Earth Hour is a colossal waste of time — and energy | Hacker News Reader

Earth Hour is a colossal waste of time — and energy

slate.com

96 pointsValentineC54 comments

"Today, we produce only a small fraction of the energy that we need from solar and wind—0.7 percent from wind and just 0.1 percent from solar. These technologies currently are too expensive. They are also unreliable (we still have no idea what to do when the wind is not blowing). Even with optimistic assumptions, the International Energy Agency estimates that, by 2035, we will produce just 2.4 percent of our energy from wind and 0.8 percent from solar."

That's just one massive wall of text that needs numerous {{Fact}} tags slapped onto it. Something every "climate change skeptic" seems to frequently require when they quote "facts" or "statistics".

"Today, we produce only a small fraction of the energy that we need from solar and wind—0.7 percent from wind and just 0.1 percent from solar." - source? And why is that - is it possible that's because there are less solar and wind farms than there are other energy sources?

"These technologies currently are too expensive." - source? A few issues: governments are introducing carbon taxes to take into account the impact of sources that produce carbon in the atmosphere. The technology has been used for some time, but further research is and will increasingly reducing the cost of photovoltaics and other renewable, less carbon polluting energy sources.

"They are also unreliable (we still have no idea what to do when the wind is not blowing)." He conveniently only mentions wind, no mention of why solar is so unreliable. No mention of geothermal, or even biomass. Perhaps he should also look at energy spot markets a little more to see how the real energy market works.

"Even with optimistic assumptions, the International Energy Agency estimates that, by 2035, we will produce just 2.4 percent of our energy from wind and 0.8 percent from solar. Seriously, [citation needed].

Incidentally, he's definitely right that Earth Hour doesn't really do anything to help climate change. No argument from me there. It's a Sydney Morning Herald publicity stunt.

Wind farms in Northern Europe likely wouldn't break even without government subsidies. The maintenance of turbines, especially off-shore ones, is very expensive. They are also quite pricey per unit for relatively humble power output.

> governments are introducing carbon taxes to take into account the impact of sources that produce carbon in the atmosphere

That doesn't make the other sources less expensive. It makes the current sources more expensive. If this were a zero sum "game", great. However, more money chasing less efficient energy sources means less money chasing more efficient and less carbon intensive energy sources such as nuclear.

That doesn't make sense. A carbon tax allows for the development of nuclear energy, as it should reduce overall costs as less carbon is emitted in the atmosphere.

I fail to see how you jump from the assertion that there are less efficient energy to the conclusion that more efficient energy sources will be ignored because of a carbon tax.

> "Even with optimistic assumptions, the International Energy Agency estimates that, by 2035, we will produce just 2.4 percent of our energy from wind and 0.8 percent from solar." Seriously, [citation needed].

Okay, so I actually looked it up, and your hunch is correct. According to the International Energy Agency's "World Energy Outlook 2012":

"A steady increase in hydropower and the rapid expansion of wind and solar power has cemented the position of renewables as an indispensable part of the global energy mix; by 2035, renewables account for almost one-third of total electricity output.", [1], page 6

Also, from their FAQ[2]:

> How much of the world's energy comes from renewable sources?

"In 2009, the world relied on renewable sources for around 13.1% of its primary energy supply, according to IEA statistics. Renewables accounted for 19.5% of global electricity generation and 3% of global energy consumption for road transport in the same year."

So it looks like the Slate article is grossly misleading.

[1] http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication...

[2] http://www.iea.org/aboutus/faqs/renewableenergy/

Not sure if those statements are in disagreement. Hydropower could easily be the missing 30%, especially with Chinese hydro-power increases. The original statement only referenced solar and wind.

If that's the case, then it's grossly misleading. Only quoting numbers for some of the renewable energy sources while decrying all renewable energy sources (because the ones that you left out don't support your argument)?

It's not really misleading, as he explicitly quoted data for solar and wind.

That aside, very few renewable energy advocates are pro hydro dams - that ugly duckling of renewable energy who is never at the table but does all the job.

Well, hydro doesn't directly rely on the carbon cycle, but to be reliably practical, you need to build a reservoir, which usually absorbs lots of land already in use either by people or other denizens of nature, everybody seems to fight them when planners start planning.

Lomborg is right here. This graph (2.7, page 2) shows IEA projecting 3-4% of 2035 primary energy to be "other renewables" (including wind, solar, and geothermal, by their definition). Biomass (wood burning in the 3rd world) is much larger.

http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weowebsite/2011/key_...

There's no discrepancy. Renewable electricity may be 1/3rd of the 2035 electricity supply, in that forecast; but wind and solar are only a fraction of renewable electricity, and electricity is only a fraction of energy. Dams are also renewable electricity. And non-electric energy (oil fuels) are even larger than electricity.

(I'm still looking for the actual numbers (a lot of the IEA publications are paid-access); I'll update this comment when I find them).

(edit: tables are here starting on page 544: http://www.scribd.com/doc/72512781/World-Energy-Outlook-2011)

Yes, but given the context of "renewable energy sources", it is misleading use of information at best.

The focus of the article is almost entirely on electricity. It's fairly misleading to quote those statistics in terms of total energy consumption when the rest of the article only discusses electricity production.

The focus of the article was actually Earth Hour, and how useless it really is. The whole damn article lurches from one disaster to another.

Keep in mind that all of these discussions tend to jump between definitions of Energy. For instance he may have been quoting total energy usage, which includes things like fuel for cars, while you may be thinking of electricity usage.

Similarly there are several categories of consumption, which can also be used to skew numbers one way or the other.

The same argument goes for Mother's day. Why be nice for one day? Does it really make a difference? :-)

The value is symbolic. Participation is a reminder and a statement.

Well, if on Mother's Day we were actually hurting them, I think the same argument would in fact apply.

The article doesn't succeed, in my opinion, in making the argument that more CO2 is produced.

"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."

Note: Offset. Not negated.

"And the cozy candles that many participants will light, which seem so natural and environmentally friendly, are still fossil fuels—and almost 100 times less efficient than incandescent light bulbs. Using one candle for each switched-off bulb cancels out even the theoretical CO2 reduction; using two candles means that you emit more CO2."

So if you use a candle and if you use more than one candle for every single light switched off, then you're emitting more CO2.

The author also doesn't specify if he's counting bulbs that were already switched off. There are dozens of bulbs in my house, but only a few on at a time.

But how valuable is that sort of symbolic gesture? If it actually makes people in the 1st world congratulate themselves that they've made a difference by flicking a switch, and then continue as normal as if everything is fine, then it might even have negative value. I don't agree with much of the article, it's quite wooly, but this point was the most valid/interesting part and I think you might have missed it.

I have never thought about this as an actual action against excesive energy consumption -- moreover, I am surprised that anyone could. It's just one hour.

Some years ago I lived in a student's dormitory (a big and tall building), and there were people who organized similar project every year: they negotiated with students that only some rooms in given hour would be lighten up. They made it so the building showed some image (lightbulb, for example). In this case, no one (I hope) thought that participants want to lower energy footprint of the building. It was all about a nearby highway and all the drivers.

Absolutely nobody (for all reasonable definitions of nobody) believes that turning the lights off for one hour has any quantitative impact on energy usage. What it does is remind us that for the other 364 days of the years, we need to be thinking about energy policy. Efficiency, conservation, and low carbon/low polluting energy sources are important as we grow to 10 Billion on this planet, AND the third world starts to consume energy closer to the levels of the developed nations on a per capita basis.

Actually, anyone that knows how turning off a large load unevenly and turning a large load back on affects the electricity grid knows perfectly well that doing that necessitates increasing energy production.

The short explanation is that large simultaneous changes in the electricity grid will create shocks which make it difficult to maintain the voltage at every point of the grid. Changing electricity distribution is not actually that fast country-wide, so the electricity company must put the largest possible load into the grid. When it is randomly reducing that is the load that was on the grid before the reduction, when the load is increasing that is a certain percentage above the point it's increasing to, generally ~20% more. Get it wrong and large amounts of electrical equipment will be confronted with a way too low, or way too high voltage on the sockets. Low is bad (stuff doesn't start, washers get "stuck", ...), equipment gets damaged because it can't be kept operating, which may cause fast on-off cycles that destroy electrical motors pretty quickly. Too high is VERY bad, for obvious reasons. The way to compensate for that is to put more energy in the grid so that every distribution box is capable of getting the local lines up to 240V, and destroy the excess at local distribution stations. If the load is very predictable that energy destruction can be kept to very low values, if it's not, you have to raise them.

So to make the farce of earth hour complete, electricity companies prepare for earth hour in Australia (earth hour's home turf) by ... increasing the output of local coal power plants, the worst offender for global warming ... Granted, the difference is probably small, but earth hour is definitely making things worse, not better.

You just can't make this up. Earth hour is a publicity stunt, meant to channel money and attention into it's parent publication, nothing more. It should be treated like any other pop-up ad.

I wasn't suggesting that most people think they're making a quantitative impact by flicking a switch, give me some credit for goodness sake. Did you not notice how I defined the subject of my comment symbolic gesture? I'll make my point again, since you missed it the first time. I was suggesting that by flicking the switch, and participating in the grand symbolic gesture of Earth Hour, people feel like they've achieved something, and go right back to their incredibly wasteful 1st world life style feeling like they've scratched their eco-itch for another few days/weeks/months/whatever. As a tactic I think its shallow and weak. Lifestyle changes need to be baked into the fabric of society and dictated to us if we're to see any meaningful change, frankly.

How valuable are symbolic gestures? Pretty damn valuable - humans are emotional beasts, and a lot of the time its just as important to get them to feel than to think.

Other articles by the author: http://www.slate.com/authors.bjrn_lomborg.html

Now, where did I put my salt.

He also wrote "the skeptical environmentalist"

He's pretty infamous as the "Global Warming won't be that bad" guy.

It reminds me of a favorite scene from the animated show 'King of the Hill':

Dale(conservitive redneck friend): Global warming? Who cares? We'll grow oranges in Alaska.

Hank Hill : Goddammit Dale. We live in Texas. It's 110 degrees in April. If it gets 1 degree hotter, I'm gonna kick your ass.

omg, ad hominem, yarble garble!

While I do think Germany's energy policy is colossally stupid it does bug me that this article cites a not-so-reputable institute:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_for_Ene...

He's a climate change "skeptic". Did you expect anything less?

I wish pseudo-scientists didn't use that word. It makes all of us that identify as skeptics look bad.

The best sort of skeptic is the one who is skeptical of skeptics. This causes a few self-referential problems, but nobody said life was meant to be easy. Least of all for skeptics.

A better read on the subject:

http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2008/03/31/earth-hour-candl...

I agree with the author that turning lights off for an hour, once a year, has negligible (if any) impact on the environment or global warming, but I see Earth Hour as a symbolic action that raises awareness of an important issue and is a very nice international gesture of solidarity.

Earth hour is just a way to draw attention to the subject.

I'm pretty sure that most of us are aware of the subject by now.

It failed, I hadn't heard about it until this HN story. It looks very "hallmark holiday".

Symbolic gestures are all very well, but real gestures, however small, are a lot better. Here's a few ideas off the top of my head for things you could do on Saturday instead of turning off the lights for an hour:

- If you still use incandescent bulbs, buy some fluorescent or LED bulbs to replace them.

- If you heat your house in winter, and it's not well insulated, look up options for getting better insulation put in.

- If you're in the habit of driving when you could have walked or used public transport, try one of those alternatives.

- If you eat meat, try a vegetarian dinner on Saturday.

Any other ideas?

If you usually avoid the first unheated water coming out of the pipes before your morning shower, collect it in a bucket. You can then use it for flushing the toilet, or whatever.

Solar and wind energy are doing very well in Spain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Spain. There is a lot of FUD about the need of subsidizing, but it seems that the technology is already mature enough, and subsidies are not necessary any more: http://electricidadsostenible.blogspot.com.es/2012/12/espana... (link in Spanish, sorry).

Does anybody actually think that turning off the lights for an hour makes any kind of difference? Seems like this author is attacking a straw man.

There's probably one or two people who may believe that, but I think most of us see it as a symbolic gesture. Yeah, he is attacking a straw man.

People seem to think 'symbolic' gestures are important. Is there any evidence that they are?

I suspect they actually replace meaningful gestures, satisfying a person's need to affiliate with 'right-thinking' without paying any real cost or making any real difference. Without rigorous grounding in results, their popularization could thus make the associated problems worse.

Symbolic gestures may kill us all!

I don't think the point of earth hour is to make any kind of difference. I think it's more for awareness, lights are a visual guide to power consumption, if the whole city loses power first thing you notice are the lights.

After soundly drubbing the effectiveness of this symbolic event, the author finally suggests an alternative activity:

"Focusing on green R&D might not feel as good as participating in a global gabfest with flashlights and good intentions, but it is a much brighter idea."

... with no information about how the average consumer is supposed to "focus."

Slate just syndicated this article: http://www.project-syndicate.org/print/earth-hour-s-counterp...

I'd say this article teaches all the wrong "lessens", personally.

I wonder what formula he's using for kWh -> "servant" conversions?

The naive one that measures the average heat output of a human (about 100 watts, or 2,000 kilocalories/day). This an upper bound on mechanical work.

The author is encouraged to leave all his lights on at home, and activate all appliances 24/7, regardless of whether he's home or not, as a celebration of all the wonders that electricity does for us. I doubt he will have a problem, given that efficiency is not a concern for him (perhaps mute the TV when sleeping, and perhaps turn off the food processor to keep things a little quieter for naptime).

That's "Human Achievement Hour":

http://cei.org/hah

I doubt he will have a problem, given that efficiency is not a concern for him

Except one hour of this costs essentially nothing, just like one hour of "earth hour" saves a negligible amount of money (if any). They're both purely symbolic gestures. :)

The author isn't just about the one hour of Earth Hour, he's against everything it represents - which for the most part, is efficient use of energy. I'm just saying he should put his money where his mouth is.

I'm reminded of this tweet from John Carmack.

https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/185757996473790464

John Carmack ‏@ID_AA_Carmack I’m going to turn on every damn light in protest of Earth Hour. Lighting the darkness is fundamental to humanity's climb.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com