Hi Jennifer,
I suppose you’ve heard about Sydney’s “Earth Hour”.
I’m not sure whether to be amused, or saddened, by TV footage showing people turning off their lights, and using candles instead. It seems to indicate a total lack of understanding.
Leaving aside whether CO2 emissions are really a problem, if these people thought they were reducing CO2 emissions by their actions, then I rather think they were deluding themselves. Earth Hour was held during a time of peak electrical load, so any electricity generation displaced would be peak load, probably running on natural gas. Such generation produces about 500 grams of CO2 for every kilowatt-hour.
So turning a 100 watt light bulb off for an hour saves 50 grams of CO2, or 13 grams of carbon. A candle is mostly carbon by weight, and candle wax is only moderately less dense than water at room temperature. This means that burning just 5 cm of a typical 2 cm diameter candle will produce more CO2 than running the 100 watt light bulb for an hour. If the light that was turned off is fluorescent, then even less candle can be burned if there’s to be a net reduction in CO2.
By the way, the Sydney Morning Herald published these pictures to show the effect of Earth Hour
In the ‘after’ picture, the lights that are still on are dimmer than they were in the ‘before’ picture, which rather implies that the ‘after’ picture is artificially darkened. That really is dishonest reporting.
Sylvia.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Good points on those candles. Maybe the Left will quit lighting them en masse with every protest, as though that means something other than them feeling good about their self-importance. http://www.country-liberal-party.com/pages/adelaidemob.htm
So, over half the people participated, but power consumption only dropped ten percent. What’s wrong with those people? Did they leave their refrigerators and air conditioners running? That’s not the spirit.
Since Silvia hasn’t got much of a grip on power, let’s spell it out:
This demo allows everyone including authorities to “see” how much electricity we can do with out in a pinch.
Has anyone here got total figures yet? I guess not!
Gavin,
The reduction in electricity consumption was not the goal. It was merely a means to an end. The goal was to reduce the production of CO2 and the assumed (in the context of Earth Hour) concomitant rise in global temperature.
If the demonstration is to be construed as seeing how much CO2 production we could do without, then it fails if people simply substitute one mechanism for producing CO2 for another.
Now, I’m not saying that there was no overall reduction in CO2, just that the mere fact that people were willing to light candles as a substitute for electric lighting indicates a lack of understanding about the issue. Given that government decisions in this area are being driven by public opinion, it would be nice if the public had a sufficient understanding for their opinions to be soundly based.
Sylvia.
Woody,
I’m not sure how much good would be done by turning a refrigerator off during Earth Hour. While it’s turned off, the heat leaking in is raising its temperature.
When the refrigerator gets turned on an hour later, the heat has to be pumped out again to get the temperature back down to its regulated level, so the pump (which only runs intermittently) will run for longer than usual, and in the process consume the energy that had not been consumed during Earth Hour.
So, to a first order approximation, turning a refrigerator off during Earth Hour achieves nothing.
Sylvia.
Come in Spinner! Sylvia Else; we have tangled somewhere before on this power or water stuff and I recalled you were not an engineer.
I have no doubt that a few Sydney lights off for an hour does nothing more than demonstrate numbers of the willing and that this figure must be up the nose of at least one or two out on the edge of the debate.
However I hope Sylvia for your sake your pad is staked well up the rocks from the Opera House or your house is on a boat moored well inland from the Pittwater.
That’s how serious this current global power consumption is.
Cheers
Gavin Bugg
high n dry!
So, over half the people participated, but power consumption only dropped ten percent. What’s wrong with those people? Did they leave their refrigerators and air conditioners running? That’s not the spirit.
===
10.2 percent in the city dude. They haven’t released measurements for the suburbs yet. That 10.2% likely came mostly from the 2,000 businesses that registered.
PS – the idea of the exercise was to turn off the lights and stand-by power for appliances – not fridges. What do you take us for, Neanderthals?
Gavin, I’m at a loss to understand your position here. This thread is not about whether or not CO2 causes global warming. I’ve carefully avoided making any assertion about that either way.
The thread is about whether people have rightheaded notions about what steps will, or will not, reduce CO2 emissions.
Sylvia.
Sylvia,
It’s not as clear cut as you would imagine; The greenhouse friendliness of your candles depends on what wax they are made of.
Paraffin wax is derived from crude oil, and as we know that is carbon that has long ago been taken out the atmosphere and sequestered deep underground by nature. It also does not burn very cleanly, pumping soot particles into the air and causing discomfort for asthmatics.
However candles made from wax derived from beeswax or bayberry wax and other renewable sources are environmentally friendlier. As are candle wax made from other plant oils, such as soya oil, by a process called hydrogenation. Because the carbon in these oils was originally in the atmosphere before being taken up by the plant from which the oil is made, the effect on the environment is small.
But ‘candle-miles’ also need to be taken into account.
If everyone used soya oil candles as a light source instead of electricity, this would cut the need to burn fossil fuels to generate the electricity, therefore reducing carbon emissions into the atmosphere from fossil-fuelled power stations. But if the environmental impact of producing and transporting the candles is taken into account, then electricity (especially if it is generated from renewable sources) is a more environmentally friendly option.
Sylvia: I must be a mug then. I thought you were avoiding our discussions here about that black stuff
It’s very easy to knock the Earth Hour idea on whole greenhouse accounting terms. e.g how much CO2 produced driving to nice picnic spots went on?
But like the water debate – it’s amazing how much you can save with little impact. If some of that conservation ethic gets back to the workplace and appliances get turned off on weekends surely it’s worth it. Both CO2 wise and dollar-wise.
The public reaction shows that people are increasingly concerned about the side effects of energy generation.
So I think the symbolism is worth it. We need to have a follow up with some more postive discussion though as opposed to simply swilling a chardonnay in the candlelight – pleasant though that is.
Luke,
Well, if we take the symbolism of using candles as indicative of the amount people are willing to pay for their lighting, then there’s really no problem, because we can easily generate electricity at that sort of price without any net production of CO2.
The reality, of course, is that most of the people who were using candles hadn’t put any thought into the relative costs, and would squeal very loudly if asked to pay that much for the electricity used to produce the light that the candles were a substitute for.
It’s clear that people are concerned (whether rightly or wrongly) about the environmental impacts of CO2. We don’t need events like Earth Hour to make that point. The problem is that people want a solution that doesn’t involve paying more. Such a desire is understandable, but we don’t have such a solution, except, possibly, for the nuclear option.
Sylvia.
Sylvia – and I have noted many times that many people don’t realise that “actually doing something” might involve costs e.g. clean coal, nuclear, solar etc.
However got to start somewhere – and if nothing more than provoking people to think about some simple conservation measures/less wastage of power – surely worth it. i.e turning things off when not needed. Demanding electronic manufacturers make electrical appliances with truly minimal stand-by power would automate these processes – intelligent lighting systems that turn off when you’re not in the room.
But like many I wonder how far people can be pushed. Get too far into additional costs or reductions in standard of living and I think the public will jack up. Kevin Rudd’s dilemma !
But pay now or pay later. At some point the climate adaptation cost will also start to impact. Whether you could put the genie back in the bottle at that point is debatable.
I recall a statistically significant surge once in the New York birthrate nine months after a power cut. Do these people in Sydney realise that by putting the lights out they have probably caused the conception of more carbon-dioxide (gasp!) producing humans? This violates Deep Ecology. Arne Naess and the Ehrlichs shall hear about this. I’m sure they will have many wise words to say.
Any idea when Beijing or Mumbai will pull the same stunt?
Luke Re Kevin Rudd’s dilemma
A Panellist on the ABC said that changing every light bulb in Australia would only take 2 years and would cut emissions by 1%. At that rate a target of 30% cut would take 58 years.And light bulbs are the so-called low hanging fruit!
On a cool evening in buildings with airconditioning (mainly hotels and offices) thermostats will pick up the loss of heat from the lights turned off and automatically adjust by warming the air!
Adjusting thermostats down in cold weather and up in summer will save much more energy. and be good move.
*pay now or pay later*
Every now and then Luke likes to offer us these choices, its a symptom of his digitalised mental state, he thinks he is hangin’ Judge Parker and he he owns the only train station in town.
Toot toot Phil, wrong gauge.
Wadad thinks candles will actually reduce emissions but he forgot to check the statistics on house fires from back in the candle light days.
It wouldn’t take too many apartment blocks to go up in smoke to undo the whole lot. Get real fella.
So did they really dim down the brightness in the after photographs, Sylvia?
Lets face it, this was just another tokenistic stunt so the metrocentrics could claim maximum attention before going back to burning great holes in the stratosphere every time they “just have to get away to recharge their batteries” on the other side of the planet.
Sylvia, I appreciate your response to me, but I was simply being cynical with my remark rather than scientifically accurate.
Cutting off the lights for one hour doesn’t help much either, though, as the reported power savings indicated; and, there are costs to having no lights measured in other terms, such as safety and security.
It’s all symbolism, like the candles, so that people can feel good, falsely believing that they are “making a difference.” Let’s see if they carry on their “making a difference” into every day life and cut down their music applifiers and trips to the megamart for candles.
I bet that ninety percent of the people taking part did so simply by accepting AGW rather than studying it. People need to be educated–not brainwashed or coerced.
Ian,
I’m merely drawing an inference from the photographs, although I had the benefit of seeing large size versions in the printed edition of the Sydney Morning Herald.
Maybe there is another, legitimate, reason why individual lights should appear dimmer in the ‘after’ photograph, but if so, I cannot think what it might be.
Sylvia.
If you want to see the pro-active steps journalists are taking to prevent catastrophic global warming, you can check out the pictures at this link:
http://salmonsheets.blogspot.com/2007/03/journalists-with-photoshop.html
It clearly shows that the ‘the darkening of Sydney’ was more the result of photographic hijinks than people turning off their lights.
Wadad thinks candles will actually reduce emissions but he forgot to check the statistics on house fires from back in the candle light days.
It wouldn’t take too many apartment blocks to go up in smoke to undo the whole lot. Get real fella.
===
Ian Mott, the handle is Wadard, and I come here for an intelligent debate.
As I am new, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, this time, and ask you to produce those statistics on candle-caused house fires back in those candle-lit days. You must have them at hand, because you couldn’t be stupid enough to assert what you did without having the vindicating facts and figures.
If it turns out I am wrong about you and you tell me the stats don’t exist, perhaps you can redeem yourself by scouring the newspapers for the number of morons, where n=2.2 million, whose houses went up in flames on Saturday night as a result of a lit candle.
Forgive my assumption here, fella, but by virtue of the fact that you are still with us today – I take it you did not participate in Earth Hour yourself?
It clearly shows that the ‘the darkening of Sydney’ was more the result of photographic hijinks than people turning off their lights.
===
I think you are clutching at straws in trying to prove that the media is exaggerating. Why would they have to when the event was twice as successful as organisers predicted (10.2% energy saving vs. and expected 5%), and a survey tells us thta 57% of Sydneysiders participated?
Maybe there is another, legitimate, reason why individual lights should appear dimmer in the ‘after’ photograph, but if so, I cannot think what it might be.
===
If the ‘after’ shot was really was a ‘before’ shot, and the ‘before’ shot really was an ‘after’ shot, i.e., in the case of the latter it was shot after 8:30pm, then the sky would have been darker – making the lights appear relatively brighter – that could explain things.
Does it matter???
CO2 is NOT the issue at all, its the politics behind the fraud.
$50Billion later and we know more about some of Earths weather interactions but are still no closer to any meaningful closure on how Chaos rules. So lighting candles is really just a step in the climb to a wonderful lunatic society under a new Dear Leader KIM JONG-Gore.
It is about fear and greed. Why else would Goldman Sachs bankers leave to join Dear Leader in an Investment firm???
Lighting candles is part of the BS used by the Kim Jongs of the world, along with the old Red banner parades and Eagle standards.
Its political!!!
MY God – it was North Korea all along. Will they stop at nothing. So candles are a dirty commie plot. Right – we round up all candle manufacturers – soften them up in Eastern Europe by we lock the bastards up in Jervis Bay. They even getting at our kids with “birthday candles”. But we know where that’s headed. Oh yea – straight down the path to taking heroin. Or crashing planes into buildings. If you actually play Happy Birthday backwards it says Turn off your Power. And as soon as the City is black they put North Korea subs in Sydney Harbour just like WWII revisited. So while everyone was sitting there having their candles the Harbour was being infiltrated.
The only reason incandesent bulbs were banned was to support the North Korean comapact fluoro plant. I mean who knows that eh? So there is only solution – outlaw candles and put semi-automatic weapons and machine pistols in every home. And bring back the Lord’s Prayer at school. And anyone who’s a Muslim or a Catholic cannot attend.
Gosh, ” and a survey tells us thta 57% of Sydneysiders participated?” would that be a similar survey as to how many baby boomers said that they were at Woodstock?
Come out of the clouds, these types of surveys are rarely accurate.
Regardless of whether people said that they participated or not, a 10% reduction in energy use is claimed to have been achieved. If this figure is real good luck to every one who participated. There is still the other 90% energy use unabated. So who were the energy users who did not participate but account for approximately 80% of the energy consumed during that hour?
Many should applaud Australia for showing the world the way forward.
If Australia could shut off all power plants for two hours per day, it could start getting payouts from carbon credit purchases.
By shutting off for even more hours per day, Australia would become eligible for third-world status and have all the benefits bestowed by Oxfam and Christian Aid and others… you could get free food!
Think about it. The world’s largesse awaits at your doorstep. Just shut things off. It will be great.
Developed countries would establish nature preserves everywhere on your continent, and beneficent people with Ph.Ds will tell you how to live naturally.
You will even get lots of features on National Geographic!
Just shut things off, Gaia will kiss your bums.
If there is a problem, I don’t see how tokenism will solve it, in fact it could become only the balm to relieve the guilt. No doubt it makes some people feel good that they are doing something. The real test will come with the acceptance of a need to pay, through increased costs for power generated with coal based technology – then we will see the level of commitment, which I suspect will be a different story. The only real way to measure commitment is the community’s preparedness to pay not participate in a gimmick.
Just an extra note about SMH’s article. They’ve claimed that Earth Hour resulted in a reduction of 25 tonnes of CO2. However, they’ve ignored the fact that the timing of the event meant that it was peak load, and not base load power, that was displaced. Peak load generation produces only about half as much CO2 for a given amount of electrical energy.
The true saving (from the electrical energy reductions) would be more like 12 tonnes.
They also used the meaingless abbreviation kW/hr, so I suppose one shouldn’t expect too much of them.
Sylvia.
Big Increase in Candle-Caused Fires
WASHINGTON, June 21, 2001 — Deaths from fires caused by candles have increased more than 700 percent, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) reported.
The Commmission report said that while deaths from residential fires have been nearly cut in half from 4,500 in 1980 to 2,660 in 1998, those caused by candles have increased 750 percent from 1980 (20 deaths) to 1998 (170 deaths).
In most cases, candles caused house fires when they were left unattended, tipped over and ignited nearby combustibles. Almost half of home candle fires start in the bedroom. Mattresses or bedding are the most common items that ignite, followed by furniture (dressers, desks, and tables) and then curtains. Tealights and tapers are common culprits in candle fires.
A child playing with the candle itself or near the candle is one of the biggest contributors to candle fires. Faced with fire, many children hide in a closet or under a bed, leading to tragic fatalities. In fact, children under age 5 have a fire death rate more than twice the national average.
“Candles are no longer used for the occasional dinner party. In fact, only a small percent of candle fires start in dining rooms,” said CPSC Chairman Ann Brown. “Candle sales are booming and families are lighting candles in their living rooms, family rooms, dens and bathrooms.”
The CPSC issued these safety tips:
Keep matches, lighters and candles away from children.
Never leave burning candles unattended.
Keep combustible materials away from candles.
Don’t put candles in a location where children or pets could knock them down.
Use only non-flammable candle holders.
Always trim the wicks before lighting.
The new report shows that house fires have been dropped from 655,000 in 1980 to 332,300 in 1998, the latest year for which data is available. In contrast, house fires caused by candles have increased, from 8,500 in 1980 to 12,900 in 1998.
CPSC standards and compliance activities have contributed to the overall decline in fires and deaths. For example, CPSC’s standard for child- resistant lighters has helped reduce fire deaths from children playing with lighters by 43 percent since 1994. Other CPSC standards include general wearing apparel, children’s sleepwear, mattresses, and carpets and rugs. CPSC staff is working on standard proposals for upholstered furniture and for heating and cooking equipment. CPSC staff is also working with the candle industry to develop safety standards for candles to help reduce fires.
If all the lights in Australia were turned off permanently the reduction in CO2 emissions would be replaced by China’s growth in a few weeks. Unless we think they will notice our lights are out, realise how virtuous this is, and turn theirs off too this effort looks to be ineffectual. What is plan B, not going for a Sunday drive or only taking one hot bath a week? Certainly this should put the rest of the world to shame. Not only would we look virtuous we would smell so as well.
Walter,
You can do better than that–be like the French. Don’t own a car, and bathe only once a month.
And what would really cut down on emissions is a French unemployment rate.
The employed do things like work at energy-consuming jobs which combust all sorts of things.
But that is just it, they did not shut down the power plants for one hour and no less coal was burnt than normal.
Rog,
It’s true that no less coal was burnt than usual, but less natural gas/oil would have been burnt. A power station only burns the fuel it needs to generate power. If less power is generated, then the generator burns less fuel.
Sylvia.
Shanghai turns of all office building/skscraper lighting at 10 pm every night. Anyone want to argue that doing the same in Sydney wouldn’t save power? Every power pack left sitting in a switched-on power point wastes power 24/7 and there are millions of these things in Oz alone. Every standby light in every appliance left on standby wastes power 24/7 also by the millions. How many other wasteful things can you think of that are small but hugely cumulative over all of society? But we love to waste stuff and to squander because it makes us feel rich and special and secure. i.e. win big race and spray expensive champagne over self and adoring crowd.
If earth hour provokes discussion and thought about wastage then it worked.
Power is generated by massive steam turbines, turning off the power for one hour does not result in less fuel being burnt as the time is too short – anyway, it is already “off peak”.
Authorities claim that well lit public areas reduce security risks, try walking through a railway tunnel or open space that is unlit at night – enough to make you want to jump in your car.
It was just a political gesture, energy authorities lost revenue whilst their costs remained the same.
So OK maybe the Earth Hour is a waste of time in its own right. But if it causes public awareness to conserve energy and turn appliances off that are not needed – is that not both economically and ecological efficient. Is the legacy of Earth Hour cost effective?
Public awareness of…public theatre?
Records from NEMMCO indicate that the two hours prior to the “thoughtful darkness” there was a massive spike in energy usage. Not cost effective at all.
http://www.nemmco.com.au/
http://img204.imageshack.us/my.php?image=earthhourxz0.jpg
Rog,
It is true that coal fired power stations use steam turbines, and that their power output cannot be varied over a short timescale.
But that is not the only capacity in the system. In particular, there are generators using diesel engines, natural gas powered gas turbines and fuel oil powered gas turbines. All of these have a higher marginal cost that the coal fired stations do (so cannot compete on price), and at least some can change their power output very rapidly.
It is these latter generators that would have reduced their power output (and thus fuel consumption) when people turned out their lights.
Sylvia.
Maybe, but they would have had to increase production for the energy spike before the darkest hour (see above graph) plus moderate increase after – maybe its all those lamps starting up.
Plus there was no comparable saving as power usage normally falls off at that hour.
It didnt prove anything much at all.
Luke,
You pose an important question: “Is the legacy of Earth Hour cost effective?”
Is the legacy of Al Gore cost effective?
Is the legacy of the Kyoto Protocol cost effective?
Publicity stunts are *very* cost-effective for those who stage them.
For the rest of us, it looks quite dismal.
Unless you’re one of the gleeful unemployed in romantic France.
rog: it’s so easy to remain a faceless cynic with endless re quotes on endless links
Let’s have some decent home grown strategies rog style for a change.
Sylvia: The coal fired system lag is in the furnaces and boilers not the steam turbines.
We don’t hear much about our grid flexibility with other types of gas turbines. Obviously the greater the number of non coal dependent generators the greater our overall capacity to distribute less polluting base load.
Schiller: publicity stunts are often steam relief in our democracy during transition from one government regime to another.
Gavin,
Glad to see you acknowledge that the benefits are for politicians.
The rest of us look for something better.
Schiller – you’re full of crap – from your point of view it’s critical to stay on message – keep rubbishing and keep up the uncertainty mantra.
It’s soooo important here just to keep up the barrage of shelling.
Earth Hour is worth it heaps economically and environmentally if people contemplate reducing unnecessary power consumption.
Walmart are into it – and they’re hard nosed bastards. Does capitalism mean you also profligately waste resources.
Al Gore is simply part of the overall debate – and his contribution is certainly worth more than all the contrarian horsehit piled into a large bucket. But Al’s also a bit of a tosser and has some things wrong. You guys have pushed back and I’d say it’s now about even. But running a diversion (and that’s all it is ) on Gore won’t last for long.
Kyoto wasn’t worth it in terms of doing something tangible about CO2. What it was very worthwhile for doing was getting national inventory processes going and showing how cynical and hard all players will be in any negotiation. So for any future agenda – we’re all now well advised of the umpty ump objections and loopholes that will be raised. Also more realistic numbers to work off.
But all these are side shows for the real game which goes on in the day to day science.
If cumulative action is to ignore the scientific evidence well we’ll all get what we deserve. The atmosphere doesn’t care one way or the other – it’s just all physics to it.
But you just keep up your shonky game of shelling every day – keep on message. Keep crapping on. It’s getting you republican conversions at least.
The rest of us – well it’s polarising the resolve even deeper.
As for all this stuff about conspiracies and world govt – crap !
What are you saying gavin, hang the expense, lets just have a whole lot of “feel good” darknesses? Now that is *denialism*
rog: “feel good” includes finding new ways to drive the grid. Hot air from pollies etc is not enough.
Luke,
The reason I stick to the importance of uncertainty is because of the religious element of environmentalism.
You will by now have noticed that a major element of religions across the planet is the claim that the future can be predicted, regardless of uncertainty.
So, your place in Heaven is assured if… you can get off the wheel of karma if… you can save the ecosphere and be enlightened if… you can be an honored secular humanist if you say… you can win lots of research grants and attend posh parties if you claim…
That’s right – Keep on message Schillsy.
Posh parties – cripes – tell we grunts quickly.
So calling for forward planning equates to “religion” while sitting back and waiting for “certainty” that there really is a problem and belief that the “free” market will get us out of trouble at the last moment is not a form of “faith”? Whose not testing their assumptions here?
Science hasn’t got all the answers. Its a matter of whether we are willing to take the risk that what it doesn’t know will be good for us.
You are getting it all ballsed up; when given a situation requiring attention the free market is far more likely to respond effectively than a govt.
Look at countries where the govt plays a central role in the provision of services (food, water, power, transport, housing, medicine..) and you see a decreased lack of services.
Not so – Qld had great health systems, power and water supply under Joh’s regime. Civil liberties and dodgy deals not so good. But you can’t have everything and don’t you worry about that.
Sylvia,
Re your comment on the ‘before’ and ‘after’ pictures in the SMH. That’s the good old ‘honest reporting Herald’. Particularly when reporting (and photographing), matters ‘Global Warming’.
I have a copy of a front page SMH article from April, 2004, by their co pinkest/greenest, (with Wendy Frew), enviro. reporter, Stephanie Peatling, on the evils of AGW. With the article, was a photo of water vapour coming from the cooling tower of Wallarawang Power Station…Deliberatly taken with the rising vapour against a red sunset. The caption read ‘Wallarawang pumps out poison greenhouse gas.’!!
And it’s been happening ever since.
Well. at least full marks to Media Watch for exposing the lie about the danger to Polar Bears.
The scorn so many of you delightfully informed and interested citizens of this goodly earth heap on the ignorant masses that hover like moths about the media’s flame is quite disheartening… come on! better the media hype up an event that encourages awareness of the impending perils of global warming than not! Better the trivial masses participate at least in gestures, token or not, that could stir a glimmer of insight. Remember the knowledge you cuddle up to at night did not have it’s genesis in your shiny brains. Pass it on! Spread the word with patience and compassion, learning along the way!
hehehe its false but true 😛
Bring on Power Hour~