Blackle is a search engine that claims to save energy because it uses a black background. Is there any evidence to back up their claim that a website using a black background will save energy, and if so, how much energy will be saved?
4 Answers
Blackle actually cite a real reference to backup their claims. Credit to them!
On their About page they quote a line from a Energy Use and Power Levels in New Monitors and Personal Computers, Roberson et al, Environmental Energy Technologies Division, Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, UCLA.
The quote is:
"Image displayed is primarily a function of the user's color settings and desktop graphics, as well as the color and size of open application windows; a given monitor requires more power to display a white (or light) screen than a black (or dark) screen."
That line does actually appear in the report, and is backed by the following data:

The reports goes on to conclude:
Among the few LCD monitors in the table, the power used to display a white screen is indistinguishable from power used to display the desktop. Thus, it appears that display color is a significant determinant of on power for CRTs, but not for LCDs.
Clearly, in LCD technology terms, 2002 is a long time ago. I have no knowledge of any power-saving innovations in the meantime.
- 142,615
- 46
- 558
- 646
-
4Nice answer -- I find it odd that other sources are stating that LCDs should use more power for black while the chart above is showing them using [negligibly] less. Still, nice digging, and that last quote jives with what others have been finding as well. – Hendy Jun 08 '11 at 02:03
-
18I find it odd that anyone remotely interested in saving energy would waste their time and ours considering the performance of CRT technology. For the good of the planet, chuck that old screen out! – FumbleFingers Jun 08 '11 at 02:16
-
18@FumbleFingers, first, both Blackle and this report are coming from the turn of the century, when CRT was still king. Second, in order to justify throwing out an existing CRT monitor for ecological reasons, you have to show that the total power it will consume over its life is more than the total energy consumed by an LCD screen INCLUDING its manufacture (pro-rated for expected lifetimes), which is a big claim. That doesn't even factor in non-energy related pollution. – Oddthinking Jun 08 '11 at 02:53
-
2@Oddthinking: Well, someone else can do the sums. The company I worked for 7-8 years ago weren't known for being profligate, but they allowed staff to buy all their CRT screens for buttons, and replaced them with LCDs. A year or two later I gave away the 21" CRT I'd paid £20 for, and even though it cost me over £200 for the LCD replacement, I'm still using it now. And I bet I've saved money. – FumbleFingers Jun 08 '11 at 03:04
-
1btw - we pay a lot more for fuel & electricity here in UK than in the US, so that may affect our thinking on energy use. – FumbleFingers Jun 08 '11 at 03:05
-
5@FumbleFingers, "I bet I've saved money." I would certainly consider taking that bet. There are a lot of factors to consider here in your calculation, but the payback period is quite long. (e.g. for a starting point: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=1082). That is just economic, not environmental considerations (which I strongly suspect discourage replacement, but I have no evidence.) – Oddthinking Jun 08 '11 at 03:51
-
1Some newer LCDs have backlight control based on overall picture level, and some of those can control backlight in sections. Edge-lit and segment-lit LED based LCDs take much less power on darker screens. These are mainly found on big home cinema screens, though, and very rare in consumer desktops screens. Even if there was a saving, there's almost nobody who would benefit. – John Ripley Jun 08 '11 at 07:56
-
3@Oddthinking: As it happens I got my scientist brother to do the sums for me this afternoon, and I now agree I was a bit overoptimistic. I work (and live) at home, so my screen is on a lot more than most, but yes - I won't actually have saved money yet (though I will be up on the deal in 2-3 years, for sure). As regards the environmental/economic issue, you can pretty much ignore that - if you average everything out, they become the same thing. Except, as noted, lower US energy taxes do tend to distort the situation there. – FumbleFingers Jun 08 '11 at 21:14
-
I prefer this answer to the accepted one for a couple of reasons. This answer illustrates that most of us (including my first impressions) were persecuting a straw man. As in, blackle already knew this answer was No for LCDs. I also appreciate that it gives credit to blackle for not perpetuating a myth. I love the data of the above questions, and they actually show that blackle's "negligible" results may be outdated, but this answer provides everything I think is needed to answer the questions -- the rest just supplement it very nicely. – Hendy Jun 10 '11 at 20:21
-
1Using a Kill-a-Watt on my older 24" LCD display, a completely black screen at full brightness sometimes registered 1W less than a completely white screen, but turning down the brightness just a little bit saved 10W. I haven't tested with my newer 23" LED display. – geerlingguy Mar 17 '13 at 15:52
-
2
-
"As regards the environmental/economic issue, you can pretty much ignore that - if you average everything out, they become the same thing." This is a very smart observation. And it would be true if we factored in pollution in our taxes. Unfortunately we still often don't do that. IMHO it should be politics goal to make sure that the two become the same. More pollution => more taxes, so in the end the cheaper product will always be the 'cleaner' one. At the moment this still often isn't the case though. EDIT sorry, old post but today is in sidebar for some reason. – Stijn de Witt Nov 03 '17 at 20:48
-
Is there any chance of you updating this to take account of newer technology, in particular (AM)OLED? I should also appreciate an initial summary and a table of effects by technology as a courtesy to readers, but perhaps that is asking a bit much! – PJTraill Nov 27 '18 at 10:27
LCD panels make black pixels by blocking the colour filtered back-light from exiting the panel. It therefore uses a little more power to make black than to make white
See http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/lcd2.htm
LCD TV's sometimes have "dynamic contrast" LED back-lighting which should save power in black. This feature is sometimes found on high end IPS LCD monitors, though is useless for general computer use as the LED back-light resolution does not match the actual LCD resolution
OLED panels use power to make each individual coloured pixel, so black would save power. Who uses a couple of 24" OLED's yet?
See http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/oled2.htm
And more interestingly http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-09/mit-scientist-explains-oled-function-glowing-pickle
- 441
- 3
- 5
-
1I think it's the other way around. Most of the LCDs I've seen with dynamic contrast are crappy TN panels. Anyone who cares enough to pay for an IPS panel will turn off dynamic contrast even if it's available. – Fake Name Mar 25 '12 at 04:53
-
4"useless for general computer use as the LED back-light resolution does not match the actual LCD resolution"? With dynamic contrast back-light is not dimmed per individual pixel, but most typically for whole screen. – vartec Mar 25 '12 at 17:31
When blackle came out (2007) the majority of users still had CRT monitors. There's a nice discussion of this here http://ecoiron.blogspot.com/2007/08/history-in-january-2007-mark-ontkush.html
From the above link:
Criticisms There has been both praise and criticism for this initiative, with its supporters citing it as a great example of environmental thinking, and its detractors pointing out usability and aesthetic problems, as well as questions about the scientific validity of the claims. Some of the issues are listed below.
- Since the technique is most effective on CRT monitors, some proxy sites have been criticized for not mentioning this fact. In particular, the Blackle site has been heavily criticized, as it is probable that they are generating an substantial Adsense revenue stream from implementing the concept.
- CRT monitors are being phased out; about 75% of monitors in active use worldwide are LCDs. Additionally, countries with a high percentage of CRT are replacing them rapidly; for example, Display Search projects that only 18% of the monitors in China will be CRTs by the end of 2007. Therefore, although the technique would be effective for a limited period, it is questionable whether the disruption would be beneficial.
- CRTs are generally darker than LCDs, and the text on many of the proxy sites is barely readable on monitors of this type. For example, Blackle uses a small grey font on an all black background. It is possible that these 'all black' proxy sites are only usable on LCD screens, and this would negate the energy savings.
- Proxy sites cannot handle the heavy load that high volume sites are accustomed to. For example, on August 1st, 2007 and several prior occasions, the Blackle web server was producing intermittent error messages for extended periods of time.
So, already back in 2007, most people were questioning the usefulness for the black background web pages for saving energy.
If we were all still using CRT monitors then yes you could save a lot of energy by using the black backgrounds. But, this is 2011 and the few CRT monitors left in existence are sitting in the corner of our basements unplugged and waiting to be taken to the electronics recycling graveyard.
On amoled (active-matrix organic light-emitting diode) screen types, such as the Galaxy s5, each pixel is individually lit when powered, so using pitch black backgrounds theoretically reduces power draw marginally.
Sources: AMOLED displays
Galaxy s5 specs
- 140
- 4
-
-
-
1Upvoted because newer technology is neglected in other answers, but I think your answer ought to include the relevant information from the sources you cite. – PJTraill Nov 27 '18 at 10:23
youtube.comin the address bar instead of googling forytand clicking the search result. Every Google search uses about 0.0003 kWh. – Georg Patscheider Jul 19 '19 at 07:09