somebody Posted March 30, 2008 Report Share Posted March 30, 2008 Hey, guys i am pretty sure you guys notice the black homepage of google and i really hope that you guys took time to conserve some energy yesterday. Personally, I tried to go the whole 1 hour but I went to use bathroom and i kinda had to turn the lights on but i did conserve for 52 minutes. On top of that, i kinda like the peace which i got from this blackout so i think i might do that more often. Tell me about your experience if you guys knew about the Earth Hour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted March 30, 2008 Report Share Posted March 30, 2008 I didn't even know about Earth Hour... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michaelangelica Posted March 31, 2008 Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 I was just about to start an "Earth Hour- a Con " thread when I found this thread please tell me I am worng but dosn't it take 4-24 hours to stop a generator? Do people think that power stations can just tun off their generators at a flick of a switch? "Earth Hour" must cause havoc at power stations and not save and ounce of CO2. Perhaps power could have been re-routed to other cities when it was just one city turning off the power. But with everyone doing it.. .? And how much CO2 do millions of candles produce.? This just displays the total ignorance most people have about where and how their energy is produced. Annoying and sad especially when everyone could go out and bury a kilo of charcoal or do something worthwhile instead of symbolic. (SEE thread " DIY Planet cooling") As far as I can see this symbolism will not save one atom of CO2Yet the official website says it does.IF it just admitted it was symbolic I would be all for it.But it is just a "feel good" con I am really angry about this.:) Tell me I am wrong.-please Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UncleAl Posted April 1, 2008 Report Share Posted April 1, 2008 For Earth Hour 2009 everybody on Earth turns on everything electrical exactly at 1800 hrs GMT/Zulu. That blows the grid through the ionosphere, educating corrupt utilities that burning Enviro-whiners' algae is a stupid idea. Civilization knows what it is doing, Luddite Enviro-whinerism does not. --Uncle AlOutrageous On-line Uncle Al - 549 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)Calorimetric Equivalence Principle Test Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zythryn Posted April 1, 2008 Report Share Posted April 1, 2008 As far as I can see this symbolism will not save one atom of CO2Yet the official website says it does.IF it just admitted it was symbolic I would be all for it.But it is just a "feel good" con I am really angry about this. Tell me I am wrong.-please You are wrong (feeling better now?).Every story I have heard on the news and online (although I haven't been to the official site) have been very clear that it is a symbolic gesture.This is about raising awareness, not about saving energy. In addition, some people are changing their power usage habits over the long term. If there is less power used over a long time, fewer power generators will need to be built in the future. So, no, it doesn't save energy tonight, but it very well may lead to people saving more over the long term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zythryn Posted April 1, 2008 Report Share Posted April 1, 2008 IF it just admitted it was symbolic I would be all for it. From the front page at See the difference you can make - Earth Hour 2008Earth Hour uses the simple action of turning off the lights for one hour to deliver a powerful message about the need for action on global warming. Bold mine. There, now you can be all for it:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay-qu Posted April 1, 2008 Report Share Posted April 1, 2008 I fail to see how it really raises awareness because I think to many people have become confused about it like Micheal was. More contries should take a bold (silly?) leap like Australia and ban the light buld Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eclogite Posted April 1, 2008 Report Share Posted April 1, 2008 I experienced a three hour power failure yesterday evening, so I went to bed and slept early. Do I qualify for brownie points? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Govind Posted April 1, 2008 Report Share Posted April 1, 2008 I fail to see how it really raises awareness because I think to many people have become confused about it like Micheal was. More contries should take a bold (silly?) leap like Australia and ban the light buld Even that's been debated now!! The alternative to the bulb at present is the CFL. And the mercury that it contains...could be disastrous..when a lot of them are dumped after using.....is what many are now saying! Looks like there's no easy way out....maybe leap frog to the LED!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zythryn Posted April 1, 2008 Report Share Posted April 1, 2008 Even that's been debated now!! The alternative to the bulb at present is the CFL. And the mercury that it contains...could be disastrous..when a lot of them are dumped after using.....is what many are now saying! Looks like there's no easy way out....maybe leap frog to the LED!! LED's are superior to CFLs in terms of the environment, their price still needs to come down, and some people don't like the light.As for the mercury, yes, mercury is dangerous. As for mercury in the environment, our environment would be better off if everyone used CFLs than if they used incancesdents.Why, you might ask? Because coal plants kick out mercury. If you compare the mercury in the cfl to the amount of mercury a coal plant puts out generating the additional power required for the incandescents, the mercury in the CFLs is less.And, with proper disposal of the CFLs you have even less mercury in the environment as the coal plants, to my knowledge, pour the stuff out into the air (please correct me if I am wrong). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Govind Posted April 1, 2008 Report Share Posted April 1, 2008 LED's are superior to CFLs in terms of the environment, their price still needs to come down, and some people don't like the light.As for the mercury, yes, mercury is dangerous. As for mercury in the environment, our environment would be better off if everyone used CFLs than if they used incancesdents.Why, you might ask? Because coal plants kick out mercury. If you compare the mercury in the cfl to the amount of mercury a coal plant puts out generating the additional power required for the incandescents, the mercury in the CFLs is less.And, with proper disposal of the CFLs you have even less mercury in the environment as the coal plants, to my knowledge, pour the stuff out into the air (please correct me if I am wrong). Well, if you look at the present scenario...the price of a CFL compared to a bulb is too much..a CFL costs more than 10 times what an incandecent bulb does here! So, prices need to go down there as well. Hm..mercury in water is what's most dangerous actually...and a few drops, I am told...in a pond can contaminate the entire thing beyond imagination (isn't it happening already?!). And that the CFLs when dumped in landfills are bound to leach out the mercurty into the nearby surface water and even in the groundwater...is what one of the lobby against CFL has maintained. Of course, with a good waste management system (hitherto unknown in many parts of the world), none of that will be a problem! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zythryn Posted April 1, 2008 Report Share Posted April 1, 2008 Hope there are no lakes or rivers downwind from any coal plants in your area;)The amount of mercury in CFLs made today is about the amount of mercury in a thermometer. A CFL in my area costs about 6 times what an incandescent costs, and since it lasts 8 times as long it is a price deal right there. The fact that it uses 25% of the energy and it is a simple choice, the incancesdents are just to costly:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Govind Posted April 1, 2008 Report Share Posted April 1, 2008 Hope there are no lakes or rivers downwind from any coal plants in your area;)The amount of mercury in CFLs made today is about the amount of mercury in a thermometer. A CFL in my area costs about 6 times what an incandescent costs, and since it lasts 8 times as long it is a price deal right there. The fact that it uses 25% of the energy and it is a simple choice, the incancesdents are just to costly:) Indeed...in the long run CFL is cheaper...but to the people who are both illiterate and poor (of which, unfortunately this country has plenty) the bulb will always remain the light of choice...unless legally abolished (unlikely) or the CFL is subsidised! Lol..no lake or rivers downwind a coal plant you say...here, I just have to show you this! That is a coal based thermal power plant..and that is a river flowing a little too close to it...God save us all! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay-qu Posted April 1, 2008 Report Share Posted April 1, 2008 Why, you might ask? Because coal plants kick out mercury. If you compare the mercury in the cfl to the amount of mercury a coal plant puts out generating the additional power required for the incandescents, the mercury in the CFLs is less. Hey Zythryn where did you hear this, any chance of a link to a source? Thats really interesting and if true it makes the change sound like a much better idea. The main problem is of course that many light fixtures in peoples houses cant take a CFL .. I bet the CFL companies in Australia are rubbing there hands right now. And they dont have to lower costs since it will be illegal to use incandescent and LED's just arent competitive price wise yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zythryn Posted April 2, 2008 Report Share Posted April 2, 2008 The EPA and DOE have lots of stats, however one of the better calculations I have found is here: EnergyRace | Commentary : More on Mercury, Coal and CFLs - Updated If you assume that some of the CFLs get recycled, it gets even better:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DougF Posted April 2, 2008 Report Share Posted April 2, 2008 Just a tidbit I thought I would toss in. :) “This is the homework Santee Cooper should have done before proposing a multi-billion dollar coal plant' date='” said Blan Holman, senior attorney with Southern Environmental Law Center. “These studies confirm that efficiency investments and renewables are the quickest, cleanest, and cheapest ways to generate more juice. Efficiency is the first fuel.” Conservation groups oppose Santee Cooper’s proposed plant as a “worst-choice” alternative. Each year the facility would emit thousands of tons air pollution in an area with already high asthma rates. It would require hundreds of acres of landfills and mile-long coal trains. The plant would consume nearly three millions of gallons of water each day and [b']emit over a hundred pounds of mercury annually [/b]next to the Great Pee Dee River, which has existing health advisories due to dangerous mercury levels in fish. SCHotline Press Releases Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay-qu Posted April 2, 2008 Report Share Posted April 2, 2008 The EPA and DOE have lots of stats, however one of the better calculations I have found is here: EnergyRace | Commentary : More on Mercury, Coal and CFLs - Updated If you assume that some of the CFLs get recycled, it gets even better:)Thats an great link thanks Zythryn, it would be good if more people knew about these stats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.