Feanor

Hello...hope U are fine ! HAPPY NEW YEAR !!!

Everytime we spend time searching Google and click a couple of times...well..we are responsible for 15 grams of carbon-di-oxide added to our atmosphere...for every second on Google...its a burden to the Earth...ahahahah! Techonologies always bite back!

Minimalism on necessity is the governing law of Nature...if we attempt to understand the fractalscape of Nature...for fractal properties...among others...give us the clue to understanding the flip-side of thermodynamics...but still we are far from understanding non-equilibrium thermodynamics or probabilities of syntropic manifestations through fractaloholonic economies....

Bye for now!

Exactly my point.....

I really don't get all this Hulabu about "Ultra High Quality" for television broadcast either.....

These programs were probably shot on the same 2$ a meter Kodak Eastman reel that programs 10 years ago were shot on,and are being broadcast using the same decade old technology.....

Odds are, it is being beamed to you using a 20 year old satellite built to handle NTSC or PAL....

Why do you need a Gazillion Pixel screen to veiw it...?

Who needs a tv anyway?

My 5inch black and white tv is hardly ever turned on. . My nine inch screen dvd player only get's used when I work night shift. . Plasma tech is obsolete and lcd tech is improving all the time.

I wouldn't profit of plasma screens either, my eyes are too bad
I think that highly energy consuming devices should be made more expensive (tax?) and/or that low-energy devices should be supported.

the true test is to see the same quality, but at the same time being energy efficient

Yshivoni, Google deny that figure http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/powering-google-search.html and no, I don't work for Google. I just like to know the facts! And fifteen or even seven grammes sounded awfully high.

An engineer friend of mine told me that size is more of an issue in relation to power consumption in T.V.s than technology; the average T.V. is, what, 42", 50"? Fifteen years ago, 28" and 32" were big. And on top on that we have digital boxes nowadays.

He did say that before hi def came on the scene.

I'll shut up and go away now.

"kiloWatt per hour" does not exists.
You’re confusing with kW (kiloWatt = power) and kWh (kiloWattHour = amount of energy).

Example:
The tv has a power-rating of 800 Watt’s. This means that after one our, the tv used 800Wh of energy. (So 800Wh per hour)

For all practical use kW is considered synonymous with kWh.....

Just like if I say a line is 440 V, you understand I am talking of the RMS value not the instantaneous value of Voltage.

If kW(kJ/s)is considerend synonymous with kWh(3600kJ),
than speed(m/s) is synonymous with distance(m).

If you say a line is 440V, I don't even know if it is AC or DC.

This is becoming a deep, philosophical discussion Time, space, distance, AC, DC, dinner... it's all the same in the end.

Much energy has been used in splitting the meaning behind the words...well...though I would like to involve in the debate...for which I need time...and will do later...for now...it is obvious that entropy is a reality...and..sometimes it has a fallout too...afterall however regularised the googlesearch tech is...it is non-equilibrium in its nature and hence open-ended too...Google has a stake in denying...but any honest investigation should tell us that they are premature in denying and I could only hope that Google does not join the 'brown movement' wagon...who always deny the flipside(entropic fallout in the domain of operations) of their operations...Brin and Page belong to our generation...I could only hope that they would be earnest in their expansion...but then is Gmail secure...all the private mails are being stored and scanned (or read) by the computers...how much secure they are...the defence of Brin/Page was that 'people' in Google Inc. are not reading...what does one say to that? Is it right for Google to monopolize search or techs...or oligopolize in the long run...? I shall take up that later...users are truly welcome to debate...that's what open society is all about...

Hello...Lorenzo...the main issue is not Google per se...but by the virtue of global multiserver systems...Google would tend to be greater a culprit in terms of CO2 pollution if one accounted for the millions of users...one is not specifically blaming the Google for that...what had been brought out is the fact that even as innocuous as searching on the Net could be polluting on a scale umimaginable if one accounted for burning of non-renewable fuel on Earth....There is nothing like whether Google is the main issue...as long as one is yet to transit from electronic to photonic fuel...or employ alternatives to non-renewable energies...the issue of pollution will be at the centrestage...Google-use by the millions is only adding inconspicuously to the volume of CO2 pollution...one cant just wish away the sources or causes of pollution...whether its Google-use output of CO2 or cow-farting methane for that matter...

Garling...Google denial is superficial...more presumptively self-defending when the issue not about Google per se...it is about Google-use as a search engine...which obviously means electricity burnt is geographically distributed...something Google is not putting out directly...it would be a mistake to assume that eco-polluting info is Google-specific...it seems only so by default of its worldwide distribution network and millions use with energy generated by their respective countries through coal burning in particular...

I agree with Lorenzo. I suspect that the the permanently on mega T.V. with surround sound 5.1 speakers and digital box contribute slightly more than my laptop, not to mention cars, pointless searchlights advertising nightclubs, plasma T.V.s advertising stuff at every checkout in the store, outdoor heaters (!), C.D.s and D.V.D.s getting posted around the world... computers give a lot of bang for the wattage. And downloading that album from iTunes or emusic has to be a hell of a lot more energy efficient.

I just like the 'net. I think it's worth the cost. For one thing, it's made hiding information a whole lot more difficult. It may the single greatest tool for democracy ever invented.

Thanks for both of your comments! You have not got the point exactly! Currently, all the products that are being sold across the globe from one point to another necessarily incur a huge expenditure of energy...but ironically we use a poor tool called 'money' which has no corresponding value in Nature -the only invention that does not have corresponding principle in Nature- to measure the worth of production,transportation, etc and for measuring the worth of fuel spent without accounting for the ecological costs on the one hand...if one were to use energy accounting methods...we would not be illuding ourselves with the monetary worth of natural resources and the energy wastage we impose...Your example of a shirt in fact incurs what in contemporary natural resource accounting is called virtual cost...as a measure of the virtual water that's gone into its production...but a few governments in the world or companies are complying to the virutal standards worked out in ecological economics...in commerce and accounting it is always the unit cost multiplied by the number of units that are moved are accounted for in a given transaction...not the entire inventory per se...your example is imprecise and incorrect ...anyhow...my idea was to just highlight a research finding which is perfectly on the dot...this is not to say that products do not cost much more than they are valued for now...everytime you spend energy...its an energy expenditure...as simple as that...with Google...or any other popular search engine...its an almost a 24-365 cycle...literally non-stop...will continue so in future too...unless we come up with the will to integrate global energy supply with suitable alternative energies...energy consumption with pollutionary effects will continue even as we deplete the non-renewable natural resources...the unit energy cost as worked out by our governments is fantastically flawed and charged on us in a myopic fashion...so much for the worth of the dismal science called (monetary) economics...even if we were merely charged a higher cost...it would not help...increasing fare is more aimed as a deterrent...and it should be coupled with a replenishabilibity if at all...there is NO waste in Nature per se because of its intrinsic recyclability...today we have calculated 'resident lifespan' for a given molecule of a given chemical but policy-makers have no clue nor will to understand as to how to apply that knowledge in economics! We just need to make technologies more eco-friendly and at the same time accounting for "real costs" ...all our GNPs/GDPs are absurdly flawed which is one of the reasons why your argument is wrong...moreover just imagine what caused the American meltdown? ...our economists are pumping money...as if they are trees that will add value to Nature...our policymakers are so shortsighted and ignorant and arrogant too that neither quamtum investing, knowledge capital, ecological accounting, information budgeting etc make sense to them...!

As far as your example of shirt...well...I can tell you only one thing: all international trade incur energy expenditure and pollution (as long as there is no eco-friendliness to it or lacks renewability) and also a PARALLEL VIRTUAL TRADING COSTS which are not accounted for by every government/company for every transaction...the issue is not whether Google-use results in marginally less consumption of energy than any other product...but Google-use is not giving us free lunch...to get an idea just try to understand how spectrum costs/prices are calculated...where too the model is neo-liberal economic..again intrinsically flawed...!