You should be careful how you use the term "flashblock". For desktop web browsers, most "flashblock" tools only hide the flash objects. They do this to not break compatibility as thoroughly, but it unfortunately means that browsers running flashblock are still generally 100% compatible with flash-based security exploits. It seems reasonable to expect that such tools can hardly improve the battery life over unrestricted Flash.
I don't know if this applies to Android, but on a MacBook Air, you're best off using Adblock and/or NoScript to ensure that flash objects and advertising scripts never even get fetched over the network.
>It seems reasonable to expect that such tools can hardly improve the battery life over unrestricted Flash.
If you mean to say what you're saying, that Flashblock doesn't make a significant change from unrestricted Flash, you're dead wrong. Wireless transfer is a notable driver of power consumption, but generally it being on is the main driver, not use. CPU on the other hand draws much more under load, and Flash will put it under a lot of load.
What I'm saying is that if Flashblock can't stop a script in a "blocked" flash object from installing a trojan, then clearly Flashblock isn't effective at preventing flash objects from getting CPU time.
I don't know if this applies to Android, but on a MacBook Air, you're best off using Adblock and/or NoScript to ensure that flash objects and advertising scripts never even get fetched over the network.