Earth Hour..who turned there lights off?

[PACMAC]

so did you turn your lights off for and hour for this earth hour thing?

I'm going to turn off as much as I can..from 8pm to 9 pm..

what your opinion on the climate change?

http://www.google.com/intl/en/earthhour/

[killerrobot]

Awesome for going the extra step and turning your lights off in the morning, but the Earth Hour isn't suppose to be until 8 PM. :o I guess with how multinational this forum is 8 pm is already happening somewhere - like Melbourne.

[iJon]

Awesome for going the extra step and turning your lights off in the morning, but the Earth Hour isn't suppose to be until 8 PM. :o I guess with how multinational this forum is 8 pm is already happening somewhere - like Melbourne.

In the end does it really matter when you turn off your lights? It all adds up to be the same.

jon

[Eidorian]

My room is only lit with the warm glow of the CCFLs of my monitor. ;)

[Shotglass]

I heard that if loads of people (like in the thousands) turn off their lights at the same time, they can kill power plants because of the sudden voltage swing.

[Eric Lewis]

isnt it tonight from 8-9pm?

[SamIchi]

:D Why would anyone need to use lights 8 in the morning?

It's supposed to be 8pm OP.

[Abstract]

Earth Hour doesn't really have any affect on the amount of power produced, only on the amount of power used.

[Hawkeye411]

One of our local radio stations has announced that it will play "unplugged" music for the hour so you should turn off your lights and leave your radio on. How pathetic!!!! Trying to use Earth Hour to increase listenership!!

http://www.fredfm.ca

[djellison]

Why would I? Low energy bulbs around the whole house.

I find it an utter ********** disgrace that the UK government will partake in nothing more than a 60 minute gimmick and not actually do anything meaningful regarding poor lighting solutions and the disgrace that is light pollution. Westminster is lit up like a Christmas tress, for hours and hours and hours - all night every night all year. Tens of thousands of pounds of electricity wasted, the night sky stolen from an entire generation.

Local councils who flood light places inefficiently, with bad lighting design wasting money. Poor street lighting. Dreadfull sports facilities with dozens of flood lights illuminating the pitch - the houses around, the clouds thousands of feet above. Office buildings lit up at 2am on a sunday morning. Churches flood lit wasting thousands every year. Planning regulations that make it near impossible to install PVA's, solar heating and domestic wind turbines. sidewalk dustbins without compartments for paper, plastic, metal. Shutting down nuclear plants instead of building new ones. Public transport so expensive, unreliable and filthy.

And they have the audacity to tell me to turn off 4 low energy bulbs for a 60 minute gimmick?

Go to hell.

[killerrobot]

In the end does it really matter when you turn off your lights? It all adds up to be the same.

jon

Actually in theory it does. It would be even more effective during peak usage hours, which 8pm on a Saturday really isn't, but hey, that's why I was congratulating the OP for going the extra step and doing it in the AM.

@djellison
Low energy isn't no energy. Also if the "60 minute gimmick" turns into actual habitual practice, then it does make a difference.

[Hawkeye411]

Why would I? Low energy bulbs around the whole house.

I find it an utter ********** disgrace that the UK government will partake in nothing more than a 60 minute gimmick and not actually do anything meaningful regarding poor lighting solutions and the disgrace that is light pollution. Westminster is lit up like a Christmas tress, for hours and hours and hours - all night every night all year. Tens of thousands of pounds of electricity wasted, the night sky stolen from an entire generation.

Local councils who flood light places inefficiently, with bad lighting design wasting money. Poor street lighting. Dreadfull sports facilities with dozens of flood lights illuminating the pitch - the houses around, the clouds thousands of feet above. Office buildings lit up at 2am on a sunday morning. Churches flood lit wasting thousands every year.

And they have the audacity to tell me to turn off 4 low energy bulbs?

Go to hell.

Earth hour creates useful discussion like this. It gets everyone thinking about how energy is wasted in our own communities. Guess it's working.

[Shotglass]

Earth Hour doesn't really have any affect on the amount of power produced, only on the amount of power used.Same thing for the power plant.

To everyone else. I don't think they want to reduce power consumption by turning off the lights, I think they want to make a dramatic statement.

[buffalo]

I don't get it. Why 8 at night when people make use of the light? Why not during the morning and afternoon when sunlight provides enough light for many homes and and turning the lights out could last for several hours?

[riscy]

Good one, Hawkeye, that is just so lame by that radio station.

I bet someone thought that was a really cool idea when they thought it up!

One of our local radio stations has announced that it will play "unplugged" music for the hour so you should turn off your lights and leave your radio on. How pathetic!!!! Trying to use Earth Hour to increase listenership!!

http://www.fredfm.ca

[CanadaRAM]

I saved energy by turning off my grammar and spelling checkers... ;)

[Danksi]

We'll be watching a movie by then, so the lights will be off anyway :rolleyes:

[r1ch4rd]

I don't get it. Why 8 at night when people make use of the light? Why not during the morning and afternoon when sunlight provides enough light for many homes and and turning the lights out could last for several hours?

It's pointless doing it if you pick a time when nobody has the lights on anyway. I don't know of anyone who has the lights on during the day.

[djellison]

Also if the "60 minute gimmick" turns into actual habitual practice, then it does make a difference.

Telling people to live in the dark for an hour is not a practical habitual practice. Gimmick's do not alter climate change. Particularly one so hideously hypocritical when central government is required in this country. If you turn off the lights that floodlight bridges and public buildings for an hour - turn them off for good. People at home can not sit in the dark. How about instead of gimmicks, governments actually take the lead and do something sensible - like replacing poor street lights with efficient, non light pollution, and most importantly, money saving designs. Or re-designing idiotic flood lighting of buildings to save money. Education, subsidized energy saving technologies. Make it easier for people to become more efficient. Don't tell them to turn there bloody lights off. Do that, and you get Joe Public the sheep thinking

"I turned off my half dozen 80watt bulbs for an hour"

Well done - you saved 480 Whrs.

Meanwhile, in one evening, by running energy efficient bulbs for 5 hours instead of incandescent bulbs - I'll use not the 2,400 Whrs of mr 'turned my lights off' - but 420 Watts. I'll use less in the whole evening than the idiot thinks he's a hero for saving in an hour. Meanwhile, he's still used 4 to 5 times more power than I have even with his black out. And I've not sat in the dark like a sheep.

It's a short-sighted gimmick that puts out the wrong message about what people should be doing or how to take responsible decisions for environmental responsibility.

Doug

[Krafty]

I barely turn on my lights in the first place. But I took a quick glance at the dorm parking lot and almost everyone is gone i guess they're doing their share?

[Eric Lewis]

Ill use my laptop of its batter for an hour

woooo

i helped save the enviroment

[MacNut]

Ill use my laptop of its batter for an hour

woooo

i helped save the enviromentSo you are not going to recharge it? Wont it do more good to just close the lid for an hour.

[Eric Lewis]

So you are not going to recharge it? Wont it do more good to just close the lid for an hour.

no ill charge it from 7-8pm

and then unplug it

and then use it off battery

[MacNut]

no ill charge it from 7-8pm

and then unplug it

and then use it off batteryBut you will still use more energy to recharge it after. Defeating the purpose.

[Cromulent]

so did you turn your lights off for and hour for this earth hour thing?

I'm going to turn off as much as I can..from 8pm to 9 pm..

what your opinion on the climate change?

http://www.google.com/intl/en/earthhour/

Haha. I fell asleep with the TV on and the light on :(.

Although technically I'm only 13 minutes into Earth hour I guess I've already failed at the energy savings deal.

[zioxide]

I'll turn the light off but the HDTV + surround sound is staying on because the Elite Eight is on tonight :P

[djellison]

But you will still use more energy to recharge it after. Defeating the purpose.

Bingo. He simply delays the mains-socket usage by 60 minutes. Net gain for environment. Zero.

Infact, it gets worse than that. Because by putting an extra, un-necessary cycle thru the battery, it's life is made just a little bit shorter - so it's journey to landfill is just a little bit less distant into the future. Go environment!

Doug

[jakealdred]

haha
seen it on wikipedia at 8.01 pm XD
and everyone light was on
oh well whats it gona do anyway?
-jake

[Keebler]

i don't think i will.

i think it's a great idea and gesture, but c'mon, when you drive by big corporate buildings at night which are lit up, it's really a direct slap in the face.

Instead of 1 hour on one insignificant day, I changed all the lightbulbs in my house, we lowered the heat so we need sweaters at times, i do my laundry at night when it's supposedly less of an impact on the power grid, i air dry as many clothes as I can and i've taught my kids to turn off all unused lights. Oh, and with my 5 macs for my business, I've honestly changed some of my procedures to maximize the time they are on so they're not for hours on end. It's actually made me more work efficient as well which is a bonus. And I email my clients their invoice instead of printing it.

Of course, I probably counterbalance all of that out by driving a truck (although, I have severely changed the way I drive ie. I rarely go out for 1 thing - my trips usually encompass multiple stops and are planned in a sensible route so i'm not driving in circles) or, I'll have my wife stop somewhere on the way home.

I can honestly say that we've changed big time...maybe not dramatically, but we're very conscious. So, no...not on this day. Not until I see some of the big corporate buildings shutting down every night instead of 1 cheesy hour.

Cheers,
Keebler

[Abstract]

Same thing for the power plant.

To everyone else. I don't think they want to reduce power consumption by turning off the lights, I think they want to make a dramatic statement.

Exactly.

If nobody used power for 24 hours, the power plants would continue to produce power......wasted power. They can't shut down a plant. It's hard enough to slow one down. It costs too much, and would take too much work to change speeds. Companies and public buildings pretty much get electricity for free at night, which is why nobody cares if all office lights are left on at night. Same with public buildings. It's free because whether or not public buildings and offices keep their lights on or not, they will continue to produce power at night that's wasted if not used, which is what happens at night. If you don't use it, you're actually wasting the power that's produced. They continuously produce power, and yet the load on the system is so small. What a waste, right?

The only way a power company will decrease power production is if the system is never loaded, which means usage is considerably down overall. Like any company, they don't want to produce 2 times more "product" than people want to buy. It's not only a waste of resources, it's a waste of time and money. Power companies do not, and cannot, just turn down power production, and then turn it back up at a whim. It's a big decision. It requires quality assurance checks of all sorts. That's also why they don't really stop production at night, or slow down to produce juuuuust enough power to meet demand. They actually produce power that's wasted if not used, which is what happens at night.

The entire system is terribly inefficient, but it's what we do now, unfortunately.

So again, Earth Hour doesn't affect the amount of power produced (which is what's producing waste). It only have an effect on the amount of power used, which is actually pointless.


Earth hour creates useful discussion like this. It gets everyone thinking about how energy is wasted in our own communities. Guess it's working.

Yeah, it gets everyone talking about it, and then tomorrow, you go back to using power exactly the way you used it before.

I love how people throw all these gimmicky events, concerts, etc, all for a good cause. It's to "raise awareness". Enough awareness, thank you. What about some action?

[Cromulent]

I love how people throw all these gimmicky events, concerts, etc, all for a good cause. It's to "raise awareness". Enough awareness, thank you. What about some action?

People are too scared to take the next logical leap which is to invest heavily in nuclear power. It really is the only realistic way at the moment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Countries like the US or the UK won't be able to supply significant amounts of energy from alternative power sources for 20 - 40 years or so. In that time we will have done tremendous amounts of damage. The only real answer is nuclear power. Yet the environmentalists would rather we continue burning fossil fuels because nuclear power is too dangerous, despite the fact it is the only power source which is a) possible to produce enough energy and b) proven to work.

[iBookG4 FTW]

People are too scared to take the next logical leap which is to invest heavily in nuclear power. It really is the only realistic way at the moment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Countries like the US or the UK won't be able to supply significant amounts of energy from alternative power sources for 20 - 40 years or so. In that time we will have done tremendous amounts of damage. The only real answer is nuclear power. Yet the environmentalists would rather we continue burning fossil fuels because nuclear power is too dangerous, despite the fact it is the only power source which is a) possible to produce enough energy and b) proven to work.
You do know that there is not nearly as much urainium as everyone thinks right? Scientists estmate that if every power plant on earth went to nuclear, there would only be enough urainium to power those stations for about 20 years. So nuclear power is definitely not a long term solution. We need to invest more in solar, water and wind power.

[Cromulent]

You do know that there is not nearly as much urainium as everyone thinks right? Scientists estmate that if every power plant on earth went to nuclear, there would only be enough urainium to power those stations for about 20 years. So nuclear power is definitely not a long term solution. We need to invest more in solar, water and wind power.

Who said anything about long term? I said it would take 20 - 40 years for alternative power sources to become viable. In that time we need to take advantage of as much nuclear power as we can.

When alternative power sources become a valid option then I'm all for switching over to them, nuclear waste is a problem (although I would argue the waste from coal, gas and oil power stations is worse).

[djellison]

We need to invest more in solar, water and wind power.

And when there's no wind, on a cloudy day, during a drought? I love renewables ( i actually LIKE the sights of turbines ) - but they have to be matched, MW for MW, by some reliable 24/7 rainy-day alternative ( such as Nuclear etc )

Doug

[Abstract]

You do know that there is not nearly as much urainium as everyone thinks right? Scientists estmate that if every power plant on earth went to nuclear, there would only be enough urainium to power those stations for about 20 years. So nuclear power is definitely not a long term solution. We need to invest more in solar, water and wind power.

Exactly.

I love how countries like France brag for ages about how something like 80% of their power is generated from nuclear sources, and everyone else is polluting the Earth with fossil fuels, and yet if we all followed suit, we wouldn't even fix the problem.

So anyway, you're right. Nuclear power isn't the answer. It's not even a good band-aid solution.

[Cromulent]

So anyway, you're right. Nuclear power isn't the answer. It's not even a good band-aid solution.

Yes it is. If we have 20 - 30 years worth of Uranium that is just about enough to get us through until other energy sources are available in sufficient quantities.

[iBookG4 FTW]

Yes it is. If we have 20 - 30 years worth of Uranium that is just about enough to get us through until other energy sources are available in sufficient quantities.

But the money that would be spent building the nuclear plants and mining the urainium, etc. could be used towards developing permenant solution for our electricity needs, and not for some last ditch option.

[Cromulent]

But the money that would be spent building the nuclear plants and mining the urainium, etc. could be used towards developing permenant solution for our electricity needs, and not for some last ditch option.

So you'd rather just spew 20 - 30 years worth of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere instead then doing god knows how much damage?

[ZiggyPastorius]

I actually turn all the lights on in my house, every computer and appliance (TVs, et cetera), and I go outside on my sidewalk and prostitute myself out for an hour. When I come back, I've made enough money to buy a "green" car that will offset my uses.

While I'm on it, though...**** you, Al Gore, you're a ****.

[Prof.]

Central USA. Turn off your lights...... NOW!!!

[iBookG4 FTW]

Central USA. Turn off your lights...... NOW!!!

Done. Only light on in my room is my iBook, and my parents have their TV on, but thats it.

[ZiggyPastorius]

Central USA. Turn off your lights...... NOW!!!

k, I turned off my light. Now all I have is a 5-year old PC Desktop running Linux, my Macbook, external hard drive, speakers, phone, TV, two game systems, DVR box, and my bass amp plugged in. Good thing I'm helping.

[iBookG4 FTW]

k, I turned off my light. Now all I have is a 5-year old PC Desktop running Linux, my Macbook, external hard drive, speakers, phone, TV, two game systems, DVR box, and my bass amp plugged in. Good thing I'm helping.

How about turning off numbers 4 5 7 and 9? (starting from the PC)

[ZiggyPastorius]

How about turning off numbers 4 5 7 and 9? (starting from the PC)

I could do that... except the bass amp and the game systems :p

[Prof.]

The only light that is on at my house is the dining room light cause my mom refuses to turn it off. She's doing a crossword puzzle.:rolleyes:

[Highcroft]

I'm twenty minutes into my hour and I've noticed every other house on my street have their lights on. I still have an iMac, Xbox 360, and two T.V.s on in my house though.

[iBookG4 FTW]

Oddly, every house on my street has theirs off. Maybe they heard about Earth Hour?

[Cabbit]

here an idea for saving power. All you guys with a mac pro, buy a mac mini and use it for all the time your just browsing the net and watching movies. And only use your mac pro's power when it is needed. THe mini is 28 Watt, the mac pro can edge up-to 900 Watt.

[Prof.]

Yay! it's over. Now we can go back to consuming massive amounts of electricity.:o

[iBookG4 FTW]

Yay! it's over. Now we can go back to consuming massive amounts of electricity.:o

Actually I didn't turn on my light until just now, I lost track of time. :)

I gotta admit, it was an interesting experience trying to IM friends in the drak, but I do love my light to see my keyboard. :o

[Koodauw]

I did Sudoku by candle light. It was a good time.

[zioxide]

I turned on everything in my house just to spite everyone :p

[MacNut]

Every 6 months or so the power goes out for a few hours so I am forced to be without lights. I'll just wait for that to happen again.

[Eidorian]

here an idea for saving power. All you guys with a mac pro, buy a mac mini and use it for all the time your just browsing the net and watching movies. And only use your mac pro's power when it is needed. THe mini is 28 Watt, the mac pro can edge up-to 900 Watt.I know that some site has looked at the draw of the Mac Pro and even at full load it isn't 900 watts.

I had my lights off until dusk. Does that count?

[Rower_CPU]

Apologies to the OP and anyone else who can't post here, but this topic belongs in the Political/Social forums. Thanks :)

[juanster]

I almost forgot bout it, so when i realized it was time to turn the light off it was already 8:20, we still did it here in my home for the last 40 minutes left...

[TheQuestion]

It was still light in Alaska...

[John.B]

I heard that if loads of people (like in the thousands) turn off their lights at the same time, they can kill power plants because of the sudden voltage swing.
What that actually would do is vary the frequency of the A/C (higher Hz under lower load, lower Hz under higher load). Except those days are pretty much history, there are technologies in place for any modern power plant to compensate dynamically for load variations.

Also, and to no one in particular, low energy bulbs contain mercury. Accidentally break one and you'll have a mini-ecological disaster right there in your own home. :eek: Forest for the trees, folks, forest for the trees.

[Badandy]

I turned on some incancesdents and, just for good measure, idled my 14 MPG V8 car outside for a couple minutes.

Empty Gesture

[Crawn2003]

We went down to San Francisco and to the Marin Headlands to see the Golden Gate Bridge lights being turned out.

Here's the results:

[it5five]

Also, and to no one in particular, low energy bulbs contain mercury. Accidentally break one and you'll have a mini-ecological disaster right there in your own home. :eek: Forest for the trees, folks, forest for the trees.

Talk about over-the-top.

CFL's contain such a small amount of mercury that anybody can easily clean it up themselves without any danger of poisoning.

Here is the EPA suggested cleanup guide. You'll notice that no biohazard suits are needed. You need a vacuum and tape.

http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/index.htm#flourescent

[solvs]

Apologies to the OP and anyone else who can't post here, but this topic belongs in the Political/Social forums. Thanks :)

I get why it is, but am I the only one who wonders why these things have to be? When did saving energy become a political issue? Ah well, it is now, so be it.

[Prof.]

I get why it is, but am I the only one who wonders why these things have to be? When did saving energy become a political issue? Ah well, it is now, so be it.
Social issues;)

[djellison]

We went down to San Francisco and to the Marin Headlands to see the Golden Gate Bridge lights being turned out.

Here's the results:

Nice photos.

Problem is - I see the dark one and I don't think "Well done SF - you saved an hour of electricity there."

I see the bright one and think "What the hell are you doing wasting that enormous amount of electricity 364.9 days of the year!"

Earth Hour has, imho, singularly failed to highlight ways to save energy. It's highlight the frankly obscene ways our governments and councils waste it.

Doug

[killerrobot]

Nice photos.

Problem is - I see the dark one and I don't think "Well done SF - you saved an hour of electricity there."

I see the bright one and think "What the hell are you doing wasting that enormous amount of electricity 364.9 days of the year!"

Earth Hour has, imho, singularly failed to highlight ways to save energy. It's highlight the frankly obscene ways our governments and councils waste it.

Doug

Man and I thought I was pessimistic.:rolleyes:

So not turning off lights when not in use or sacrificing light for an hour is not a good way to save energy? Who's to say, once again, that this "gimmick" doesn't bring about more habitual change in the way people use electricity?

Here's an interesting read about some Canadian cities that participated (http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=1c861035-66d2-4f72-b26e-41068f5fcb62&k=5078) - cold weather blew it for Calgary perhaps. If anyone else comes across any other reads I'd be interested.

[takao]

Yes it is. If we have 20 - 30 years worth of Uranium that is just about enough to get us through until other energy sources are available in sufficient quantities.

too bad that building a nuclear plant and mining the uranium is horribly inefficient/expensive in terms of energy use compared to alternative energy generation ways

over the full lifetime a nuclear plant (30years) can bring you about 5-10 times as many energy as you needed for constructing it
sadly that assumes that uranium will still be available for at the same degree of quality in 10-15 years.. which it won't
some nuclear power plant operators even leave the mining problem out of the equation completely and

if you take into account a sudden further increase of uranium demand because of a push towards nuclear energy then actually return of energy will go even further down since more and more lesser uranium needs to be mined sooner
which over the lifetime can mean a return of energy in the levels of minus values


on the other side there are wind generators which return roughly 40-70 times as many energy as needed for their construction during their life time, don't need as many massive mining, no need for very expensive safety and security measurements, no radioactive waste, can be realized very decentralized

only obvious downside: you need pump-operated water-powerplants (or similiar like pressurizing air) to compensate for fluctuations and to "save energy for later"

which makes them just like nuclear plants who blow out enormous amounts of not really needed energy during the night which has been used for decades now to pump back up the water into the mountain depots for producing the very expensive on-demand electricity during the peaks (12-13PM, 7PM etc.) which requires a fast reaction time ... which nuclear plants/coal plants don't have

[shu82]

too bad that building a nuclear plant and mining the uranium is horribly inefficient/expensive in terms of energy use compared to alternative energy generation ways

over the full lifetime a nuclear plant (30years) can bring you about 5-10 times as many energy as you needed for constructing it
sadly that assumes that uranium will still be available for at the same degree of quality in 10-15 years.. which it won't
some nuclear power plant operators even leave the mining problem out of the equation completely and

if you take into account a sudden further increase of uranium demand because of a push towards nuclear energy then actually return of energy will go even further down since more and more lesser uranium needs to be mined sooner
which over the lifetime can mean a return of energy in the levels of minus values


on the other side there are wind generators which return roughly 40-70 times as many energy as needed for their construction during their life time, don't need as many massive mining, no need for very expensive safety and security measurements, no radioactive waste, can be realized very decentralized

only obvious downside: you need pump-operated water-powerplants (or similiar like pressurizing air) to compensate for fluctuations and to "save energy for later"

which makes them just like nuclear plants who blow out enormous amounts of not really needed energy during the night which has been used for decades now to pump back up the water into the mountain depots for producing the very expensive on-demand electricity during the peaks (12-13PM, 7PM etc.) which requires a fast reaction time ... which nuclear plants/coal plants don't have

Well its not very windy everywhere, and the USA has plenty of uranium. My area uses exclusively a combination of dams and reactors. We have the cheapest power in the US (TVA). At the peak times you just open up more of the dam.

Oh, and I did my laundry and made daiquiris that night just to cancel out at least 3 hippies.;)