the vast quantities of bullshit they're buried in.
ReplyPosted by a reader at 12:09pm on 01 Sep 2007
Re:"You should not rely on this information..." !
"If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem. And you, sir, are part of the problem. "
And you accuse *me* of generalisation...
This attitude that because I'm suggesting that we stop and think before acting I must be complicit in the end of the world is exactly the reason why I feel that it is so hard to take advocates of the environmental movement seriously.
You find the idea of humans saving our environment through a large engineering project "laughable", and yet you expect everyone to accept that it is precisely our large engineering projects that have caused this impending disaster in the first place.
It's a crude double standard whose basic driving force has nothing to do with science and everything to do with western guilt and this vaguely mystical idea that we have sinned against nature and that nature is now punishing us for our arrogance.
ReplyPosted by Nick at 12:35pm on 01 Sep 2007
But science is EVIL!
How can you say that we could save our environment using "a large engineering project"? Technology is what is causing climate change to begin with, therefore technology is inherently evil and should be shunned by all followers of the One True Path.
Duh.
ReplyPosted by a reader at 3:49pm on 01 Sep 2007
Waste of energy?
How about taking the time that you use to talk about these issues to come up with a "backlight off" version of this obsolete program? Is this possible with the Mac's backlighting without putting the entire machine to sleep?
Be as you would like the world to become.
ReplyPosted by a reader at 04:31am on 05 Sep 2007
Huh?
Sorry, you've lost me...
"backlight off"?
"obsolete program?"
What are you referring to? - not Blackle presumably, since it's not a program and has no control over your computer's backlight...
As for turning the backlight off, this can be done easily on most machines, but the result is a black screen, which isn't much use if you want to actually use the computer for anything.
ReplyPosted by Nick at 9:52pm on 05 Sep 2007
The new true religion
But the Kyoto protocol goes to 11...
ReplyPosted by a reader at 3:18pm on 07 Sep 2007
A simple test
Great article. What amazes me is that no one bothered to test this with a watt meter. (http://cableorganizer.com/electricity-power-meter/) We pulled out a power meter and hooked it up to a monitor to test it and it turned out exactly as you said above. The black screen uses more power than the white screen. Please click the link then click on the video button to see the results.
ReplyPosted by Paul Holstein at 3:08pm on 08 Oct 2007
Re: A simple test
Nice video - I'll forgive the flagrant blogvertising :-)
ReplyPosted by Nick at 5:49pm on 08 Oct 2007
Conservation is the answer
I live in a place where 99% of the out of town commuters bitch about the crowded highways, yet 92% are traveling in huge SUVs all by themselves. They pressure the state to build more highways (over important bird migration swamplands) so they can burn fuel and look hip in their steel buggies, all the while getting angry at each other because they are all in each other's way. It's a lose-lose proposition, but no one wants to be discomforted. And statistics show that child-age asthma in my area is sky-rocketing. So be cool and be anti-this or anti-that all you want, but please don't tell me I'm being a naive by listening and being open to pro-environmentalism. I hope NASA fails to ever launch a interplanetary ship to carry our inept species to another planet just to muck it up. You'll enjoy this video: http://www.threeleggedlegs.com/repertoire/humans/
ReplyPosted by a reader at 4:08pm on 16 Oct 2007
A convenient fantasy
I like the video from an artistic standpoint, but the message is pure drivel. The authors freely admit they "hate the human species" - I wish other environmentalists were so open about their position.
Our planet has undergone numerous environmental changes and disasters throughout its long history - a history that did not even include humans as we'd recognise them until the last few hundred thousand years.
Nature does not exist in some kind of magical harmony that remained undisturbed until it was ruined by "evil" humanity. The fact is that all manner of species die out in all kinds of ways that have nothing to do with us, and natural disasters and climate change were a common occurence long before the industrial revolution.
An asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs, Vesuvius wiped out Pompeii. Death and destruction is not something we've committed against nature - it IS nature.
The planet will survive us. We've never done anything as destructive as the universe already attempted before we got here, and unlike nature we actually have the inclination and ability to try to save the environment. Nature doesn't try to preserve harmony or save species because - anthropomorphisation aside - nature doesn't have an opinion about these things.
It is possible that we may have triggered this round of global warming, but whether we caused it or not, climate change and other natural disasters are something we will need to learn to cope with because they are inevitable. Many of the technologies that we fear are causing climate change are the very same ones that will need to survive it. If we neglect them now then we really will be in trouble.
The real question is not what can we do to save the planet from the ravages of humanity, the question is what we can do to save humanity from the ravages of our planet.
Interplanetary colonisation is certainly one option, and unlike you I hope it happens sooner rather than later - but once again, I'm pretty sure BLACK SEARCH ENGINES AREN'T GOING TO HELP.
ReplyPosted by Nick at 1:42pm on 06 Nov 2007
i used to be a hippie
But over the years I to have seen lots of energy expended on solutions that weren't really any more eco friendly than what they replaced. I love this article you've written. So many good points.
ReplyPosted by a reader at 09:18am on 07 Nov 2007
Thank you!!!!
Such a welcome injection of common sense into this contrived sensationalism.
Your forthright, honest glimpse at just one of the many well intentioned but illogical environmentalist scams is nicely written.
It never ceases to amaze me at the way I'm-here-to-save-you-from-yourselves mentalities keep facts from getting in the way of some good fear mongering.
Keep up the good work!!
Posted by a reader at 4:56pm on 23 Nov 2007
Nice article
Personally I love saving energy but mostly for the selfish capitalist reason of cost savings. Even if you buy the whole premise that we're killing the earth, I'm glad to see good skepticism since we don't get it much from major media. You're not the only one out there thinking about this stuff.
The only real logical end I see for this "people bad, earth good" religion, when all these silly ideas fail and it becomes fever pitch, is the elimination of population. But who gets to choose which population remains? It could get scarier yet.
PS. I like the IQ test to submit the post.
ReplyPosted by a reader at 8:20pm on 26 Nov 2007
Black is Good for Light Sensitive Users
Forget the Environmental spiel - a Black Screen is tops for visually-impaired users with a high degree of light sensitivity - they can't stand the glare of a white background.
I find it surprising that a 'Marketing' company that has brought this innovation to market hasn't pushed this aspect of its product.
Posted by Eye,Eye at 07:16am on 30 Nov 2007
Re: Black is Good for Light Sensitive Users
Ah, well that is certainly true, and of course I have no problem with sites providing high-contrast alternative stylesheets for the visually impaired.
On a Macintosh this is largely redundant though, since "inverted screen mode" is one of the system-wide accessibility options. I daresay something similar is available for Windows. High-contrast isn't quite the same thing as inverted colour of course, but Google at least is pretty high contrast to begin with.
As for the marketing aspect... I don't really agree. There are a lot more gullible wannabe eco-warriors out there than there are visually impaired web suffers. It makes more sense to target the larger market segment if all you're after is page hits. If they sold it as an option for the disabled only they'd be cutting their target audience by a factor of 10.
ReplyPosted by Nick at 4:42pm on 30 Nov 2007
Other ways to reduce the carbon footprint of the Internet
Let's remember that the Internet itself is said to consume about 868 billion kWh (kilowatt hours) of electricity per year to run the Internet, associated PCs, routing infrastructure, and phone networks.รข (http://uclue.com/index.php?xq=724.)
But companies are stepping forward with solutions to reduce the energy use of the Internet. Solar Energy Host (http://www.solarenergyhost.com) for example, is hosting websites using 100% solar energy.
Posted by Aaron Handford at 01:34am on 04 Dec 2007
The key point
"Personally I love saving energy but mostly for the selfish capitalist reason of cost savings."
You have hit the right key, "reader". The hard truth is, no matter how loud the eco-freaks cry and the common citizen saves energy/recycles trash/buy clothes at the Salvation Army, the powers that be will do NOTHING efficient to save the planet unless it's economically profitable for them. I do believe electric or hydrogen power vehicles can be efficient, but if they'd present such a model at a reasonable price, how would that impact the oil industry? How would they build 7-star hotels in artificial islands in the middle of the desert (talk about wasting resources) if people switched from oil-based carburants to cleaner energies?
The key to a more encviromentally friendly world is not concsciousness. It's money. Sad but true.
Loved the article.
ReplyPosted by Nuri at 10:01am on 05 Dec 2007
nice article
I really loved the article.
THE TRUETH HURTS :P
Posted by a reader at 4:41pm on 06 Dec 2007
Re: The key point
You make a very good point about alternative fuels.
I don't believe that alternative fuels should be foisted on the market before the technology is ready, at least, certainly not for environmental reasons - consumers have the right to buy the best cars that we can make, and right now those are petrol burners.
But If the governments of the world were to spend even a tenth of the money they waste on harebrained projects like Kyoto on fuel research, they could eliminate the need for oil and gas completely within a decade (and by eliminate, I mean, render them technologically obsolete, not hike the taxes on them until they are uncompetitive).
Not only would this reduce pollution, it would bring an immediate demise to the oil trade, which directly funds most (if not all) of the international terrorist organisations and tin-pot dictatorships in the middle east.
If we forget about the environment completely, the savings in terms of lives and military spending from doing this would be more than reason enough on its own.
ReplyPosted by Nick at 8:15pm on 06 Dec 2007
Interesting.
You say harebrained schemes like kyoto etc. over a decade, well in that case if money=advancement you could eliminate them in under a year if the US devoted all of it's defence budget to the problems. Let alone if other countries did similar.
Where exactly does the perceived cost of the Kyoto agreement come from anyway? Correct me if I am wrong but isn't most of it the cost of advancing technologies, which is infact what you were advocating should be done with the money?
It's often touted by the anti-enviromentalists (I don't mean people against the enviroment) that renewables, other than nuclear (generally) are cost inefficient, but wind power rivals even coal or gas on a 15 year contract.
Personally I would describe myself as a enviromentalist, but I agree with you that "Blackle" is a stupid waste of time and space, not to mention energy. I suggest when you say "Enviromentalist" you are more precise, like describing Islam, you don't say "Muslims pose a threat to our nation" (unless you're heavily anti-semitic) you say "Islamic extremists pose a threat to our nation".
So maybe in future, instead of saying "Enviromentalists" you could consider saying "Enviromental-Extremists"
The generalistations made about "Enviromentalists" are one of the most bothersome things I have found to date.
ReplyPosted by a reader at 4:17pm on 16 Jan 2008
Re: Interesting.
Kyoto has nothing to do with alternative energy research. The aim of kyoto is to reduce emissions, which it is generally agreed cannot be done within Kyoto's timeframe by advances in technology alone, as these will take to long to come to fruition.
So instead of spending money on advancing technology, Kyoto forces us to use current low emission technologies which are not cost effective (if they were, we would be using them already).
Hence, to reduce its emissions, an organisation must spend more money with no technological advancement or other long term benefit to offset it, and then that is reflected in higher product costs, higher fuel bills and higher layoff rates for employees, which in turn leads to higher taxes to cover unemployment benefits.
That is where the Kyoto dollars go, not fuel research (in fact, independent fuel research budgets will likely be amongst the first to be slashed to pay for it).
As for my references to 'environmentalists' being a generalisation, an 'environmental extremist' to my mind is a person who commits acts of terrorism in the name of saving the planet, just as an 'Islamic extremist' is a person who kills in the name of Allah.
I don't claim that every environmentalist wants to blow up power stations, but whereas moderate Muslims pose no threat to my way of life, moderate environmentalists are still wreaking havoc with our economy.
I'm sorry if it bothers you that I tar you with the same brush as the Blackle enthusiasts, but to avoid this, I suggest you make up a new word to describe yourself. The lunatics have already taken 'environmentalist'.
ReplyPosted by Nick at 7:20pm on 16 Jan 2008
Re: Interesting.
Incidentally, an anti-semite is a person who hates Jews, not Muslims. You are getting your races (or racists, rather) mixed up.
ReplyPosted by Nick at 7:20pm on 16 Jan 2008
Re: Interesting.
I apologise for that, I'm mistaken about the meaning of the word.
I thought it was a general thing about descrimination based on religion.
But, I have to raise objection, as Kyoto doesn't effectively force us to use less effective, low emmission, technology.
Not in terms of Electricity generation, in Scotland there has been Wind Turbines generating power at similar prices to new coal fired plants, and infact cheaper than Nuclear. A combination of this and replacing many old and out of date gas water heaters in houses with more efficient Electrical ones would account for almost 50% of the U.K.'s C02 production.
Sorry to cite the U.K., but being British I know the most about it.
I apologise for essentially going off topic.
And I think you're right, I should come up with a name for what I am. Get rid of these assosciations.
ReplyPosted by a reader at 11:10pm on 16 Jan 2008
Re: Interesting.
If the .co.uk in the URL was not enough of a tip-off, I'm British too, so don't worry on that score :-)
Wind farms are a promising technology, but they are very space inefficient and of course they rely on there being a consistent, sufficient supply of wind. I imagine it's pretty windy in the Scottish highlands, but a wind farm in central London wouldn't give you much bang for your buck.
Like all current alternative energy technologies, if they were really as good as people made out, we'd have already switched to using them. That is largely why I feel that the best course of action is to keep on researching these technologies until one of them emerges as a truly cost-effective alternative to oil (something I expect will happen within a decade or two).
But as stated in the article, if the Kyoto money was to be spent on some tangible objective such as replacing all power stations with wind farms or solar panels, I would have no real objection to it. I actually think that would be pretty cool.
Because despite all the flaws in such a plan, and the likelihood that the same money invested in research would yield a better solution, at least the purchase of a few hunded thousand windmills would be something we could point to and say "there's where our money went (a big wind farm), and here's what it is doing for us (glorious, pollution free energy)".
But the way things are going right now, when we look back in 10 years and say "hmm... we spent all this money on lowering emissions , and what do we have to show for it?" the answer, sadly, will be "sod all".
ReplyPosted by Nick at 12:51am on 17 Jan 2008
Re: Interesting.
Probably there are more appropriate topics for this debate, but as it seems to be going well here, may we continue it?
Wind energy is only space innefficient if you assume the land below it is "dead".
But surely wind turbines actually barely disturb the surrounding area, to such a extent that farmlands for food, wood lands for "biomass" energy or even photovoltaics could surround them, making for more energy generation, and in the case of photovoltaics or biomass the wind isn't blowing, you're still generating electricity.
What's your opinion on the proposed ban of Incandescent bulbs.
These low energy alternatives are generally about as good, the natural light ones are infact brighter then the old incandescents. Personally I think a ban is a bit extreme, but it doesn't hurt that much. Also these light bulbs due to the longer life span actually work out cheaper than old incandescents. thus the question arises why people don't use them. Personally I'm uncertain as to the answer, and believe that cliched though it is "Force of habit" might be the answer.
And in the case of electricity companies prefering Coal/Gas/Nuclear, I think it might actually be the same reason. The older technologies (Wind turbines have been around since the 1980s, nuclear plants since the 1950s, are more tried and tested, so infact a simple unwillingness to explore possabilities, even if they might infact prove more efficient in terms of cost and certainly emmisions. This could be a capitalist system being trogged down by conservatism (not the party, the actual meaning of the word) and irrationalism.
You raise objection then, not actually to the Kyoto agreement, but to the implementation of it?
ReplyPosted by a reader at 01:17am on 17 Jan 2008
Re:
The person quoted below is the problem. Do some serious reading please, from both angles. Get a rounded viewpoint and then come back and tell us some more.
=================================================================
a reader wrote:
""...what I object to is the way that all logic, reason and any semblance of scientific rigour go out the window as soon as environmentalism is brought to the table.""Environmentalists are trying to tell us that the only way to save the planet is to revert back to a pre-industrial society."Generalize much?If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem. And you, sir, are part of the problem. "...construct a giant orbital mirror to deflect radiation from the Sun"? Laughable. You have some good points but they are undermined by the vast quantities of bullshit they're buried in."
Posted by a reader at 10:09pm on 11 Feb 2008
Re: Interesting.
A reader wrote:
"What's your opinion on the proposed ban of Incandescent bulbs."
I'm not generally in favour of banning anything. I personally buy only low-energy bulbs just because they last longer. But they are not without their flaws. For one thing, low-energy bulbs take longer to ramp up to full brightness when switched on (and it seems to get worse over their lifespan).
The price for low energy bulbs has come down dramatically since they were first introduced, and the brightness and warm up time has improved too. As with hybrid cars these will probably hit the sweet spot eventually where everyone switches to them, but I see no reason to try to force that before it happens naturally.
I don't believe force of habit is as significant a factor as you suggest. Look at what happened with VHS tapes and VCRs versus DVDs and DVRs. In the space of a few years almost all users switched over voluntarily because the technology was better. The industry eventually stopped selling VCRs and tapes, but only because of lack of demand - there was no need to force it on people.
ReplyPosted by Nick at 07:18am on 12 Feb 2008
good job
i completely agree with everythig you have stated in your blog. Finally soemone who makes some sense! you made some very good points about how Blackle is useless and a stupid idea. thanks.
ReplyPosted by a reader at 02:06am on 30 Apr 2008