Earth Hour

Dexter Sinister
#31
Well, it's over now, and we paid no attention to it at Chateau Sinister. We already do everything we can to minimize our energy consumption, not for any high-minded notions of saving the planet, but just because we're cheap and energy's not.
 
#juan
#32
We turned our power off for the hour. It was no hardship and maybe even fun. My wife and I played cards by the light of a couple old coal oil lamps. I guess we were openly agreeing with the idea that we should be conscious of our energy use. I do everything I can to limit our energy consumption right down to the way I drive. Earth Hour was just a way of supporting that idea and it didn't cost anything. Why not???
 
AmberEyes
#33
Hehe, we rather enjoyed sitting in the dark here. We broke out a bottle of wine and had some really good conversations with one another I quite liked it ^^
 
Walter
#34
The inconvenient truth about Earth Hour

BENJAMIN DACHIS
Special to Globe and Mail Update
April 13, 2008 at 8:15 PM EDT

On March 29, between the hours of 8 p.m. and 9 p.m., hundreds of thousands of people, and countless more businesses across Canada, shut off their lights as a symbolic gesture of concern over global warming. It was perhaps one of the most successful environmental awareness campaigns in recent history.
While organizers of the event correctly pointed out that Earth Hour was mostly about raising awareness, that didn't stop proud proclamations about drops in electricity demand during that hour. Some reports showed electricity demand was down 8.7 per cent for Toronto and 3.5 per cent in Vancouver.
The inconvenient truth, however, is that despite falling energy use, CO2 emissions actually rose during Earth Hour relative to comparable days in the past three years.
The flaw of Earth Hour's publicity campaign is that it fell into the fallacy of equating energy use with greenhouse gas emissions. The two are indeed related, but the relationship is more complex than the simple act of flicking the light switch would suggest.
Turning off a light bulb does not in itself reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Whether or not using electricity produces greenhouse gases depends on which kind of power plant is providing the electricity. If the power grid is predominantly being powered by nuclear fuel or hydroelectricity, there will be little greenhouse gas produced. However, if the power is coming from a coal-fired plant, there will be much more greenhouse gas produced.
In Ontario, power predominantly comes from a mix of nuclear, coal or hydroelectric power while in British Columbia and Quebec over 90 per cent of power comes from clean hydroelectricity. For every megawatt-hour of electricity produced from a coal power plant, a little over 1 tonne of CO2 is emitted.
When comparing power or electricity demand across days, it is important to control for things like weather, the amount of daylight, how many nuclear reactors are running and other possible factors. Using more than four years of hourly data, I estimated how much power would be expected to come from each source, and electricity consumption in each region of Ontario.
In Ontario, the total amount of electricity from coal and the subsequent CO2 emissions were higher during Earth Hour than on any last Saturday in March during the past four years. According to the Independent Electricity System Operator, 3,759 megawatt-hours of electricity were produced from coal in Ontario during Earth Hour, meaning approximately 4,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide were emitted from coal plants in Ontario during the hour.
Compared to the same hour of Saturdays in late spring with similar weather, nuclear operations, and so on, CO2 production was between 5 and 39 per cent higher during Earth Hour than in previous years. A comparison to only the previous Saturday would be misleading, because March 22, 2008, was much colder than the 29th, and weather is a major component in electricity demand. Regardless of what days are examined, the conclusion is that the mix of production sources, and not electricity consumption itself, has the most to do with emissions.
Furthermore, essentially all of the reductions in power production on March 29 came from hydroelectricity power production, and not from coal or natural gas. That is because when demand changes fairly quickly during the course of the day it is usually hydroelectric power that changes output to meet demand, while coal and nuclear remain unchanged.
Again, compared to what power production for all of Ontario normally would have been during Earth Hour, hydroelectricity production in Ontario was 24 per cent below what would be expected, while coal was up 18 per cent. Total power production was in fact above predicted for the entire night partly because power exports to the U.S. were high that night.
Likewise, in British Columbia or Quebec any reduction likely came from largely emission-free hydroelectric power. Even if power production did decline during Earth Hour, the fact remains that this drop did not come from power sources that contribute to global warming.
What really happened to electricity demand in Toronto and Ontario as whole on March 29, 2008 and during Earth Hour? Controlling for other factors, electricity consumption in Ontario as a whole and Toronto was down 5.6 per cent and 6 per cent respectively.
What do these numbers mean? When compared to the general fluctuations in electricity demand over any given day, Earth Hour was not meaningful in the statistical sense. So far this year, there were more than 120 different hours where electricity demand was lower than predicted, by a greater degree than during Earth Hour.
Earth Hour was successful as a symbolic campaign to raise awareness about tackling climate change, but the exercise encourages the mistaken belief that we must reduce electricity consumption in radical ways to cut greenhouse gases.
Benjamin Dachis is a policy analyst with the C.D. Howe Institute
 
Avro
#35
What a load of garbage that article was.
 
mabudon
#36
Man the convoluted trickery in that article made me F-ing dizzy, I need some air dammit
 
#juan
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by mabudonView Post

Man the convoluted trickery in that article made me F-ing dizzy, I need some air dammit

Hi Mabudon

Good to have you back. That article was a load of bumf wasn't it. Turning the power off for only an hour was not going to cause the globe to immediately cool off and I'm sure everyone knew that. What it was, was a demonstration of awareness that we should be thinking of our energy use. Nothing more...
 
Tonington
#38
Of course it's garbage. His whole nebulous exercise simply explains why smart grids are needed. It's a foolish mistake to separate transmission from distribution from generation. How do you make a grid smart? Controls that send information back to the source, rather than only from the distribution side of things. A smart grid has about 60% intelligent controls, whereas the current distribution obsession is about 2%. That's a mound of waste. Why do you think techies love energy efficiency? It's easy, will produce the quickest results for emissions, and is a net profit when used with a renewable portfolio. Using the standard mix of coal, nuclear etc, it costs 6% of what it will cost to continue to build more generation while wasting large amounts of those electrons.

So, it's not hard to see why one hour of decreased demand still had more emissions. The system is retarded. The demand for electricity has only been going up over the last 4 years, and a one hour blip means nothing in the long run.

Why has efficiency not yet taken off? Because incentives are for more generation, not better efficiency. Being inefficient in power generation/distribution means you can get a new rate increase approved. They keep that for some years, producing more energy than is needed, then purchase some more generation, and voila, rate increases.

My power company purchases X amount of generation & infrastructure, and applies for a rate increase based on those capital costs. The commission then determines we should have a rate increase of Y. That rate gives my company a return on the investment, and that sets the revenue we get, where costs are passed along. This rate is actually the revenue target divided by anticipated kilowatt hour sales.

But here's the problem. Not all customers pay the same rate, and projected consumption is rarely realized. That's why energy efficiency doesn't work for energy companies. It reduces the rate the utility can get because it decreases sales.

If you really want some depth on the issue, read this article (external - login to view) from The Electricity Journal.
 
mabudon
#39
Thanks for the welcome back #juan, I stop in from time to time to read what's up but haven't had as much to say lately

The main problem I have with the article is that it somehow concludes (or kinda suggests it's concluding) that reduction of energy use is totally pointless. Fits with the ridiculous capitalist idea that if something is NOT growing/expanding it is failing. Even perfectly balanced maintenance of a well-designed system is a failure if it's not somehow getting bigger all the time, given the easily proven finite-ness of our planet I can't see how anyone could still accept this, but oh well, that there article makes it clear as to the moehodology of the Lie at least

Too bad it really doesn't make a lick of sense eh ?
 
Ron in Regina
#40
Guess what's popping up again very, very soon.
 
gerryh
+1
#41
Oh? is it almost time for me to turn on all my lights, my AC, and all my TV's all at once?
 
L Gilbert
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Please disregard the blatant extremism Amber.
But if all the blinded Greenies took one clear look at what they are demanding, they would be less likely to judge and demand the nonsense they do.
It would take a cataclysmic event to change the way the world runs.
Every single piece of your life, other then the crap that comes out of either youth mouth or your *** touches a GHG producing industry.
Unless people are planning on taking complete leave of their senses, and turning the clock back 200 years. Then we are not going to change a frickin thing with a cute cuddly 'Earth hour'.

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
Yep. It's way too little and way too late for that.
There's just as much lunacy on the green side as there is on the pollution side.
 
mentalfloss
+1
#43
This is such a benign event to be taken so seriously. It's a bit of fun for an hour of novelty and that's about it. The fact that it's become a hot item for the environment haters is hilarious.
 
Liberalman
#44
If we all turn off the lights for an hour think of the money the taxpayer has to pay to America for taking that power
 
Blackleaf
#45
Let's hope nobody is killed when we are plunged into darkness.

Quote: Originally Posted by AvroView Post

What a load of garbage that article was.

No, it wasn't. It was a great article that gives the Green Loons something to think about.
 
Spade
+1
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

Let's hope nobody is killed when we are plunged into darkness.

Go figure. I thought the sun never set on the British Empire.
 
SLM
+2
#47
So much negativity! Can no one think of any enjoyable activities to do by candle light for an hour?
 
Spade
+3
#48  Top Rated Post
I have a solution for the land of the Black Leaves.

Go to quadruple daylight-savings time so Earth Hour occurs in the mid afternoon. Britain's not in darkness 24/7 is it?

Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

So much negativity! Can no one think of any enjoyable activities to do by candle light for an hour?

Please bring candles; CC posters will supply the whine.
 
SLM
+1
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

I have a solution for the land of the Black Leaves.

Go to quadruple daylight-savings time so Earth Hour occurs in the mid afternoon. Britain's not in darkness 24/7 is it?



Please bring candles; CC posters will supply the whine.

Wrong kind of wine.

Just trying to take a frown and turn it upside down.
 
Spade
+1
#50
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

Just trying to take a frown
And turn it upside down.

That's sheer poetry! Enough to soften the darkest heart.
 
SLM
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

That's sheer poetry! Enough to soften the darkest heart.

"How to make Earth Hour work for you!"

I should be a motivational speaker.
 
DaSleeper
+1
#52
I'll celebrate earth day to-morrow morning.....
Planned power interuption from 9 to noon for upgrading the system...meaning one major transformer to change
Five or six streets will be out of power....
 
CDNBear
#53
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

The fact that it's become a hot item for the environment haters is hilarious.

How does that divisiveness help the environment?
 
gerryh
#54
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

This is such a benign event to be taken so seriously. It's a bit of fun for an hour of novelty and that's about it. The fact that it's become a hot item for the environment haters is hilarious.


Environment haters?????????????????????????
 
skookumchuck
#55
Better we all held our breath for even a minute or so, think of all the CO2 that would not go into the atmosphere
 
Spade
+3
#56
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

Environment haters?????????????????????????

To clarify,
Antienvironmentalistism

Quote: Originally Posted by skookumchuckView Post

Better we all held our breath for even a minute or so, think of all the CO2 that would not go into the atmosphere

O boy, math.
With each breath, a person exhales approximately 1 g of CO2.
On average, a person exhales 20 times a minute, or 40 times in two minutes.
That's 40 g/person.
There are 7 billion of us on Earth.
So, people exhale 280 000 000 000 g of CO2 every two minutes.
That's 280 000 000 kg
Or, 280 000 tonnes.

Now, if some would do it for a full hour....
 
Tonington
+3
#57
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

To clarify,
Antienvironmentalistism



O boy, math.
With each breath, a person exhales approximately 1 g of CO2.
On average, a person exhales 20 times a minute, or 40 times in two minutes.
That's 40 g/person.
There are 7 billion of us on Earth.
So, people exhale 280 000 000 000 g of CO2 every two minutes.
That's 280 000 000 kg
Or, 280 000 tonnes.

Now, if some would do it for a full hour....

And to complete your math, humans are carbon neutral. The exhaled carbon comes from carbon we ingested. Part of the carbon cycle. To compare us to sequestered carbon proliferated by combustion, well that's nuttery.
 
damngrumpy
+1
#58
Gives the masses something to do so they feel part of something bigger than themselves.
The real fact is they want you to use less power, they want you to take transit and the
reason is simple. They need power and fuel for the business world and the elite so they
can ride past your transit bus in their fancy sport cars.
I will turn on every light in my house, and turn on the TV the stereo and anything I can find
Turn on the mixers and have a party.
Seriously this is a joke and a nasty one at that
 
L Gilbert
+3
#59
Seems like a waste of money to me to keep lights, tvs, etc. on when not being used but it's your money.
 
Spade
+2
#60
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

And to complete your math, humans are carbon neutral. The exhaled carbon comes from carbon we ingested. Part of the carbon cycle. To compare us to sequestered carbon proliferated by combustion, well that's nuttery.


True! True if we didn't use fossil fuels for agriculture.
 

Similar Threads

228
The earth Hour is back!
by SirJosephPorter | Mar 16th, 2011
487
Earth Hour: Turn Off the Lights!
by SirJosephPorter | Oct 5th, 2009
3
Will you Turn Out for Earth Hour?
by CBC News | Mar 27th, 2008
0
Earth Hour
by Zan | Mar 19th, 2008
no new posts