If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Turning your lights off for "Earth Hour" will actually do more to harm the environment than help it   (slate.com) divider line 136
    More: Ironic, earth hour, Project Syndicate, indoor air pollution, National Grid, electricity, incandescent light bulb  
•       •       •

14477 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Mar 2013 at 2:45 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



136 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-17 11:43:47 PM
Whatever.  Results don't matter!  Only what's in our HEARTS
 
2013-03-18 12:28:24 AM
How disingenuous is it to treat what is clearly a publicity stunt as if the purpose of it was to actually cut CO2 emissions in-and-of itself? Also, he ends with saying we shouldn't put more money into wind and solar energies, but should instead fund research into green energy sources that can compete with fossil fuels. What the hell technologies does he think those are without wind and solar? The only ones I can think of are fission (which, after Fukushima, is not going to happen), fusion (which has been 25 years away for 60 years), and tidal (which only works if you have waters with tides). Solar is, ultimately, the most abundant power source we have, so it's all going to boil down to that eventually, might as well get the infrastructure in place now. I greatly dislike people who think that because something isn't solving the problem right now in its entirety it's clearly not worth doing and should be abandoned. Turning off you lights symbolically for an hour to show public support and demand for a more environmentally conscious world won't fix pollution? Terrible waste of time. Solar energy hasn't given us emission free jetpacks? Not worth it. The author just seemed like he wanted to be a greener-than-thou prick.

/rant off
 
2013-03-18 01:09:36 AM
Lomborg is a hack.
 
2013-03-18 01:47:17 AM
Candles are fossil fuels?  All of them?  Especially the ones for indoor use?

/er, nope.
 
2013-03-18 01:52:04 AM
Now that I think about it... the last Earth Hour I went to did have a whole bunch of candles burning...
 
2013-03-18 01:56:21 AM

deffuse: Candles are fossil fuels?  All of them?  Especially the ones for indoor use?


Most of them are paraffin which is a byproduct of oily refining.  So especially the ones for indoor use.
 
2013-03-18 01:58:42 AM

DON.MAC: deffuse: Candles are fossil fuels?  All of them?  Especially the ones for indoor use?

Most of them are paraffin which is a byproduct of oily refining.  So especially the ones for indoor use.


Hmm, I thought the indoor ones were wax as paraffin made the greasy black smoke.  Either way, not all candles.
 
2013-03-18 02:06:37 AM

deffuse: DON.MAC: deffuse: Candles are fossil fuels?  All of them?  Especially the ones for indoor use?

Most of them are paraffin which is a byproduct of oily refining.  So especially the ones for indoor use.

Hmm, I thought the indoor ones were wax as paraffin made the greasy black smoke.  Either way, not all candles.


In 1st world countries, nearly every candle will be made from Paraffin Wax unless you get it from a stall at a craft market.
 
2013-03-18 02:10:06 AM

DON.MAC: deffuse: DON.MAC: deffuse: Candles are fossil fuels?  All of them?  Especially the ones for indoor use?

Most of them are paraffin which is a byproduct of oily refining.  So especially the ones for indoor use.

Hmm, I thought the indoor ones were wax as paraffin made the greasy black smoke.  Either way, not all candles.

In 1st world countries, nearly every candle will be made from Paraffin Wax unless you get it from a stall at a craft market.


Fair enough.
 
2013-03-18 02:20:06 AM

deffuse: DON.MAC: deffuse: DON.MAC: deffuse: Candles are fossil fuels?  All of them?  Especially the ones for indoor use?

Most of them are paraffin which is a byproduct of oily refining.  So especially the ones for indoor use.

Hmm, I thought the indoor ones were wax as paraffin made the greasy black smoke.  Either way, not all candles.

In 1st world countries, nearly every candle will be made from Paraffin Wax unless you get it from a stall at a craft market.

Fair enough.


There are two different things called "paraffin oil" one of which is also known as kerosene in some parts of the world.  There are also other uses for the word paraffin in places as well.
 
2013-03-18 02:48:59 AM
Unsupported conjecture and a biatchy tone. Clearly this is a source we can trust.
 
2013-03-18 02:51:29 AM
Earth Hour teaches us that tackling global warming is easy.

Well, of course.  It's super easy to tackle a problem that doesn't exist.  Just last week I delayed the Ragnarok by five minutes.
 
2013-03-18 02:51:41 AM
Remember to not buy any gas on Sunday, too. That'll show those mean oil companies.
 
2013-03-18 02:52:27 AM
We have enough oil to last forever, practically.
 
2013-03-18 02:55:00 AM

DON.MAC: In 1st world countries, nearly every candle will be made from Paraffin Wax unless you get it from a stall at a craft market.


Mmm. Bacon tallow candles.
 
2013-03-18 02:57:48 AM
Heh, i recall when this first started the power companies were saying it might cause power plants to explode. Seems they're still trying to talk people out of causing them less profits for one day.
 
2013-03-18 02:59:01 AM

7KQ201_McKittrick: We have enough oil to last forever, practically.


Seems to me that fracking may be proof that this isn't true. If we had unlimited oil, why are we using such a complicated maneuver to get more out of the ground?
 
2013-03-18 03:00:02 AM
So the headline doesn't reflect the article or the facts, and the article is whining and pointless, another pretentious imbecile complaining that anyone else does anything.
 
2013-03-18 03:04:46 AM
Boy thank god the power company is going to lower production for one hour, instead of letting all that unused energy to waste.
 
2013-03-18 03:06:26 AM
EH has always been a sham rife with sycophantic,misguided/deluded, do-gooders giving each other the warm-and-fuzzies while achieving zip.

This is news to anyone over the age of 12?
 
2013-03-18 03:06:27 AM
But the reality is that Earth Hour teaches all the wrong lessens, and it actually increases CO2 emissions.

all the wrong lessens

all the wrong lessens

all the wrong lessens
 
2013-03-18 03:07:09 AM
How about a "Go to bed an hour early" day?

Actually, since sunrise isn't until 7:30am CST here I'd still need light if I got up early.
 
2013-03-18 03:07:19 AM

nmrsnr: How disingenuous is it to treat what is clearly a publicity stunt as if the purpose of it was to actually cut CO2 emissions in-and-of itself? Also, he ends with saying we shouldn't put more money into wind and solar energies, but should instead fund research into green energy sources that can compete with fossil fuels. What the hell technologies does he think those are without wind and solar? The only ones I can think of are fission (which, after Fukushima, is not going to happen), fusion (which has been 25 years away for 60 years), and tidal (which only works if you have waters with tides). Solar is, ultimately, the most abundant power source we have, so it's all going to boil down to that eventually, might as well get the infrastructure in place now. I greatly dislike people who think that because something isn't solving the problem right now in its entirety it's clearly not worth doing and should be abandoned. Turning off you lights symbolically for an hour to show public support and demand for a more environmentally conscious world won't fix pollution? Terrible waste of time. Solar energy hasn't given us emission free jetpacks? Not worth it. The author just seemed like he wanted to be a greener-than-thou prick.

/rant off


Fission isn't viable because of tidal waves, but tidal energy isn't viable unless you have tides? Either you do, or do-not, have tides, so either way you have a source of energy.
 
2013-03-18 03:09:26 AM
Energy will be present so long as there is a sun. I don't mean direct photocells. I mean plants.
 
2013-03-18 03:12:57 AM

VendorXeno: So the headline doesn't reflect the article or the facts, and the article is whining and pointless, another pretentious imbecile complaining that anyone else does anything.


If you are going to make that kind of claim, it helps to actually RTFA because the headline does reflect the article.
 
2013-03-18 03:14:16 AM

nmrsnr: What the hell technologies does he think those are without wind and solar?


Biofuels? Lots of options there; cellulose to some type of alcohol, oil from algae, landfill and farm-waste methane, etc.
 
2013-03-18 03:16:10 AM
Something promoted as beneficial for the environment actually harms it? NO! Never!

/recycling (clean metal recycling conditionally excluded)
//hybrid cars
///CFL light bulbs
////etcetcetcetcetcetc
 
2013-03-18 03:16:38 AM
Your website still does not know how to properly handle mobile requests; your argument is invalid.
 
2013-03-18 03:17:05 AM

Yes this is dog: But the reality is that Earth Hour teaches all the wrong lessens, and it actually increases CO2 emissions.

all the wrong lessens

all the wrong lessens

all the wrong lessens


Once was enough.  Good job on destroying the planet with needless triviality.
 
2013-03-18 03:19:29 AM

nmrsnr: How disingenuous is it to treat what is clearly a publicity stunt as if the purpose of it was to actually cut CO2 emissions in-and-of itself? Also, he ends with saying we shouldn't put more money into wind and solar energies, but should instead fund research into green energy sources that can compete with fossil fuels. What the hell technologies does he think those are without wind and solar? The only ones I can think of are fission (which, after Fukushima, is not going to happen), fusion (which has been 25 years away for 60 years), and tidal (which only works if you have waters with tides). Solar is, ultimately, the most abundant power source we have, so it's all going to boil down to that eventually, might as well get the infrastructure in place now. I greatly dislike people who think that because something isn't solving the problem right now in its entirety it's clearly not worth doing and should be abandoned. Turning off you lights symbolically for an hour to show public support and demand for a more environmentally conscious world won't fix pollution? Terrible waste of time. Solar energy hasn't given us emission free jetpacks? Not worth it. The author just seemed like he wanted to be a greener-than-thou prick.

/rant off


Look up LFTR, been around since the 60's but dropped as it doesn't make Pu...which is the primary reason we use the antiquated and unsafe present nuke systems. Solar and wind are trinkets which will become apparent when we need to replace them as their life expectancy doesn't get much past the quarter century mark. Thorium is a safe and viable solution for all our energy needs, flame on.
 
2013-03-18 03:19:31 AM

Ivo Shandor: nmrsnr: What the hell technologies does he think those are without wind and solar?

Biofuels? Lots of options there; cellulose to some type of alcohol, oil from algae, landfill and farm-waste methane, etc.


After the third paragraph, the article devolved into an unsupported and completely unfocused rant against green anything the likes of which are regularly seen on Fark. Reading the article did not enlighten, rather quite the opposite.
 
2013-03-18 03:20:34 AM

Yogimus: Energy will be present so long as there is a sun. I don't mean direct photocells. I mean plants.


Everything is solar-powered...
 
2013-03-18 03:29:29 AM

VendorXeno: So the headline doesn't reflect the article or the facts, and the article is whining and pointless, another pretentious imbecile complaining that anyone else does anything.


What's his Fark handle?
 
2013-03-18 03:32:45 AM

J. Frank Parnell: Heh, i recall when this first started the power companies were saying it might cause power plants to explode. Seems they're still trying to talk people out of causing them less profits for one day.


Not really about the profits for one day...
For all of the power that is lowered for one hour, we're forced to shut down units for this single hour and then start them back up. This is typically cycled with something fairly easy such as a gas turbine that is used for quicker response times. Now realize that for every startup of these gas turbines, you've got anywhere from 5-30 minutes of unregulated emissions in order to build the temperatures and pressures necessary to sync this unit online. So for your one hour of emissions savings, I get to spend 15 minutes watching the turbines belt out NOx and CO and CO2 to make you feel better about turning off a lightbulb.

/ymmv
//try doing more throughout the entire year, that's how these things can make a difference. If my daily load reduces, so will my power output and daily emissions with planning.
 
2013-03-18 03:33:45 AM

nulluspixiusdemonica: Yogimus: Energy will be present so long as there is a sun. I don't mean direct photocells. I mean plants.

Everything is solar-powered...


I always figured there were 4 types of energy.

Fusion
Fission
Gravity
Electrostatic

Everything else is just a derivative of these.
 
2013-03-18 03:36:49 AM

Msol: Now that I think about it... the last Earth Hour I went to did have a whole bunch of candles burning...


afrikent.files.wordpress.com
North Korea is very environmentally-conscious.
 
2013-03-18 03:47:39 AM
The heading kind of applies to most publicity stunts that the green types do. But lets just ignore common sense because doing something makes us feel special and above others.
 
2013-03-18 03:57:54 AM

powerplantgirl: try doing more throughout the entire year, that's how these things can make a difference.


I think that's what it's supposed to be inspiring people to do. And i do, myself. I don't even take part in 'Earth Hour' because i see it as an empty gesture. Like so many things these days. Most people just do something on that day and it makes them feel like they did their part, then go back to the routine. I'd agree that is pointless.
 
2013-03-18 04:02:59 AM

J. Frank Parnell: powerplantgirl: try doing more throughout the entire year, that's how these things can make a difference.

I think that's what it's supposed to be inspiring people to do. And i do, myself. I don't even take part in 'Earth Hour' because i see it as an empty gesture. Like so many things these days. Most people just do something on that day and it makes them feel like they did their part, then go back to the routine. I'd agree that is pointless.


I totally agree with this, do it all year long and not just for one hour. I was also just trying to say it really doesn't matter about one hour of "lost profits", we're making MORE emissions to cover this one hour of an "earthly gesture"
 
2013-03-18 04:13:43 AM

Ivo Shandor: nmrsnr: What the hell technologies does he think those are without wind and solar?

Biofuels? Lots of options there; cellulose to some type of alcohol, oil from algae, landfill and farm-waste methane, etc.


and none of that will reduce CO2 emissions cause you need to BURN the fuels to extract the energy potential from them. however Wind, Solar, Geo-Thermal, and now Bio-Thermal energy are clean and truly green alternatives.

article was nothing but a sound good whine piece using bad facts (not really facts) to try and get people to stay the course as we have been for decades. only part of it that is actually correct is that Earth Hour is a pointless feel good gesture
 
2013-03-18 04:15:16 AM

powerplantgirl: I was also just trying to say it really doesn't matter about one hour of "lost profits", we're making MORE emissions to cover this one hour of an "earthly gesture"


Yeah, i got all that. But i still think the brief drop in paying customers, maybe combined with any costs of cycling things down and up, is what motivates power companies to try and deter people from doing it, rather than a concern for the environment.
 
2013-03-18 04:18:19 AM
nulluspixiusdemonica: Yogimus: Energy will be present so long as there is a sun. I don't mean direct photocells. I mean plants.

Everything is solar-powered...


Deep-sea life at thermal vents disagrees.
 
2013-03-18 04:18:36 AM
I love their argument "Using less energy doesn't do anything, so keep using lots of energy!" I also enjoy their claim that renewables can't help.

Pretty much the message is "Don't take any personal responsibility, let someone else act."

That certainly sounds like the New American Way (Let someone else fix things)
 
2013-03-18 04:20:24 AM
Normally we refer to a pointless, feel-good gesture that does sweet FA about solving an actual problem we say that it's raising awareness. Is that what this is all about? I need to know because when people say they are raising awareness it makes me want to punch them in the head and I'm not clear how to resolve my emotional ambivalence on this one yet.
 
2013-03-18 04:22:01 AM

J. Frank Parnell: maybe combined with any costs of cycling things down and up, is what motivates power companies to try and deter people from doing it

The tail does not wag the dog. Consumption is not driven by the producer.
 
2013-03-18 04:22:43 AM

powerplantgirl: If my daily load reduces, so will my power output and daily emissions with planning.


That's what I tell my wife...
 
2013-03-18 04:23:30 AM

ThreeFootSmurf: Ivo Shandor: nmrsnr: What the hell technologies does he think those are without wind and solar?

Biofuels? Lots of options there; cellulose to some type of alcohol, oil from algae, landfill and farm-waste methane, etc.

and none of that will reduce CO2 emissions cause you need to BURN the fuels to extract the energy potential from them. however Wind, Solar, Geo-Thermal, and now Bio-Thermal energy are clean and truly green alternatives.

article was nothing but a sound good whine piece using bad facts (not really facts) to try and get people to stay the course as we have been for decades. only part of it that is actually correct is that Earth Hour is a pointless feel good gesture


Burning of biomass is carbon neutral.
 
2013-03-18 04:25:16 AM

ultraholland: Deep-sea life at thermal vents disagrees.


So.. these thermal vents... magic? 

Fissionable material produced by... humping rabbits?

everything is solar powered... not necessarily by the same solar source, sure, but it all starts with the star...
 
2013-03-18 04:31:20 AM

nulluspixiusdemonica: ultraholland: Deep-sea life at thermal vents disagrees.

So.. these thermal vents... magic? 

Fissionable material produced by... humping rabbits?

everything is solar powered... not necessarily by the same solar source, sure, but it all starts with the star...


You forget gravity. And electrostatic. And that "nature abhors a vacuum" thing.
 
2013-03-18 04:35:13 AM

MrSteve007: That certainly sounds like the New American Way (Let someone else fix things)


No one takes responsibility and it ends up being the government to take care of things.
 
2013-03-18 04:40:13 AM

ciberido: Msol: Now that I think about it... the last Earth Hour I went to did have a whole bunch of candles burning...

[afrikent.files.wordpress.com image 850x637]
North Korea is very environmentally-conscious.


Yes. Best Korea has madatory Earth Hours every week, and look how it has turned them into a happy, well-adjusted country.
 
2013-03-18 04:43:24 AM

J. Frank Parnell: powerplantgirl: I was also just trying to say it really doesn't matter about one hour of "lost profits", we're making MORE emissions to cover this one hour of an "earthly gesture"

Yeah, i got all that. But i still think the brief drop in paying customers, maybe combined with any costs of cycling things down and up, is what motivates power companies to try and deter people from doing it, rather than a concern for the environment.


The hour that people are turning off their lights isn't even during peak usage hours. It's more of a nuisance than money thing (from my perspective) because plants like to be ran at one load, for the most part, and any cycling of the units is harder on them. So yes you run the risk of breaking more things by cycling the units, but those broken parts will just be passed along in your rates.
If you really wanted to argue about the power companies losing money for this one hour, I'd maybe see your point of it was during the day at peak usage, but as I read it it's at night, which means they're losing an hour of residential sales (not business sales) which are significantly lower.

More of a pain in the ass than financially motivated really.
 
2013-03-18 05:17:53 AM

powerplantgirl: J. Frank Parnell: powerplantgirl: try doing more throughout the entire year, that's how these things can make a difference.

I think that's what it's supposed to be inspiring people to do. And i do, myself. I don't even take part in 'Earth Hour' because i see it as an empty gesture. Like so many things these days. Most people just do something on that day and it makes them feel like they did their part, then go back to the routine. I'd agree that is pointless.

I totally agree with this, do it all year long and not just for one hour. I was also just trying to say it really doesn't matter about one hour of "lost profits", we're making MORE emissions to cover this one hour of an "earthly gesture"


Statistics for Earth Hour 2010, provided by Energy Australia, showed that the Sydney CBD area electricity demand decreased by 6.3%. If carried out sufficiently, that would sting profits at some point. In my place of scatter, it's the refrigerator that uses watts. May I suggest planning ahead, using up most of the stuff inside and then unplug the refrigerator during Earth Hour and turn it back on when you need it again.
 
2013-03-18 05:18:43 AM
I'll turn on everything around here to offset the possible deleterious effects of other people turning off!


/You're Welcome
 
2013-03-18 05:26:02 AM
The smug sense of superiority is worth the increased CO2.
 
2013-03-18 05:27:35 AM
That a professor is under the impression Earth Hour is intended to actually lower CO2 emissions is a bit of a worry. While I agree that to some more pragmatic souls, it may seem a bit contradictory that we don't switch off our appliances, many of which are on standby all day while we are at work, I struggle with the idea that he states (and possibly believes) that the power stations will surge on firing up after Earth Hour. He can't seriously believe that is the case?

As cynical as I am about Earth Hour, I do understand that it is to raise awareness - not to actually lower emissions
 
2013-03-18 05:29:40 AM

Delay: that would sting profits at some point.


You appear to be suggesting that the folks at fault here are the producers?

I'm concerned that the "awareness" being raised is missing the mark somewhat...
 
2013-03-18 05:34:35 AM
The real benefit of Earth Hour is being able to see the stars.
 
2013-03-18 05:35:46 AM

ThreeFootSmurf: Biofuels? Lots of options there; cellulose to some type of alcohol, oil from algae, landfill and farm-waste methane, etc.

and none of that will reduce CO2 emissions cause you need to BURN the fuels to extract the energy potential from them.


Do you want to know how I know you don't understand the carbon cycle?
 
2013-03-18 05:37:44 AM

nulluspixiusdemonica: Delay: that would sting profits at some point.

You appear to be suggesting that the folks at fault here are the producers?

I'm concerned that the "awareness" being raised is missing the mark somewhat...


Right, are you guys trying to hurt profits or lower emissions?

And 6.3 percent of residential is significantly lower than 6.3 percent of daytime business usage. If you want to "lower emissions" and "hurt profits" do it during peak usage times.
 
2013-03-18 05:43:35 AM

nulluspixiusdemonica: ultraholland: Deep-sea life at thermal vents disagrees.

So.. these thermal vents... magic? 

Fissionable material produced by... humping rabbits?

everything is solar powered... not necessarily by the same solar source, sure, but it all starts with the star...


Small but dense blooms of life exist at black smokers completely independent of solar energy. Fissionable material is completely unrelated to solar energy.

To be incredibly precise, fissionable material was produced with solar power, just not from the sun we currently use. Part of the energy that powers the deep sea vent colonies also indirectly comes from the heat of radioactive materials in the core.
 
2013-03-18 05:51:10 AM
nulluspixiusdemonica: ultraholland: Deep-sea life at thermal vents disagrees.

everything is solar powered... not necessarily by the same solar source, sure, but it all starts with the star...


In the sense that all of the elements down there were created in the hearts of stars, you are correct.
 
2013-03-18 06:02:56 AM
Tesla is not amused.
http://showdownatunobtainium.com/teslaedison/wp-content/uploads/2012/ 0 7/nikola-tesla-and-his-wardenclyffe-tower-and-laboratory41.jpeg">http ://showdownatunobtainium.com/teslaedison/wp-content/uploads/2012/0 7/nikola-tesla-and-his-wardenclyffe-tower-and-laboratory41.jpeg showdownatunobtainium.com
 
2013-03-18 06:06:04 AM

ultraholland: In the sense that all of the elements down there were created in the hearts of stars, you are correct.


I disagree, and here is why. Osmosis. It creates flow within liquids of different densities.  This "energy" is not dependent on matter, it merely takes place using said matter.
 
2013-03-18 06:10:34 AM
Turning off your lights saves zero energy if you are heating your house anyway, assuming you bother to close your blinds and all that, because all of the light gets turned to heat. It'd be a lot better to do this in the summer. Makes CFLs in cold climates pretty pointless, too.
 
2013-03-18 06:16:51 AM
All that earth hour will do is encourage people to fark with all these romantic candles around and then we will have more little humans running around putting a drain on the planets resources.
 
2013-03-18 06:19:35 AM

DreamWalker: All that earth hour will do is encourage people to fark with all these romantic candles around and then we will have more little humans running around putting a drain on the planets resources.


The planet's resources will never drain unless we start lobbing them out of orbit.
 
2013-03-18 06:25:07 AM

nmrsnr: How disingenuous is it to treat what is clearly a publicity stunt as if the purpose of it was to actually cut CO2 emissions in-and-of itself? Also, he ends with saying we shouldn't put more money into wind and solar energies, but should instead fund research into green energy sources that can compete with fossil fuels. What the hell technologies does he think those are without wind and solar? The only ones I can think of are fission (which, after Fukushima, is not going to happen), fusion (which has been 25 years away for 60 years), and tidal (which only works if you have waters with tides). Solar is, ultimately, the most abundant power source we have, so it's all going to boil down to that eventually, might as well get the infrastructure in place now. I greatly dislike people who think that because something isn't solving the problem right now in its entirety it's clearly not worth doing and should be abandoned. Turning off you lights symbolically for an hour to show public support and demand for a more environmentally conscious world won't fix pollution? Terrible waste of time. Solar energy hasn't given us emission free jetpacks? Not worth it. The author just seemed like he wanted to be a greener-than-thou prick.

/rant off


There's also geothermal. The earth's pretty warm no matter whether you are, if you dig deep enough. Of course, most places aren't geologically active enough to make it feasible. Though, I have heard of the same sort of thing on a small scale used to heat/cool homes/buildings even stable regions. Not sure how effective it was.

So yeah, wind and solar is pretty much it. Unless he thinks we can come up with new unexpected sources of green energy (which is certainly possible).
 
2013-03-18 06:30:17 AM

Yogimus: DreamWalker: All that earth hour will do is encourage people to fark with all these romantic candles around and then we will have more little humans running around putting a drain on the planets resources.

The planet's resources will never drain unless we start lobbing them out of orbit.


They can: they can be consumed and transmuted into different chemicals which don't have the necessary properties to be used in the way you need.

Possibilities exist to re-create those resources but it, of course, requires an even greater investment of energy than you got out of it in the first place. The corollary is solar, since the sun puts out enormous gobs of energy everywhere every second and even the whole of the earth captures only a tiny fraction. But you're still limited by the resources consumed in creating the technology to capture that energy (and there is always loss, to unreclaimable decay or malfunction).
 
2013-03-18 06:32:20 AM
Wow.  Someone is angry about environmentalism.
 
2013-03-18 06:35:16 AM

Niveras: Yogimus: DreamWalker: All that earth hour will do is encourage people to fark with all these romantic candles around and then we will have more little humans running around putting a drain on the planets resources.

The planet's resources will never drain unless we start lobbing them out of orbit.

They can: they can be consumed and transmuted into different chemicals which don't have the necessary properties to be used in the way you need.

Possibilities exist to re-create those resources but it, of course, requires an even greater investment of energy than you got out of it in the first place. The corollary is solar, since the sun puts out enormous gobs of energy everywhere every second and even the whole of the earth captures only a tiny fraction. But you're still limited by the resources consumed in creating the technology to capture that energy (and there is always loss, to unreclaimable decay or malfunction).


I agree, but if time = energy, then the resources will return over the ages.  I know, we're agreeing here but being picky over the technicalities. :)
 
2013-03-18 06:55:28 AM

nulluspixiusdemonica: J. Frank Parnell: maybe combined with any costs of cycling things down and up, is what motivates power companies to try and deter people from doing it
The tail does not wag the dog. Consumption is not driven by the producer.


Says the guy who never has been through rolling blackouts or brownouts.  Energy is not a normal commodity
 
2013-03-18 07:01:34 AM
and turn off my bitcoin mining rigs for 1 hour
NEVER!
 
2013-03-18 07:08:41 AM

gulogulo: Says the guy who never has been through rolling blackouts or brownouts.  Energy is not a normal commodity


Ermm... you may want to reconsider this tack....

Secondly, producers not meeting demand==evil producers are responsible for power consumption? What is this?

Want to do something concrete about reducing your power consumption footprint? Use lower wattage bulbs, put the geyser on a timer, insulate your home and *stop breeding like rabid stoats*...

All of which takes effort and introduces a small level of discomfort.... Far simpler to buy into the communal delusion of efficacy that is represented by "awareness" campaigns like EH...
 
2013-03-18 07:47:40 AM
To green the world's energy, we should abandon the old-fashioned policy of subsidizing unreliable solar and wind-a policy that has failed for 20 years, and that will fail for the next 22. Instead, we should focus on inventing new, more efficient green technologies to outcompete fossil fuels.

Translation: only invest in technologies that involve fossil fuels.  I was paid to right this article by an oil company.
 
2013-03-18 07:52:24 AM

manimal2878: I was paid to right this article by an oil company.

 
2013-03-18 08:06:24 AM
It's a cult, just like any other cult.
 
2013-03-18 08:07:15 AM

swahnhennessy: The real benefit of Earth Hour is being able to see the stars.


images.wikia.com
 
2013-03-18 08:13:59 AM

J. Frank Parnell: powerplantgirl: I was also just trying to say it really doesn't matter about one hour of "lost profits", we're making MORE emissions to cover this one hour of an "earthly gesture"

Yeah, i got all that. But i still think the brief drop in paying customers, maybe combined with any costs of cycling things down and up, is what motivates power companies to try and deter people from doing it, rather than a concern for the environment.


Gut feelings beat facts every day of the week. You're pathetic.
 
2013-03-18 08:17:00 AM

powerplantgirl: J. Frank Parnell: powerplantgirl: I was also just trying to say it really doesn't matter about one hour of "lost profits", we're making MORE emissions to cover this one hour of an "earthly gesture"

Yeah, i got all that. But i still think the brief drop in paying customers, maybe combined with any costs of cycling things down and up, is what motivates power companies to try and deter people from doing it, rather than a concern for the environment.

The hour that people are turning off their lights isn't even during peak usage hours. It's more of a nuisance than money thing (from my perspective) because plants like to be ran at one load, for the most part, and any cycling of the units is harder on them. So yes you run the risk of breaking more things by cycling the units, but those broken parts will just be passed along in your rates.
If you really wanted to argue about the power companies losing money for this one hour, I'd maybe see your point of it was during the day at peak usage, but as I read it it's at night, which means they're losing an hour of residential sales (not business sales) which are significantly lower.

More of a pain in the ass than financially motivated really.


He'd rather go with his gut than listen to someone in the industry explain it to them with facts and logic. You can't fix that. I have 'em farkied as someone thinking that humans aren't physically meant to eat meat. I'm pretty sure you can't "win" this no matter how right you are.
 
2013-03-18 08:20:50 AM

ultraholland: In the sense that all of the elements down there were created in the hearts of stars, you are correct.


And that the heat and tidal forces from the sun are responsible for a tiny portion of the heat in our core. The heat I'm sure is an infinitesimal contribution, but the tidal forces less so.
 
2013-03-18 08:21:04 AM
And turning off the dark actually did more to harm Spider-Man than help him.
 
2013-03-18 08:23:16 AM

BravadoGT: Whatever.  Results don't matter!  Only what's in our HEARTS


Just like the Iraq war.
 
2013-03-18 08:25:46 AM
Slate article hmm I smell horse manure

and trees are bad for the environment
thanks Ronald Regan
 
2013-03-18 08:39:32 AM

manimal2878: Translation: only invest in technologies that involve fossil fuels.  I was paid to right this article by an oil company.


Wind-farms: Costly, high maintenance, susceptible to extremes in weather and represent an intermittent supply spike problem when plugged into the national grid. Most studies seem to indicate that these projects are designed from the ground up to farm subsidies, not produce power.

Geothermal provides a more manageable source of energy with the infrastructure cost challenge to overcome unless you happen to be near a major plate boundary... which means some maintenance cost following any tectonic upheaval... which such projects are known to cause... also the the not insignificant environmental risks...

Solar is challenged by weather, storage and delivery, (also intermittent). Not forgetting the energy sink represented by the actual panels, (it could take anywhere up to 9-11 years for a panel to pay back the energy cost raised in its fabrication)

So is it delusional or realistic to look at making more efficient use of the current supply chain?
 
2013-03-18 08:43:02 AM

Prof. Frink


Either you do, or do-not, have tides, so either way you have a source of energy.


Tide not. Do, or do not. There is no tide.
 
2013-03-18 08:43:24 AM

untaken_name: Something promoted as beneficial for the environment actually harms it? NO! Never!

/recycling (clean metal recycling conditionally excluded)
//hybrid cars
///CFL light bulbs
////etcetcetcetcetcetc


Say what?

Recycling glass doesn't really harm the environment. It basically goes through the same production as making new glass.

CFL light bulbs have a tiny amount of mercury and some electronics. All can be easily produced and recycled without much harm. Sure, tossing them in the dump isn't really so great from an environmental perspective, but everywhere I've lived has CFL recycling centers. I've had CFL lights for years and years and the energy (and corresponding pollution) they've saved have more than made up for the environmental and energy costs used to make them.
 
2013-03-18 08:49:17 AM

Animatronik: 7KQ201_McKittrick: We have enough oil to last forever, practically.

Seems to me that fracking may be proof that this isn't true. If we had unlimited oil, why are we using such a complicated maneuver to get more out of the ground?


Isn't fracking primarily used to get at natural gas? This is the first I've heard of fracking being used for oil.
 
2013-03-18 08:52:04 AM
TAKE THAT, YOU DIRTY HIPPIES
 
2013-03-18 08:57:45 AM
Celebrate by installing some LED bulbs?
 
2013-03-18 08:58:42 AM
How did this end up with the "Ironic" tag?  Did "Stupid" and "Obvious" take one another out?
 
2013-03-18 09:01:13 AM

nulluspixiusdemonica: manimal2878: Translation: only invest in technologies that involve fossil fuels.  I was paid to right this article by an oil company.

Wind-farms: Costly, high maintenance, susceptible to extremes in weather and represent an intermittent supply spike problem when plugged into the national grid. Most studies seem to indicate that these projects are designed from the ground up to farm subsidies, not produce power.

Geothermal provides a more manageable source of energy with the infrastructure cost challenge to overcome unless you happen to be near a major plate boundary... which means some maintenance cost following any tectonic upheaval... which such projects are known to cause... also the the not insignificant environmental risks...

Solar is challenged by weather, storage and delivery, (also intermittent). Not forgetting the energy sink represented by the actual panels, (it could take anywhere up to 9-11 years for a panel to pay back the energy cost raised in its fabrication)

So is it delusional or realistic to look at making more efficient use of the current supply chain?


First of all, cost is a temporary problem, the more ubiquitous a technology the faster it drops in price and increases in efficiency. Second of all you are only looking at installation and maintenance cost vs. direct cost of energy savings, what about the indirect savings of not destroying our environment? How much has increased storm activity, droughts, and wildfires cost us? If that can be alleviated by alternative energy that is saving as well. Lastly, the intermittence/ storability problems are battery problems more than energy generation problems. You want to convince me we need more funding for energy storage tech? I'm right with you, but solar and wind are still our current best alternative generation means.
 
2013-03-18 09:03:23 AM
This whole turning out the lights thing is completely symbolic and part of the revisionist history that states that the invention of electric lighting (by Edison singlehandledy, of course, ignoring any other contributions to the effort) was what spawned the Industrial Revolution. It was not lighting, but mechanical power, that electricity truly revolutionized. Gone were smoky, puttery hit and miss engines that powered smaller workplaces, as well as the large steam plants required to power larger factories. Tesla's two greatest inventions, the AC motor and the multi-phase system of electric transmission, allowed power to be generated in huge plants outside of cities, keeping the pollution produced farther away. It also opened the door to clean generation technologies like hydropower and, half a century later, nuclear (though of course the cleanliness of that is open to debate for many.)

I don't understand this statement: "As the United Kingdom's National Grid operators have found, a small decline in electricity consumption does not translate into less energy being pumped into the grid, and therefore will not reduce emissions." This statement doesn't make sense. You cannot have a decline in consumption, yet put the same amount of energy into the grid. The grid is a complex network, but electrical theories remain the same: power in must equal power out, after transmission losses (resistive and reactive) are factored in.

Want to really make a statement? Turn off your air conditioner on a sweltering summer afternoon and use fans for an hour or two. A/C uses far more energy than all lighting put together.
 
2013-03-18 09:12:05 AM

powerplantgirl:  So for your one hour of emissions savings, I get to spend 15 minutes watching the turbines belt out NOx and CO and CO2 to make you feel better about turning off a lightbulb.


Also I've never heard of a utility actually opposing Earth Hour. But if they were going to it'd probably be on the grounds that it's kind of a pain in the ass to have to balance the load from a bunch of yahoos flipping their lights on and off.
 
2013-03-18 09:33:21 AM

Voiceofreason01: powerplantgirl:  So for your one hour of emissions savings, I get to spend 15 minutes watching the turbines belt out NOx and CO and CO2 to make you feel better about turning off a lightbulb.

Also I've never heard of a utility actually opposing Earth Hour. But if they were going to it'd probably be on the grounds that it's kind of a pain in the ass to have to balance the load from a bunch of yahoos flipping their lights on and off.


Yeah I've never heard of one opposing it either. Trying to balance a grid when the load loses even 5% from one hour to the next then back is really a pain, especially during lower load times because we've already compensated for the lower power demands of a night grid. And now we have to oblige all of the yahoos...
;)
 
2013-03-18 09:39:13 AM

UnspokenVoice: powerplantgirl: J. Frank Parnell: powerplantgirl: I was also just trying to say it really doesn't matter about one hour of "lost profits", we're making MORE emissions to cover this one hour of an "earthly gesture"

Yeah, i got all that. But i still think the brief drop in paying customers, maybe combined with any costs of cycling things down and up, is what motivates power companies to try and deter people from doing it, rather than a concern for the environment.

The hour that people are turning off their lights isn't even during peak usage hours. It's more of a nuisance than money thing (from my perspective) because plants like to be ran at one load, for the most part, and any cycling of the units is harder on them. So yes you run the risk of breaking more things by cycling the units, but those broken parts will just be passed along in your rates.
If you really wanted to argue about the power companies losing money for this one hour, I'd maybe see your point of it was during the day at peak usage, but as I read it it's at night, which means they're losing an hour of residential sales (not business sales) which are significantly lower.

More of a pain in the ass than financially motivated really.

He'd rather go with his gut than listen to someone in the industry explain it to them with facts and logic. You can't fix that. I have 'em farkied as someone thinking that humans aren't physically meant to eat meat. I'm pretty sure you can't "win" this no matter how right you are.


Wut?! Who doesn't eat meat ffs?!
No meat AND he hates power?

:D
 
2013-03-18 09:59:29 AM
Article was exactly on track about ivory tower environmental activists. A lot of what people think is green is junk science.
 
2013-03-18 10:02:21 AM
The messaging of Earth Hour is so awful, because it lets assholes like this say, "See? Environmentalists are just Luddites!".
 
2013-03-18 10:17:08 AM

destrip: This whole turning out the lights thing is completely symbolic and part of the revisionist history that states that the invention of electric lighting (by Edison singlehandledy, of course, ignoring any other contributions to the effort) was what spawned the Industrial Revolution. It was not lighting, but mechanical power, that electricity truly revolutionized. Gone were smoky, puttery hit and miss engines that powered smaller workplaces, as well as the large steam plants required to power larger factories. Tesla's two greatest inventions, the AC motor and the multi-phase system of electric transmission, allowed power to be generated in huge plants outside of cities, keeping the pollution produced farther away. It also opened the door to clean generation technologies like hydropower and, half a century later, nuclear (though of course the cleanliness of that is open to debate for many.)

I don't understand this statement: "As the United Kingdom's National Grid operators have found, a small decline in electricity consumption does not translate into less energy being pumped into the grid, and therefore will not reduce emissions." This statement doesn't make sense. You cannot have a decline in consumption, yet put the same amount of energy into the grid. The grid is a complex network, but electrical theories remain the same: power in must equal power out, after transmission losses (resistive and reactive) are factored in.

Want to really make a statement? Turn off your air conditioner on a sweltering summer afternoon and use fans for an hour or two. A/C uses far more energy than all lighting put together.


That would be fine as long as the AC remained off until the outside temps dropped, but shutting it down for a few hours and letting the heat build up in the house won't reduce electricity usage. The AC would just have to work longer to remove the heat once it came back on.
 
2013-03-18 10:17:33 AM
If you truly want to do something to help save this planet then start having babies.  The more carbon we can store in bodies the less there will be free in the environment.  As long as we stay ahead of the death rate we are healing the Earth.
 
2013-03-18 10:18:20 AM
"In fact, Earth Hour will cause emissions to increase."

"Moreover, during Earth Hour, any significant drop in electricity demand will entail a reduction in CO2 emissions during the hour, but it will be offset by the surge from firing up coal or gas stations to restore electricity supplies afterward."

Which is it?
 
2013-03-18 10:48:24 AM

theMightyRegeya: "In fact, Earth Hour will cause emissions to increase."

"Moreover, during Earth Hour, any significant drop in electricity demand will entail a reduction in CO2 emissions during the hour, but it will be offset by the surge from firing up coal or gas stations to restore electricity supplies afterward."

Which is it?


It's both. During the hour of conservation, the CO2 emissions will be lower but after that hour, in order to restore power levels to equal the original demand, we get to run unregulated in emissions while we start the units back up. So for example I would normally put out less than 5 parts per million of nox for an entire running hour at full load, now I get to run for 30 minutes at 90 ppm to start the unit back up. CO2 trends also follow these numbers.
Please see earlier posts for further explanations.
 
2013-03-18 11:25:17 AM

RabidJade: The heading kind of applies to most publicity stunts that the green types humans do. But lets just ignore common sense because doing something makes us feel special and above others.


FTFY

Seriously, if you're trying to make some wry comment on human nature, great.  If you're seriously trying to point out something specific about "the green types," then all you're really doing is screeching "People who don't agree with me are stupid," which, somewhat ironically, makes you look really, really stupid.
 
2013-03-18 11:30:54 AM

TopoGigo: To be incredibly precise, fissionable material was produced with solar stellar power, just not from the sun we currently use. Part of the energy that powers the deep sea vent colonies also indirectly comes from the heat of radioactive materials in the core.


FT to be incredibly precise.
 
2013-03-18 11:46:23 AM

gulogulo: nulluspixiusdemonica: J. Frank Parnell: maybe combined with any costs of cycling things down and up, is what motivates power companies to try and deter people from doing it
The tail does not wag the dog. Consumption is not driven by the producer.

Says the guy who never has been through rolling blackouts or brownouts.  Energy is not a normal commodity


For those of us who don't know our economics very well, what is a "normal commodity"?  Something that has a finite maximum output?
 
2013-03-18 11:54:39 AM

nmrsnr: How disingenuous is it to treat what is clearly a publicity stunt as if the purpose of it was to actually cut CO2 emissions in-and-of itself? Also, he ends with saying we shouldn't put more money into wind and solar energies, but should instead fund research into green energy sources that can compete with fossil fuels. What the hell technologies does he think those are without wind and solar? The only ones I can think of are fission (which, after Fukushima, is not going to happen), fusion (which has been 25 years away for 60 years), and tidal (which only works if you have waters with tides). Solar is, ultimately, the most abundant power source we have, so it's all going to boil down to that eventually, might as well get the infrastructure in place now. I greatly dislike people who think that because something isn't solving the problem right now in its entirety it's clearly not worth doing and should be abandoned. Turning off you lights symbolically for an hour to show public support and demand for a more environmentally conscious world won't fix pollution? Terrible waste of time. Solar energy hasn't given us emission free jetpacks? Not worth it. The author just seemed like he wanted to be a greener-than-thou prick.

/rant off


Liquid fluoride thorium reactors would fit the bill nicely: inherently safe, vast fuel supply,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LFTR
 
2013-03-18 11:57:27 AM
farm3.static.flickr.com
 
2013-03-18 12:54:58 PM

powerplantgirl: theMightyRegeya: "In fact, Earth Hour will cause emissions to increase."

"Moreover, during Earth Hour, any significant drop in electricity demand will entail a reduction in CO2 emissions during the hour, but it will be offset by the surge from firing up coal or gas stations to restore electricity supplies afterward."

Which is it?

It's both. During the hour of conservation, the CO2 emissions will be lower but after that hour, in order to restore power levels to equal the original demand, we get to run unregulated in emissions while we start the units back up. So for example I would normally put out less than 5 parts per million of nox for an entire running hour at full load, now I get to run for 30 minutes at 90 ppm to start the unit back up. CO2 trends also follow these numbers.
Please see earlier posts for further explanations.


Well, that's your problem. Yours is a relatively dirty plant. Existing NOx control technologies that meet California emission levels are in place here and have been for over a decade. These are called best available control technology (BACT). The current California BACT limit for NOx emissions from natural gas-fired electrical generation turbines is less than or equal to 2.0 parts per million by volume on a dry basis at 15 percent oxygen.
 
2013-03-18 01:31:34 PM

DON.MAC: deffuse: DON.MAC: deffuse: Candles are fossil fuels?  All of them?  Especially the ones for indoor use?

Most of them are paraffin which is a byproduct of oily refining.  So especially the ones for indoor use.

Hmm, I thought the indoor ones were wax as paraffin made the greasy black smoke.  Either way, not all candles.

In 1st world countries, nearly every candle will be made from Paraffin Wax unless you get it from a stall at a craft market.


Or from Mythbusters.

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/mythbusters-database/e ar wax-candle.htm
 
2013-03-18 02:05:57 PM

powerplantgirl: Wut?! Who doesn't eat meat ffs?!
No meat AND he hates power?


I once pointed out how we clearly didn't evolve to eat meat, and how they also feed meat to cows who manage to absorb protein from it, while being completely vegetarian. So he mad.

/never said i didn't eat meat, quite the opposite
//but reality interferes with his derp
///and i lurv power
 
2013-03-18 02:09:02 PM
* No references to show you're causing more pollution by turning off your lights for an hour
* Confusing the point of Earth Hour's increasing-energy-awareness with a-pointless-effort-to-reduce-power
* If we can't solve the energy problems for everyone in the World then we shouldn't even try
* Confusing a waste of effort with a waste of electrical energy
* Promotion of the electrical generating industry

I'm calling it...
farm9.staticflickr.com
 
jvl
2013-03-18 02:11:07 PM
Want to save some power? Go BB gun a few streetlights. If it's really so damn important to save electricity, let's be like Flagstaff and eliminate streetlights except in high-crime areas.
 
2013-03-18 02:15:15 PM
We unplug all electronics around the house and play a long boardgames (usually for more then an hour or two). That's got to be a bit better then just flipping off the lights, yea?  :^/
 
2013-03-18 02:54:22 PM
Ah, well. Time for Plan B: driving a Hummer H3 with 'Save The Earth' stenciled on the side non-stop for an entire year.

/for awareness!
 
2013-03-18 03:04:20 PM

deffuse: Candles are fossil fuels?  All of them?  Especially the ones for indoor use?

/er, nope.


As soon as this fool started talking about candles, the entire rest of the article, which I might have taken seriously, comes into question.  Since he's UTTERLY wrong about candles, I can't imagine he got anything else right.

My candles are beeswax which is a highly renewable resource.  They also burn rather clean, and there is no farking way I believe that any single candle puts out more CO2 than a light-bulb   Sure, the light-bulb is sealed and emits no CO2 on it's own, but do you have any idea how much Co2 is involved in the construction and operation of a light-bulb?  The author doesn't.
 
2013-03-18 03:09:25 PM

nulluspixiusdemonica: Wind-farms: Costly, high maintenance, susceptible to extremes in weather and represent an intermittent supply spike problem when plugged into the national grid. Most studies seem to indicate that these projects are designed from the ground up to farm subsidies, not produce power.


I doubt oil refinerys, or coal mining could be considered cheap and low maintenance.  The goal should be that you can localize power so that you don't need a grid.  So how bad something is for the grid does not move me.

nulluspixiusdemonica:  which means some maintenance cost following any tectonic upheaval... which such projects are known to cause... also the the not insignificant environmental risks...

Again.  Fossil fuel is not cheap or maintenance free either, and the ask anyone living along the Gulf of Mexico how little risk there is to fossil fuels harming the environment.


nulluspixiusdemonica: Solar is challenged by weather, storage and delivery, (also intermittent). Not forgetting the energy sink represented by the actual panels, (it could take anywhere up to 9-11 years for a panel to pay back the energy cost raised in its fabrication)


Therefore don't invest in closing that cost gap?  That's not logical at all.


nulluspixiusdemonica: So is it delusional or realistic to look at making more efficient use of the current supply chain?

 
I don't see how your question relates at all to the rest of your post.  Why does making the most efficient use of the current stocks of fossil fuel have to preclude investing in "green" technology?
 
2013-03-18 03:17:28 PM

Kahabut: They also burn rather clean, and there is no farking way I believe that any single candle puts out more CO2 than a light-bulb


1 candle to 1 regular light bulb, maybe not. However one candle also puts out much less light than one regular light bulb. Adjust for that (more candles, or stepping down to a small night light bulb) and I would expect the candles to be the larger CO2 producers.
 
2013-03-18 03:33:04 PM
A man who acknowledges global warming is real and then goes and suggests planting more trees in wealthy western suburbs as a solution is complaining about people turning the lights off for an hour?

Hey, he makes George  (we'll respond to sea level rise by building dykes around Daddy's estate on Jupiter Island) Bush Jr. look like a genius. He makes Steven Harper's recent bill to cut back on water quality legislation--except for lakes with wealthy cottage owners look progressive, liberal and ecologically sound.

Just who is plunging whom into darkness--people who promote frugality and responsible energy use for one hour a year or people who deny the existence of all ecological and economic problems related to pollution and turn up the heater on their salt and fresh water swimming pools, their house-sized heated patio and their SUV collection and then fly off in their private jet to get some Sun in whatever in-spot is the latest fashionable winter destination?

I will be turning the lights out--and turning off the computer, TV, etc., and go out for my annual walk in the pseudo-dark of I-could-give-a-shiat. Hopefully I will need an LED flashlight to see where I am going.

Thanks enviro-hypocrites for the annual reminder that Earth Hour is on!

Is it that bad economists are casuists for whoever is paying or is it that casuists for Our Lord God Mammon make bad economists?

Jesus had to deal with White Washed Tombs, full of corruption within. We have to deal with a more-proactive type of enviro-hypocrite, who is busy white-washing or green-washing everything in sight.

If, like me, you believe that "free marketeers" are ghouls who rejoice in what causes humanity to mourn (job losses, outsourcing, global mayhem) and who mourn what causes humanity to rejoice (higher wages, better jobs, environmental regulations, health care, safety legislation, food purity) then you won't have much trouble spending an hour in the dark. It beats being on the side of the dark.
 
2013-03-18 03:43:34 PM
How can you blame the poor for not having jobs when they are merely contributing to sound stock markets, profits and the maintenance of the "natural rate of unemployment". Surely they can't be blamed for being unemployed when you believe it is the duty of the state, regulators and the market-makers to keep them that way?

I don't see any rush by free marketeers to provide affordable electricity to the poor whilst they cry crocodile tears for one hour a year at people turning the lights out and going out for a walk. And despite the patronage of France, the rush of Big Water into supplying water to the poor failed. The poor already pay much more for their dribble of water than the rich pay for foot-acres of the stuff, but they can't afford to pay more. No profits, no business model. Nothing is done. .Evian woh  And so it goes, and so it goes.

The moraline poison-filled Pharisees won't left their little fingers to do real good, but they'll bad-mouth those who do. The Sadduccees just don't care.

Brown out Washington, Shanghai, London and Copenhagen. See if that gets their attention.

There's no risk of Lomberg's dim lights going out as long as there's a fossil fuel industry and a subsidy industry to take over when the business model shifts to burning subsidized food or building windmills in every beauty spot instead of doing alternative energy and God forbid, frugality and conservation, right.
 
2013-03-18 04:41:52 PM

destrip: This whole turning out the lights thing is completely symbolic and part of the revisionist history that states that the invention of electric lighting (by Edison singlehandledy, of course, ignoring any other contributions to the effort) was what spawned the Industrial Revolution.


Don't underestimate the impact of electric lighting. The quality of light before the light bulb was abysmal. The main thing Edison's bulb gave us was the ability to be awake and productive at night, giving us more hours to run our machines.

It was not lighting, but mechanical power, that electricity truly revolutionized. Gone were smoky, puttery hit and miss engines that powered smaller workplaces, as well as the large steam plants required to power larger factories. Tesla's two greatest inventions, the AC motor and the multi-phase system of electric transmission, allowed power to be generated in huge plants outside of cities, keeping the pollution produced farther away. It also opened the door to clean generation technologies like hydropower and, half a century later, nuclear (though of course the cleanliness of that is open to debate for many.)

I don't understand this statement: "As the United Kingdom's National Grid operators have found, a small decline in electricity consumption does not translate into less energy being pumped into the grid, and therefore will not reduce emissions." This statement doesn't make sense. You cannot have a decline in consumption, yet put the same amount of energy into the grid. The grid is a complex network, but electrical theories remain the same: power in must equal power out, after transmission losses (resistive and reactive) are factored in.


Want to really make a statement? Turn off your air conditioner on a sweltering summer afternoon and use fans for an hour or two. A/C uses far more energy than all lighting put together.


It's true that A/C uses far more energy than nearly anything else in your house. As a rule, though, a few box fans will use more power than your A/C. Besides the fact that once you turn it back on, you'll use almost all of the power you saved just to cool it back down to temp. If you really want to make a statement, raise your set point by a degree, and plant a tree on the south side of your house.
 
2013-03-18 04:45:46 PM

ciberido: TopoGigo: To be incredibly precise, fissionable material was produced with solarstellar power, just not from the sun we currently use. Part of the energy that powers the deep sea vent colonies also indirectly comes from the heat of radioactive materials in the core.

FT to be incredibly precise.


Noted.
 
2013-03-18 05:01:02 PM

Ivo Shandor: Kahabut: They also burn rather clean, and there is no farking way I believe that any single candle puts out more CO2 than a light-bulb

1 candle to 1 regular light bulb, maybe not. However one candle also puts out much less light than one regular light bulb. Adjust for that (more candles, or stepping down to a small night light bulb) and I would expect the candles to be the larger CO2 producers.



If the candle was made from pure carbon, and was 1 pound, it would produce 3.6 pounds of CO2.  Honey has a 13c ratio to mass.  Meaning that a 1 pound honey candle will produce about 0.27 pounds of CO2.

So, with some back of the envelope calculation here, we see that a typical 100watt light bulb burning for 4 hours produces 0.28 pounds of CO2.  (source  http://lindsays5624.hubpages.com/hub/How-much-CO2-does-a-light-bulb-u s e) (not including construction of the bulb, or disposal)

That being the case, I'm pretty much going to stick with my original assumptions.
 
2013-03-18 05:07:39 PM

Delay: powerplantgirl: theMightyRegeya: "In fact, Earth Hour will cause emissions to increase."

"Moreover, during Earth Hour, any significant drop in electricity demand will entail a reduction in CO2 emissions during the hour, but it will be offset by the surge from firing up coal or gas stations to restore electricity supplies afterward."

Which is it?

It's both. During the hour of conservation, the CO2 emissions will be lower but after that hour, in order to restore power levels to equal the original demand, we get to run unregulated in emissions while we start the units back up. So for example I would normally put out less than 5 parts per million of nox for an entire running hour at full load, now I get to run for 30 minutes at 90 ppm to start the unit back up. CO2 trends also follow these numbers.
Please see earlier posts for further explanations.

Well, that's your problem. Yours is a relatively dirty plant. Existing NOx control technologies that meet California emission levels are in place here and have been for over a decade. These are called best available control technology (BACT). The current California BACT limit for NOx emissions from natural gas-fired electrical generation turbines is less than or equal to 2.0 parts per million by volume on a dry basis at 15 percent oxygen.


I work in a brand new plant that was turned over to us in February. We have the latest in SCR technologies and excellent emissions control even though we aren't regulated to follow them. If you will read what I wrote please:

DURING THE STARTUP of a turbine, temperatures,speeds and pressures are not constant. What do we need for proper emissions controls? Constant temperature and proper flame tuning.
SO while running at a constant megawatt output, all is right in emissions land but since everyone will be shutting things off for one hour only, the turbine be out of emissions compliance for the duration of the startup, when the EPA says I don't have to follow emissions.
 
2013-03-18 05:12:50 PM

powerplantgirl: Delay: powerplantgirl: theMightyRegeya: "In fact, Earth Hour will cause emissions to increase."

"Moreover, during Earth Hour, any significant drop in electricity demand will entail a reduction in CO2 emissions during the hour, but it will be offset by the surge from firing up coal or gas stations to restore electricity supplies afterward."

Which is it?

It's both. During the hour of conservation, the CO2 emissions will be lower but after that hour, in order to restore power levels to equal the original demand, we get to run unregulated in emissions while we start the units back up. So for example I would normally put out less than 5 parts per million of nox for an entire running hour at full load, now I get to run for 30 minutes at 90 ppm to start the unit back up. CO2 trends also follow these numbers.
Please see earlier posts for further explanations.

Well, that's your problem. Yours is a relatively dirty plant. Existing NOx control technologies that meet California emission levels are in place here and have been for over a decade. These are called best available control technology (BACT). The current California BACT limit for NOx emissions from natural gas-fired electrical generation turbines is less than or equal to 2.0 parts per million by volume on a dry basis at 15 percent oxygen.

I work in a brand new plant that was turned over to us in February. We have the latest in SCR technologies and excellent emissions control even though we aren't regulated to follow them. If you will read what I wrote please:

DURING THE STARTUP of a turbine, temperatures,speeds and pressures are not constant. What do we need for proper emissions controls? Constant temperature and proper flame tuning.
SO while running at a constant megawatt output, all is right in emissions land but since everyone will be shutting things off for one hour only, the turbine be out of emissions compliance for the duration of the startup, when the EPA says I don't have to follow emissions.


*the turbine WILL be

/not that you're going to read it anyways.
 
2013-03-18 05:24:12 PM

Delay: powerplantgirl: theMightyRegeya: "In fact, Earth Hour will cause emissions to increase."

"Moreover, during Earth Hour, any significant drop in electricity demand will entail a reduction in CO2 emissions during the hour, but it will be offset by the surge from firing up coal or gas stations to restore electricity supplies afterward."

Which is it?

It's both. During the hour of conservation, the CO2 emissions will be lower but after that hour, in order to restore power levels to equal the original demand, we get to run unregulated in emissions while we start the units back up. So for example I would normally put out less than 5 parts per million of nox for an entire running hour at full load, now I get to run for 30 minutes at 90 ppm to start the unit back up. CO2 trends also follow these numbers.
Please see earlier posts for further explanations.

Well, that's your problem. Yours is a relatively dirty plant. Existing NOx control technologies that meet California emission levels are in place here and have been for over a decade. These are called best available control technology (BACT). The current California BACT limit for NOx emissions from natural gas-fired electrical generation turbines is less than or equal to 2.0 parts per million by volume on a dry basis at 15 percent oxygen.


Again, I'm sure no one will read this BUT emissions outputs are also dependent on the state and site availability of NOx points. So just because you dirty Californians have to stick to 2ppm NOx output, others states have looser restrictions they have to follow, once they are at their operating temperature.
 
2013-03-18 05:44:41 PM

robertmeerdahl: nmrsnr: How disingenuous is it to treat what is clearly a publicity stunt as if the purpose of it was to actually cut CO2 emissions in-and-of itself? Also, he ends with saying we shouldn't put more money into wind and solar energies, but should instead fund research into green energy sources that can compete with fossil fuels. What the hell technologies does he think those are without wind and solar? The only ones I can think of are fission (which, after Fukushima, is not going to happen), fusion (which has been 25 years away for 60 years), and tidal (which only works if you have waters with tides). Solar is, ultimately, the most abundant power source we have, so it's all going to boil down to that eventually, might as well get the infrastructure in place now. I greatly dislike people who think that because something isn't solving the problem right now in its entirety it's clearly not worth doing and should be abandoned. Turning off you lights symbolically for an hour to show public support and demand for a more environmentally conscious world won't fix pollution? Terrible waste of time. Solar energy hasn't given us emission free jetpacks? Not worth it. The author just seemed like he wanted to be a greener-than-thou prick.

/rant off

Liquid fluoride thorium reactors would fit the bill nicely: inherently safe, vast fuel supply,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LFTR


I've heard of this tech before (I even considered mentioning it earlier but it still falls short of a 'sustainable/renewable' model, despite how much more common thorium is compared to other radioactive materials for "standard" fission plants) and I really like. That's good.

Then I read all the disadvantages. That's bad.

Then I remembered that pretty much all of these are just engineering problems and not really considerations of inherent un-safety as with nuclear reactors. That's good.

The problem is, it is possible that some of those disadvantages just don't have equitable solutions and that unexpected mechanical failures - while not necessarily being catastrophic - could still cause the plant to be shut down prematurely, ruining any economic incentive to produce them. That's bad.

If I had a billion dollars to blow, I'd fund the design and construction of a modern LFTR.
 
2013-03-18 06:34:02 PM

nmrsnr: How disingenuous is it to treat what is clearly a publicity stunt as if the purpose of it was to actually cut CO2 emissions in-and-of itself? Also, he ends with saying we shouldn't put more money into wind and solar energies, but should instead fund research into green energy sources that can compete with fossil fuels. What the hell technologies does he think those are without wind and solar? The only ones I can think of are fission (which, after Fukushima, is not going to happen), fusion (which has been 25 years away for 60 years), and tidal (which only works if you have waters with tides). Solar is, ultimately, the most abundant power source we have, so it's all going to boil down to that eventually, might as well get the infrastructure in place now. I greatly dislike people who think that because something isn't solving the problem right now in its entirety it's clearly not worth doing and should be abandoned. Turning off you lights symbolically for an hour to show public support and demand for a more environmentally conscious world won't fix pollution? Terrible waste of time. Solar energy hasn't given us emission free jetpacks? Not worth it. The author just seemed like he wanted to be a greener-than-thou prick.

/rant off


Well it IS a Slate article. Of course it was filled with whining drivel. The majority of Slate articles are and are used as troll fodder for fark ad views.
 
2013-03-18 09:04:45 PM

brantgoose: A man who acknowledges global warming is real and then goes and suggests planting more trees in wealthy western suburbs as a solution is complaining about people turning the lights off for an hour?

Hey, he makes George  (we'll respond to sea level rise by building dykes around Daddy's estate on Jupiter Island) Bush Jr. look like a genius. He makes Steven Harper's recent bill to cut back on water quality legislation--except for lakes with wealthy cottage owners look progressive, liberal and ecologically sound.

Just who is plunging whom into darkness--people who promote frugality and responsible energy use for one hour a year or people who deny the existence of all ecological and economic problems related to pollution and turn up the heater on their salt and fresh water swimming pools, their house-sized heated patio and their SUV collection and then fly off in their private jet to get some Sun in whatever in-spot is the latest fashionable winter destination?

I will be turning the lights out--and turning off the computer, TV, etc., and go out for my annual walk in the pseudo-dark of I-could-give-a-shiat. Hopefully I will need an LED flashlight to see where I am going.

Thanks enviro-hypocrites for the annual reminder that Earth Hour is on!

Is it that bad economists are casuists for whoever is paying or is it that casuists for Our Lord God Mammon make bad economists?

Jesus had to deal with White Washed Tombs, full of corruption within. We have to deal with a more-proactive type of enviro-hypocrite, who is busy white-washing or green-washing everything in sight.

If, like me, you believe that "free marketeers" are ghouls who rejoice in what causes humanity to mourn (job losses, outsourcing, global mayhem) and who mourn what causes humanity to rejoice (higher wages, better jobs, environmental regulations, health care, safety legislation, food purity) then you won't have much trouble spending an hour in the dark. It beats being on the side of the dark.


What?
 
2013-03-18 10:08:45 PM

powerplantgirl: Again, I'm sure no one will read this BUT emissions outputs are also dependent on the state and site availability of NOx points. So just because you dirty Californians have to stick to 2ppm NOx output, others states have looser restrictions they have to follow, once they are at their operating temperature.


The California NOx standards I posted are tighter than yours. Anyway the entire population of greater Anchorage is less than 400,000 people. You can pump out as much NOx as your dirty plant requires to start it up, but it's only an asterix on US emissions.
 
2013-03-18 10:23:11 PM

Niveras: nmrsnr: How disingenuous is it to treat what is clearly a publicity stunt as if the purpose of it was to actually cut CO2 emissions in-and-of itself? Also, he ends with saying we shouldn't put more money into wind and solar energies, but should instead fund research into green energy sources that can compete with fossil fuels. What the hell technologies does he think those are without wind and solar? The only ones I can think of are fission (which, after Fukushima, is not going to happen), fusion (which has been 25 years away for 60 years), and tidal (which only works if you have waters with tides). Solar is, ultimately, the most abundant power source we have, so it's all going to boil down to that eventually, might as well get the infrastructure in place now. I greatly dislike people who think that because something isn't solving the problem right now in its entirety it's clearly not worth doing and should be abandoned. Turning off you lights symbolically for an hour to show public support and demand for a more environmentally conscious world won't fix pollution? Terrible waste of time. Solar energy hasn't given us emission free jetpacks? Not worth it. The author just seemed like he wanted to be a greener-than-thou prick.

/rant off

There's also geothermal. The earth's pretty warm no matter whether you are, if you dig deep enough. Of course, most places aren't geologically active enough to make it feasible. Though, I have heard of the same sort of thing on a small scale used to heat/cool homes/buildings even stable regions. Not sure how effective it was.

So yeah, wind and solar is pretty much it. Unless he thinks we can come up with new unexpected sources of green energy (which is certainly possible).


Geothermal is generally completely awful for electricity generation:
- water/steam not hot enough (look up Carnot cycle)
- water has dissolved chemicals, usually, if not toxic, then quite corrosive, big engineering problem.
- live steam = gasoline surrounded by matches, as far as accidents/hazards are concerned.

Geothermal is good for heating your house if you live in Iceland, or, interestingly, excellent for making paper, otherwise, *unfortunately* not much use.......

/Nuclear
//Seven years work in fusion energy research, Chu (PhD in Physics, Nobel Prize) cancelled the project, "couldn't be bothered" with a $20 million/year project.
///So, even retards can win the Nobel Prize, and not just in Economics. Whodathunkit?
 
2013-03-18 11:08:41 PM

Delay: powerplantgirl: Again, I'm sure no one will read this BUT emissions outputs are also dependent on the state and site availability of NOx points. So just because you dirty Californians have to stick to 2ppm NOx output, others states have looser restrictions they have to follow, once they are at their operating temperature.

The California NOx standards I posted are tighter than yours. Anyway the entire population of greater Anchorage is less than 400,000 people. You can pump out as much NOx as your dirty plant requires to start it up, but it's only an asterix on US emissions.


That's exactly what I said. I've also worked at plants in Colorado with tighter emissions requirements so I know of what I speak.
 
2013-03-18 11:10:08 PM

Delay: powerplantgirl: Again, I'm sure no one will read this BUT emissions outputs are also dependent on the state and site availability of NOx points. So just because you dirty Californians have to stick to 2ppm NOx output, others states have looser restrictions they have to follow, once they are at their operating temperature.

The California NOx standards I posted are tighter than yours. Anyway the entire population of greater Anchorage is less than 400,000 people. You can pump out as much NOx as your dirty plant requires to start it up, but it's only an asterix on US emissions.


It's also a moot point because I'm talking about starting and ramping requirements and not steady state requirements. But I'm sure you agreed with that part and now you're just arguing to hear yourself.
 
2013-03-19 12:23:52 AM
Greenies are morons.  No new information there.
 
2013-03-19 03:32:35 AM

Novart: brantgoose: A man who acknowledges global warming is real and then goes and suggests planting more trees in wealthy western suburbs as a solution is complaining about people turning the lights off for an hour?

Jesus had to deal with White Washed Tombs, full of corruption within. We have to deal with a more-proactive type of enviro-hypocrite, who is busy white-washing or green-washing everything in sight.

If, like me, you believe that "free marketeers" are ghouls who rejoice in what causes humanity to mourn (job losses, outsourcing, global mayhem) and who mourn what causes humanity to rejoice (higher wages, better jobs, environmental regulations, health care, safety legislation, food purity) then you won't have much trouble spending an hour in the dark. It beats being on the side of the dark.

Wh ...


Paraphrasing: "bong on, dude!"
 
2013-03-19 06:50:23 AM

powerplantgirl: Again, I'm sure no one will read this BUT emissions outputs are also dependent on the state and site availability of NOx points. So just because you dirty Californians have to stick to 2ppm NOx output, others states have looser restrictions they have to follow, once they are at their operating temperature.


I read it, so there!
 
2013-03-19 10:47:30 AM
Not doing it anyway
Feel-good bullshiat irritates me
 
Displayed 136 of 136 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report