Filed under: Apple Corporate, Odds and ends, Apple, Macbook Pro, MacBook
Apple's System Preference icon goes "Green"
With the introduction of EPEAT Gold rated MacBooks and MacBook Pros last week, Apple has definitely been warming up to the environmental movement lately. So, it was only fitting that they would change a small part of System Preferences to reflect the EPEAT rating.
That's right, the Energy Saver icon has changed from an old incandescent bulb to a newer, more energy-efficient fluorescent bulb. Now you will only have to change the energy saver icon every 7 years, but be careful when you dispose of the old icons because they contain mercury (just kidding).
This change has only shown up on the new MacBooks and MacBook Pros. Do you think Apple will eventually update their entire line to have this new icon (and, of course, be EPEAT Gold rated)? We definitely hope so!
Thanks to everyone who sent this in!
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Cory said 10:19AM on 10-21-2008
They do contain mercury and it's becoming a HUGE problem as the bulbs are burning out in large quantities.
These greens drive me nuts.... banning the old bulbs is just WRONG because they do have a usefulness - the CF bulbs are good for lights that are on a long time - but they actually burn more energy for use in situations where the bulb is on and off for short spans - like your pantry light. I changed my bulbs years ago when they were expensive - they also don't late no 10 times longer.
Apple can never make greens (or Greenpeace) happy - it's impossible, because their real goal is not stopping pollution but stopping corporations.
Reply
Buran said 11:02AM on 10-21-2008
Um... the old bulbs aren't banned; you're just strongly encouraged to switch. (I have, and you adjust to the different color temp within a day or two). Instead of throwing them in the trash, take them to a recycling center -- any Home Depot will take them, and a number of other places will. I love having a low electricity bill, and the bulbs are not dangerous to you and CAN be recycled safely.
required said 11:46AM on 10-21-2008
While I do not agree with all your said I do share your disdain for CF bulbs. Among their many problems, they are most often manufactured in countries that have very weak if not nonexistent environmental regulations. Their manufacturing process is far more injurious, labor and material intensive. Many folks are throwing out perfectly good functioning lightbulbs to replace with these because they are under the misguided impression that it's the best thing to do. Now the proponents of CF bulbs appear to be moving on to LED bulbs. I fear that the same bunch of lemmings will toss their new and functioning CF bulbs for these. It's all a bit nutty.
Brandon said 12:09PM on 10-21-2008
The amount of start-up energy for florescent bulbs is a spike, however it only lasts for a fraction of a second. Unless your definition "short span" is < 0.35 second, then your point is moot.
Heck even Mythbusters was able to prove this one... (Season 4 Episode 26)
Izzy said 12:55PM on 10-21-2008
@Cory If you are against the "greens" then why did you switch? Only Australia (as far as I know) has banned incandescents. They use a minimal amount of power and the millisecond spike is only to start the bulb.
It's pretty crazy to say that Greenpeace wants to stop corporations, they are one. They want to reduce waste and hazardous chemicals. While I don't agree with everything they do, I do agree with that principle.
Stop generalizing, you show your education level, or lack thereof when you do that.
Galley said 1:21PM on 10-21-2008
Perhaps you missed that episode of Mythbusters where they proved that to be false. CFLs do not use a large amount of energy every time they are turned on.
http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/12/episode_69_22000_foot_fall_lig.html
Tim said 2:23PM on 10-21-2008
What's ironic here (and little known), incandescent bulbs have a huge power spike when they are turned on. Cold tungsten has very low resistance, so briefly, (extremely briefly), they draw a huge amount of current before the tungsten warms up to its operating temp of thousands degrees Celsius.
S said 2:31PM on 10-21-2008
Incandescent bulbs will be banned as of 2014, per the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Buy up your tungsten lamps while they are still cheap, the black market will be huge.
sodapop said 4:24PM on 10-21-2008
Headline Apple goes "mercury". I am all for conserving energy and anlternate energy but every time these environmental trends takes off it proves to be just as bad or worse.
Mike said 10:20AM on 10-21-2008
So I just came to your site to check for new posts as I do every morning and a giant ad was covering the entire front page. When did this start? It's really annoying. I don't mind ads on websites but this is a little out of hand.
Reply
Alex Brooks said 10:34AM on 10-21-2008
Don't forget that these bulbs are supposedly giving out dangerous amounts of UV.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/uv-risk-linked-to-energyefficient-light-bulbs-20081010-4y4b.html
Reply
Buran said 11:09AM on 10-21-2008
I checked the literature, and only some bulbs seem to have this problem.
http://rpd.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/ncn234v1 (abstract only unless you're a subscriber or on a university campus with a site license).
The abstract states that "The study concluded that the UV emissions from a significant percentage of the tested CFLs with single envelopes may result in foreseeable overexposure of the skin when these lamps are used in desk or task lighting applications."
My university doesn't subscribe to this journal, so I too only get the abstract (argh). However, this is recent research, and seems to indicate that not all the bulbs are unsafe. But keep in mind that the abstract doesn't say anything about the levels of radiation, so I can't tell from this how much risk there is -- but for a bulb meant for home use, there shouldn't be too much UV. Also, this is a British journal, so it may apply there but not in the US (can't tell where the authors are from from just an abstract).
This paper was published at the end of August 2008, so it's recent research.
Josso said 10:35AM on 10-21-2008
Is it possible to change it back?
The old ones look way better... :)
Reply
Le Big Mac said 10:50AM on 10-21-2008
It should change depending on your energy saver settings. If you have them set to low (or run all the time), then incandescent. If medium, CFL. If low, LED, perhaps even dim.
For first poster, I agree--they have to be used judiciously. Not much benefit in, for example, a closet. At least they warm up quicker now.
Tony Roberto Zorzi Silva said 10:40AM on 10-21-2008
If they really want to go green why not put some LED lamps ?? much better and less polluent than fluorecent bulbs??!!!
Reply
Buran said 11:10AM on 10-21-2008
Not widely recognized by most people due to high costs of the bulbs. I looked into these, and each bulb still costs more than $100. I hope that in a few years the cost will come down.
midbach said 10:41AM on 10-21-2008
You guys actually felt that an updated icon was worth a post? Seriously?
Reply
Buran said 11:11AM on 10-21-2008
You thought a post that you think is unworthy of you is worth wasting the time to read and then comment on? Seriously?
midbach said 11:43AM on 10-21-2008
Buran, don't put words in my mouth, I never said it 'wasn't worthy of me'. I was simply expressing my opinion that this was a 'fluffy' post.
I guess when people don't share your opinions they are wrong. Given the number of comments you have on this post, icons are very important to you. Good for you.
Blake said 10:56AM on 10-21-2008
I actually noticed this right after I got my new MacBook Pro. I just like how some graphics artist looked at it and thought "you know we should really put a more energy friendly light bulb icon here" Very Apple!
Reply