PDA

View Full Version : Earth Hour



Aaron Guthrie
20-03-2008, 08:46 PM
From an email to me from the Uni
The University of Adelaide will do its bit for 2008 Earth Hour on Saturday 29 March by turning off most of the lights on its four campuses for one hour at 8pm.I wonder what lights they will be turning off at 8pm on a Saturday.

Axiom
20-03-2008, 08:59 PM
From an email to me from the UniI wonder what lights they will be turning off at 8pm on a Saturday.
The lights are off and nobody is at home !

Rincewind
20-03-2008, 09:16 PM
From an email to me from the UniI wonder what lights they will be turning off at 8pm on a Saturday.

Perhaps there are lights which are on for security reasons. Also is it possible that some buildings, like libraries, might be operating past 8pm on a Saturday?

Aaron Guthrie
21-03-2008, 12:31 AM
Perhaps there are lights which are on for security reasons.Aha but those lights will be left on. From the email again.
Some lighting will be maintained on each of the campuses to ensure a safe and secure environment for students, staff and the public.
Also is it possible that some buildings, like libraries, might be operating past 8pm on a Saturday?My first thought on reading the email was "surely we aren't going to have to sit around in the dark for an hour in the library". But the main library (so I assume all) isn't open that late on Saturday. Actually I believe it is closed all easter weekend.

The thing I find funny is, unless the uni usually has superfluous lights on, the only lights you will get to turn off are the lights in rooms that have people working!

Rincewind
21-03-2008, 02:04 AM
Actually I believe it is closed all easter weekend.

Is Easter celebrated a week later in South Australia than in the rest of Occidental Christendom?

Desmond
21-03-2008, 08:26 AM
Is Easter celebrated a week later in South Australia than in the rest of Occidental Christendom?
That is an interesting turn of phrase. I might have preferred "unorthodox". :P

Aaron Guthrie
21-03-2008, 02:12 PM
Is Easter celebrated a week later in South Australia than in the rest of Occidental Christendom?Errrrrr, oops.

Rincewind
29-03-2008, 05:20 PM
100 minutes to go...

Capablanca-Fan
29-03-2008, 05:38 PM
Celebrated with CO2-spewing hot air balloons—one launch is the equivalent of 10,000 60W lightbulbs burning for an hour (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hot_gospellers_decry_heat)! Appropriate since alGore is full of hot air.

Axiom
30-03-2008, 05:55 PM
I deliberately put on every electrical appliance on in the house for that one hour., as my protest against this excuse for a mass training/conditioning excercise.

Igor_Goldenberg
31-03-2008, 09:44 AM
From an email to me from the UniI wonder what lights they will be turning off at 8pm on a Saturday.
They are also going to to have light off for an hour from 3pm to 4pm on February 29th next year

Igor_Goldenberg
31-03-2008, 09:47 AM
I deliberately put on every electrical appliance on in the house for that one hour., as my protest against this excuse for a mass training/conditioning excercise.
I have a gut feeling that the benefits of day light saving are often overestimated/overstated.
But it is also a great conditioning exercise!
I was told day light saving ends yesterday. As a result my daughter missed her dance performance and was very upset (and the rest of the family as well).

Rincewind
31-03-2008, 09:50 AM
I deliberately put on every electrical appliance on in the house for that one hour., as my protest against this excuse for a mass training/conditioning excercise.

That's what they wanted you to do. Government operatives were monitoring the grid and were easily able to identify dissidents. ;)

Capablanca-Fan
31-03-2008, 11:26 AM
I deliberately put on every electrical appliance on in the house for that one hour.,
A much better idea than the clods who drove to Mt Cootha or Kangaroo Pt to celebrate and watch the city (they hoped) turn the light out. Of course they were totally ignorant of the fact that their drive emitted more CO2 than they saved by turning the lights out — typical green morons.

And the latest in greenie hypocrisy: Richard Branson pontificating about the evils of CO2, but of course he had to jet over to Australia, then fly in a private chopper to preach to us!


as my protest against this excuse for a mass training/conditioning excercise.
Quite possible: those who want to control the sheeple will remove liberty gradually so the sheeple don't object too much. We see this with the ever increasing tyranny of the Airport Gestapo with their petty and ineffective confiscations and body searches.

After all, Chairman KRudd has gullibly accepted the Guano Garnaut Report, which in turn gullibly accepts the hugely politicized IPCC report from the monstrously corrupt UN, so wants to reduce by 60% all the time, not 1% for an hour.

Adamski
31-03-2008, 12:15 PM
They are also going to to have light off for an hour from 3pm to 4pm on February 29th next yearTongue firmly in cheek I s'pose - there is no Feb 29 next year!:)

Kevin Bonham
31-03-2008, 12:25 PM
I deliberately put on every electrical appliance on in the house for that one hour., as my protest against this excuse for a mass training/conditioning excercise.

Don't blame you; I think these kinds of feelgood stunts with no significant impact on the situation are pretty silly.

I ignored the event completely.

Desmond
31-03-2008, 02:24 PM
Quite possible: those who want to control the sheeple will remove liberty gradually so the sheeple don't object too much. We see this with the ever increasing tyranny of the Airport Gestapo with their petty and ineffective confiscations and body searches.Oh, you mean how the Liberal government removed some of our liberties?

Capablanca-Fan
31-03-2008, 02:37 PM
Oh, you mean how the Liberal government removed some of our liberties?
Thanx to the wide growth of government in general, administrative agencies are in effect another branch of government. Bush stupidly tried to appease the Democrats by appointing one of their fools as Transporation Secretary, Norman Mineta. Under Mineta's rule, the TSA expanded their Gestapo rules that treats every passenger as a potential terrorist with fewer rights than a captured actual terrorist. And they have bullied other countries into compliance with their stupid regulations.

Axiom
31-03-2008, 03:10 PM
It matters not whether labour,liberal,rep,dem. Government is simply an instrument for elite corporate money, used at the expense of the people.
Refer not only to fake environmentalism but to mass illegal immigration, open borders, war on culture and tribes via globalist agenda , inhumane war on drugs , false flag and black budget operations,tyrannical use of the war machine to wage immoral pirate wars , neglect of vital water,food,shelter infrastructure, orchestrated financial meltdowns, AND FINALLY THE MAL-INFORMING PROPAGANDISING AND BRAINWASHING MEDIA (Which enables this giant deception and tyranny to persist)

Axiom
31-03-2008, 04:27 PM
Stop dancing to the beat of the Al Gore Rhythm (Algorithm ) :eek:

Spiny Norman
01-04-2008, 08:36 AM
I did a quick calculation ... if the Victorian power stations reduced their power generation to match the estimated 11% drop in power demand during that hour, Earth Hour in Melbourne would have reduced annual global CO2 output by 0.000000004%.

Igor_Goldenberg
01-04-2008, 09:29 AM
Tongue firmly in cheek I s'pose - there is no Feb 29 next year!:)
I was hoping for someone to notice!

MichaelBaron
01-04-2008, 10:15 AM
Earth Hour is a nice "get united together to save energy" community action. However, while such occasional events do save a bit of energy, I agree with one of the artcles in The Age that admits that such actions do not make a difference to the energy use levels in the long run.:hmm:

Capablanca-Fan
01-04-2008, 10:50 AM
Earth Hour is a nice "get united together to save energy" community action.
Except that some of this uniting involves lots of driving, as well as hot air balloons.

Capablanca-Fan
02-04-2008, 12:15 PM
I did a quick calculation ... if the Victorian power stations reduced their power generation to match the estimated 11% drop in power demand during that hour, Earth Hour in Melbourne would have reduced annual global CO2 output by 0.000000004%.
Of course, the woprshippers of the Green gods are more into gestures than practical value. Hence the free pass they give the high priests of their cult like alGore, Laurie David, Arnie, Branson for flying all over the place in CO2-spewing private jets.

Another moronic aspect of Earth Hour is that the CO2-reducing effect is even less than thought, because power stations turned off the most expensive and 'greenest' generators. Andrew Bolt points out (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_stunt_unearthed_from_facts/):


The country’s power use for that one hour dipped by four per cent—or 3.2 per cent of normal weekday use.

Sound a lot? Before you cheer, let me remind you of the real aim of Earth Hour: not to cut power, but emissions.

And here’s the first problem. NEMMCO, the state-owned body that decides which generators to wind down as power use changes, chose during Earth Hour to cut supplies from the most expensive ones first.

So they cut back on Snowy Hydro, Pelican Point’s gas turbines, and a black-coal generator in NSW—which all happen to be less gassy by far than the brown-coal generators of Loy Yang Power, which makes the cheapest power and chugged straight through.

That largely explains why the actual cuts in the country’s emissions during Earth Hour were so incredibly small.

....

And to get even that tiny, tiny saving, look what we had to do.

We had the media giving this stunt non-stop publicity. We had to hold the blackout on a weekend, when most businesses were shut. We cheated by rescheduling our electricity use around Earth Hour—the Sunday Age, for instance, published an hour later to make the hour seem a bigger success.

Yet with all those tricks, and all the gassy PR stunts, we managed just 0.0002 of the 60 per cent cut in emissions Rudd has promised.

Capablanca-Fan
02-04-2008, 03:14 PM
The Light Bulb and the Road to Serfdom (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/JohnnieBByrd/2008/04/01/the_light_bulb_and_the_road_to_serfdom)
By Johnnie B. Byrd


Economist Friedrich Hayek (1899–1992) dedicated The Road to Serfdom to the “socialists of both parties.” Our so-called federal energy policy should be likewise dedicated.

...

Enter the condemned incandescent light bulb, the caricature for modern U.S. energy policy. Hayek would not be shocked since he knew and understood the socialist heart and the forces that drive a society to socialism—down the road to serfdom.

...

Who are the champions for freedom, and will they prevail? One freedom lover is Freshman U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) who filed the “Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act” with the in-your-face audacity that inspires freedom lovers everywhere. Proposing “pro-choice” in lighting, Bachmann’s bill calls for rolling back the incandescent light bulb ban contained in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. She will face not only a formidable environmental zealotry, but an electrical industry poised to make unprecedented profits from the “greening” of America, and the world.

But considering our energy policies, are we already a nation of serfs? Are we mesmerized by the socialists in both major political parties who pessimistically foresee the future as bleak and foreboding where “sacrifices” to stem energy consumption will be both necessary and honorable? The eventual per capita rationing of energy, though not yet widely articulated, is implicit in the accepted concept of “cap and trade” as this rationing theory with a market twist works its way down from industry level to individualized application.

...

All this serves the socialists’ interest in assuring us a future with less energy where only the government knows the best per capita energy consumption for each citizen (or “serf”).


The desire to take Australia down the road to serfdom is present in the Labor party in spades, with ecomaniac Garrett and the Labor states wanting to ban or tax plastic bags, and Mizz Wong wanting us to pay double or more for our power and fuel. But the dithering defeated Libs have their share, e.g. Limousine Lefty Malcolm Turnbull's equally serf-making ban on incandescent bulbs (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200702/s1851776.htm).

pax
02-04-2008, 03:34 PM
And here’s the first problem. NEMMCO, the state-owned body that decides which generators to wind down as power use changes, chose during Earth Hour to cut supplies from the most expensive ones first.

So they cut back on Snowy Hydro, Pelican Point’s gas turbines, and a black-coal generator in NSW—which all happen to be less gassy by far than the brown-coal generators of Loy Yang Power, which makes the cheapest power and chugged straight through.

An excellent example demonstrating why there needs to be a cost mechanism for effective CO2 reductions to be achieved. If the cheapest power is the most polluting, then all the good will in the world won't make a blind bit of difference.

Axiom
02-04-2008, 03:38 PM
An excellent example demonstrating why there needs to be a cost mechanism for effective CO2 reductions to be achieved. If the cheapest power is the most polluting, then all the good will in the world won't make a blind bit of difference.
CO2 is not pollution .
Reducing man made CO2 wont make a blind bit of difference .

Igor_Goldenberg
02-04-2008, 03:39 PM
An excellent example demonstrating why there needs to be a cost mechanism for effective CO2 reductions to be achieved. If the cheapest power is the most polluting, then all the good will in the world won't make a blind bit of difference.
What is the cost of nuclear power in comparison to coal power?

Capablanca-Fan
02-04-2008, 04:04 PM
What is the cost of nuclear power in comparison to coal power?
For that matter, what is the cost of nuclear power in comparison to solar and windy power?

Capablanca-Fan
02-04-2008, 04:07 PM
CO2 is not pollution.
Shh, they haven't taken Botany-101 and learned about photosynthesis.


Reducing man made CO2 wont make a blind bit of difference.
Of course not. It's just an excuse to turn us into serfs. If they really believed their warm-mongering, they wouldn't be adulating jet-setting multimillionaires who preach austerity to the plebs but live in luxury themselves.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-04-2008, 09:35 PM
For that matter, what is the cost of nuclear power in comparison to solar and windy power?
Have no idea. Probably nuclear is cheaper as it is commercialised (solar and windy can only survive on subsidy).
In this case nuclear (and to some extent hydro) is the only realistic "green" alternative to coal (which grenies oppose. Someone said women are impossible to understand. What about greens then?). But I'd like to know whether it is more expensive then coal and to what extent. Another question - what part of the cost (if any) is attributable to political and other non-commercial factors .

pax
03-04-2008, 12:35 AM
What is the cost of nuclear power in comparison to coal power?
Much, much higher.

Capablanca-Fan
03-04-2008, 01:04 AM
Much, much higher.
Really? Even the worst (credible) estimates of the death toll at Chernobyl are far less than in single coal mine disasters. And a 1 GW power station would need over 3 million tonnes of black coal, compared to 24 tonnes of uranium (dioxide). And the coal station would produce 7 million tonnes of CO2 and probably 200,000 of SO2, compared to 27 tonnes of fission waste which can be 97% recycled leaving only about 700 kg for disposal.

The whole reason that many European countries are so "green" is that they use nuclear power widely.

Solar and wind power are inefficient and intermittent, and couldn't work without heavy government subsidies.

Spiny Norman
03-04-2008, 05:12 AM
I don't get why they don't build a projectile launcher and shoot all the nuclear waste off into the sun ... wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to the sun to have a bit of extra highly-radioactive or fissionable material in it.

Wouldn't have to be a large launcher either. They could build it a bit like a rail gun and shoot stuff off into space 10, 50 or 100kg at a time.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-04-2008, 09:54 AM
I don't get why they don't build a projectile launcher and shoot all the nuclear waste off into the sun ... wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to the sun to have a bit of extra highly-radioactive or fissionable material in it.

Wouldn't have to be a large launcher either. They could build it a bit like a rail gun and shoot stuff off into space 10, 50 or 100kg at a time.

I am not good at astrophysics, but the possible explanation is:

To leave the Earth orbit 2nd cosmic speed (about 11.2 km/sec) is required.
Anything flying at that speed is more likely to orbit the Sun than fall into it.
And it might be awfully expensive.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-04-2008, 09:59 AM
Really? Even the worst (credible) estimates of the death toll at Chernobyl are far less than in single coal mine disasters. And a 1 GW power station would need over 3 million tonnes of black coal, compared to 24 tonnes of uranium (dioxide). And the coal station would produce 7 million tonnes of CO2 and probably 200,000 of SO2, compared to 27 tonnes of fission waste which can be 97% recycled leaving only about 700 kg for disposal.

The whole reason that many European countries are so "green" is that they use nuclear power widely.

Solar and wind power are inefficient and intermittent, and couldn't work without heavy government subsidies.

I was actually addressing the cost, not the risk. IMHO, the risk of meltdown for the modern nuclear station is very low.
Could it be that the cost of coal for Europeans is higher then for us?
In terms of environmental impact and especially CO2 nuclear stations are much friendlier then coal. I suspect it's also friendlier then solar as solar panels have to cover very large area, cutting it completely form the sun rays. Unless it's in the desert, the impact on the environment could be devastating.

Why greenies oppose nuclear stations?

Spiny Norman
03-04-2008, 10:38 AM
To leave the Earth orbit 2nd cosmic speed (about 11.2 km/sec) is required.
Anything flying at that speed is more likely to orbit the Sun than fall into it.
And it might be awfully expensive.
According to:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/rail-gun.htm

rail guns can fire projectiles at up to 16km/sec. If the projectiles had a limited navigation ability once out in space (embedded chip, standard programming, a sensor to help it locate the sun) it ought to be able to point itself at the sun and let the sun's gravity do the work of pulling it in.

Miguel
03-04-2008, 11:24 AM
If the projectiles had a limited navigation ability once out in space (embedded chip, standard programming, a sensor to help it locate the sun) it ought to be able to point itself at the sun and let the sun's gravity do the work of pulling it in.
A propulsion system might come in handy.

Capablanca-Fan
03-04-2008, 12:29 PM
I was actually addressing the cost, not the risk.
Understood. Overall cost should account for possible risks as well as just the construction expenses. Nuclear stations are more expensive to build, but much cheaper to fuel.


IMHO, the risk of meltdown for the modern nuclear station is very low.
Agreed. Even Chernobyl's proven death toll is only about 60. Western nuclear reactors are much safer, and have no death toll at all. Coal mining has a huge death toll.


Could it be that the cost of coal for Europeans is higher then for us?
Is that because of taxation more than market? Australia should have cheap coal and uranium since we are so rich in both.


In terms of environmental impact and especially CO2 nuclear stations are much friendlier then coal. I suspect it's also friendlier then solar as solar panels have to cover very large area, cutting it completely form the sun rays. Unless it's in the desert, the impact on the environment could be devastating.
And the production produces a very toxic byproduct, SiCl4, as per this post (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=186927&postcount=563). Indeed, producing silicon at all produces greenhouse gas by reduction of sand with charcoal:

SiO2 + C → Si + CO2.


Why greenies oppose nuclear stations?
Because they are scientifically ignorant and rely on knee-jerk emotions? That is why an important medical diagnostic tool is called MRI instead of NMRI. I.e. although, since it is based on nuclear magnetic resonance, they were worried about the green-inspired nucleophobia among the public.

Capablanca-Fan
03-04-2008, 12:41 PM
I am not good at astrophysics, but the possible explanation is:

To leave the Earth orbit 2nd cosmic speed (about 11.2 km/sec) is required.
Anything flying at that speed is more likely to orbit the Sun than fall into it.
And it might be awfully expensive.

Aye, the kinetic energy that must be imparted is given by ½mv² = ½ x 700 kg x (11,200 m/s)² ~ 44 GJ, i.e. the equivalent of the full output of a 1 GW power station for ¾ minute. This is especially relevant for a proposed rail gun that uses electromagnetism.

Rincewind
03-04-2008, 05:57 PM
Aye, the kinetic energy that must be imparted is given by ½mv² = ½ x 700 kg x (11,200 m/s)² ~ 44 GJ, i.e. the equivalent of the full output of a 1 GW power station for ¾ minute. This is especially relevant for a proposed rail gun that uses electromagnetism.

As a 1GW nuclear power station produces around 25 tonnes of waster per year diverting 26 minutes of that output to the disposal of a year's worth of waste seems reasonable.

Capablanca-Fan
03-04-2008, 06:46 PM
As a 1GW nuclear power station produces around 25 tonnes of waster per year diverting 26 minutes of that output to the disposal of a year's worth of waste seems reasonable.
But my calculation assumed that the 25 tonnes could mostly be recycled leaving only 700 kg to get rid of, and neglected the mass of the container for the gun. A rail gun would probably have to be made with superconducting magnets to avoid the resistive heating. But maybe your idea and Spiny's could be made to work to some extent.

littlesprout85
03-04-2008, 09:21 PM
Right Onz !!!!!

Sprouty would like to report that Arizona has joined in on earth hour this year.:D

found out that Austrailia started this movement :owned:

It wasnt that great here, not many businesses turned out the lights but about a third of downtown went dark for the whole night- not just an hour.
Also alot of individuals held dinner partays with candlelight.

It is more of a symbolic jester here but it did get alot of media hype - so probably next year more & more ppl and companys will join in, because it was seen as a good thang and the ppl here really enjoyed the whole concept.(Positive)

Also heard that San Fransico,cali. joined in the hour to- so it is catching on. :hmm:

One more thing here to report is that the state government is looking to cut there debt shortfall this year by turning off alot of school lighting and such to save $ on energy cost the public school system is wasting at the present moment. Dont really know if it is directly due to earth hour -but sprout thinks it does cause they decided this a week later after earth hour.:clap:

-Sprout :)

Ian Murray
03-04-2008, 10:01 PM
Right Onz !!!!!

Sprouty would like to report that Arizona has joined in on earth hour this year.:D

found out that Austrailia started this movement :owned:

It wasnt that great here, not many businesses turned out the lights but about a third of downtown went dark for the whole night- not just an hour.
Also alot of individuals held dinner partays with candlelight.

...Also heard that San Fransico,cali. joined in the hour to- so it is catching on. :hmm:

As well as Phoenix and 'Frisco, Atlanta and Chicago joined the party

Capablanca-Fan
03-04-2008, 10:40 PM
As well as Phoenix and 'Frisco, Atlanta and Chicago joined the party
Right, so the reduction in worldwide CO2 was probably up to a few millionths of a percent now.:lol: :lol: :lol:

Geologist Ian "I'm a professor" Plimer (you'd like him; he's another bigoted anti-creationist :P) is quoted as follows (http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page38?oid=49496&sn=Detail):


"We need to be far more realistic and educative about where the CO2 comes from that we blame as the causative factor behind global warming.

"The human contribution is minor. The majority of CO2 in the crustal atmospheric layers comes from volcanoes, earthquakes, pulling apart of the ocean floor, metamorphism, hot flushes of the Earth, ocean degassing, plant bacteria and comets," he explained.

"Super volcanoes such as Toba, Yellowstone, and Taupo have been the worst offenders. Just one volcano alone, Milos (Greece), produces 2% of the Earth's CO2 atmospheric levels from a hot spring the size of a table", according to Plimer. "Few people realise that water vapour in the atmosphere provides 96% of the greenhouse effect, raising temperature from minus 18 degrees to 15 degrees Celsius."

Professor Plimer also challenged that, even if his beliefs were wrong, two factors — India and China — would prevent any major turnaround in global warming.

"If we think the citizens and governments of India and China will forego wealth and a higher standard of living for the good of the world, then we have kangaroos in the top paddock," he declared. "Whatever Australia does will have no effect on India and China, will have no effect on global atmospheric emissions and will only contract our economy.'

"Until we know how climate changes naturally, then it would be folly to make structural changes to the economy based on incomplete scientific data."