Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

14484 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Mar 2013 at 2:45 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 36 of 136 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report