What a bunch of BS, a lame gimmick is all it is. I do enough on my own to reduce my electrical waste, I don't need google and the WWF jackass's to designate an hour for me to symbolically show my solidarity with this "effort".
Earth Hour
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
All you folk celebrating Earth Hour....
I can save you a lot of time and give you the opportunity to make your statement without too much trouble...
Go to Timmy's ....get into line and leave your car idling while your slave-wage refreshment is prepared.
VIOLA!
I can save you a lot of time and give you the opportunity to make your statement without too much trouble...
Go to Timmy's ....get into line and leave your car idling while your slave-wage refreshment is prepared.
VIOLA!
http://www.thestar.com/SpecialSections/EarthHour/article/407094
Toronto can expect to repeat Sydney's experience: Electricity consumption in the central business district dropped by about 10 per cent during last year's Earth Hour. But since then it's been higher than ever and, since most of Australia's power comes from coal-fuelled generating stations, greenhouse gas emissions are also up.
Toronto can expect to repeat Sydney's experience: Electricity consumption in the central business district dropped by about 10 per cent during last year's Earth Hour. But since then it's been higher than ever and, since most of Australia's power comes from coal-fuelled generating stations, greenhouse gas emissions are also up.
It is all a gimmick, that's kinda the point though isn't it?
That said, I'm having trouble even imagining how you could measure these events to call them successful. If tomorrow everyone is back to the same ole same ole, then not much has changed has it?
I don't like the black google screen, it shows me how dirty the screen is
That said, I'm having trouble even imagining how you could measure these events to call them successful. If tomorrow everyone is back to the same ole same ole, then not much has changed has it?
I don't like the black google screen, it shows me how dirty the screen is
We'll turn of the lights for Earth Hour. It is no trouble. Is there any chance we might miss important programing on the tube?... or a good movie? I doubt it. I will do along with Earth Hour because it takes no effort to do so, and I can't think of a good reason not to.
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.
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???
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 ^^
I quite liked it ^^
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
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
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...
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 from The Electricity Journal.
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 from The Electricity Journal.
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 ?
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 ?
