IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: Earth Hour
Topic Summary: Lights ON 8:30pm Saturday March 27th
Created On: 23 March 2010 03:17 PM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
1 2 Next Last unread
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 23 March 2010 03:17 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Ipayyoursalary

Posts: 265
Joined: 21 November 2009

I hope all electrical & electronic engineers will be joining me in turning all their lights & appliances ON for the WWF self-interest group's Earth Hour. Let's celebrate human achievement, ingenuity and freedom. Let the light shine out in the darkness. Light up, light up - while you still have a choice!

Pictures from Earth Hour 2009. Click the images to see them plunged into eerie darkness.
 23 March 2010 03:41 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19841
Joined: 23 March 2004

No, I won't be joining you - I will be neither adding to nor reducing what I consume during earth hour

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 23 March 2010 04:07 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Ipayyoursalary

Posts: 265
Joined: 21 November 2009

So you won't mind when the green shirts come knocking on your door in a few years time to enforce the blackout? Assuming you have any lights left after your bills have sky-rocketed from hidden charges for useless & corrupt green non-energy schemes.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance". Thomas Jefferson.

Edited: 23 March 2010 at 04:27 PM by Ipayyoursalary
 23 March 2010 04:42 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

I with OMS in this respect, I will just carry on the same. I am against the climate change hype but I am prepared to listen to reasonable and honest arguments. If WWF want turn their stuff off then they are free to do so. Equally though I support your freedom to turn all your stuff on.

Regards.
 23 March 2010 09:33 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Ipayyoursalary

Posts: 265
Joined: 21 November 2009

Reasonable and honest arguments like this WWF commercial? I should point out that WWF gets over half its funding from government and EU grants. A large proportion goes on climate change propaganda like Earth Hour and the 9/11 ad. So you're paying for this stuff thru your taxes whether you like it or not.
 24 March 2010 07:47 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



rogerbryant

Posts: 867
Joined: 19 July 2002

Ipayyoursalary, I find your views to be rather inconsistent. You rant on about the pseudoscience of climate change and global warming yet you follow the emotional/political hype regarding the dangers of nuclear power,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From your post on wind turbines:

It seems crazy to me that people who profess concern about CO2 emissions should be unconcerned about nuclear waste and the potential for nuclear accidents like Chernobyl.

When there's an accident at a fossil fuel plant you get a fire, perhaps a small explosion and some broken windows, maybe a few casualties on site.

When there's an accident at a nuclear plant you get 1000's of casualties, a 2000-year 10,000-square mile exclusion zone, generations of sick and deformed children, a cloud of radioactive gas across the globe entering the food chain and causing uncounted cancers and early deaths.

If it's a choice between CO2 and deformed babies - I'll take the 7up bubbles please!

In 2012 a new concrete sarcophagus will be moved into place over the still smouldering Chernobyl reactor core. I'm hoping that by 2012 we can also finally bury the global warming CO2 taxing scam - along with the climate profiteers and their sustainable renewaBALLS.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'generations of sick and deformed children', 'uncounted cancers and early deaths' have a similar or worse scientific standing to global warming.

I would also refer you to my previous post on the accident at a Russian hydro electric plant which resulted in more casualties than Chernobyl.

http://www.hss.energy.gov/csa/...y2010/OES_2010-01.pdf

Incidents at non nuclear plants don,t just result in a few broken windows!

Best regards

Roger
 24 March 2010 11:35 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19841
Joined: 23 March 2004

Originally posted by: Ipayyoursalary

So you won't mind when the green shirts come knocking on your door in a few years time to enforce the blackout?

I suspect that's a tad unlikley - ultimately the cost and availability of energy will create a more grown up approach to both renewable sources and energy consumption - profligate energy use will become the social equivalent of drink driving

Assuming you have any lights left after your bills have sky-rocketed from hidden charges for useless & corrupt green non-energy schemes.

Well again, personally I believe energy has been far to cheap for far to long - when the next few decades start to show the true cost of energy then reduction in consumption along with alternative supplies will emerge due to market forces.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance". Thomas Jefferson.


Indeed, perhaps you might want to think about the following.

The slave trade ended because the energy content in a ton of coal outweighed the energy avilable from 150 slaves and was cheaper to purchase than the food and accomodation needed to keep your energy source viable


In summary, I act as I do because it's the right thing to do rather than act as either side of the climate change debate wish me to

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 24 March 2010 01:45 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Ipayyoursalary

Posts: 265
Joined: 21 November 2009

Re the green-shirts: here's an amusing Audi advert on the subject.

Re energy costs. I'd rather pay a fair market price for my energy - rather than a price inflated by climate profiteers. This may be an ideological difference though. I always prefer to choose how my hard-earned cash is spent - rather than having politicians choosing to spend it on unnecessary wars, 2nd homes and MP's expenses etc.

Re: your comparison of fossil fuels to the slave trade. The UK slave trade was abolished thanks to the tireless work of people like William Wilberforce who argued it was contrary to the principles of justice and humanity - not because it was uneconomic. Indeed, China still use masses of cheap labour to do things in preference to automation - it's still cheaper.
 24 March 2010 02:03 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19841
Joined: 23 March 2004

Re energy costs. I'd rather pay a fair market price for my energy


And should that price be a fair reflection of the actual cost of that energy or the reduced cost available by short term exploitation of a resource.

I always prefer to choose how my hard-earned cash is spent - rather than having politicians choosing to spend it on unnecessary wars, 2nd homes and MP's expenses etc


Perils of a democracy I guess - use your vote for change would be my advice.

The UK slave trade was abolished thanks to the tireless work of people like William Wilberforce who argued it was contrary to the principles of justice and humanity


Really - and since when has any argument based on the principles of justice and humanity had any influence then - it was simple energy economics.

Essentially it will be those same economics that decide the potential outcomes of climate change scanarios

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 27 March 2010 08:00 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Ipayyoursalary

Posts: 265
Joined: 21 November 2009

Every hour's "Earth Hour" in North Korea as this night-time satellite image shows.
Lets hope our great leaders can produce the same effect here with their carbon taxes and windmills!!
 27 March 2010 09:46 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: Ipayyoursalary

Lets hope our great leaders can produce the same effect here with their carbon taxes and windmills!!


NuLabour seem to be steering us in this direction with their past/present spending....before they get onto taxes and windmills!

Regards.
 28 March 2010 01:06 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Ipayyoursalary

Posts: 265
Joined: 21 November 2009

Ross McKitrick posted a short article entitled Earth Hour - No Thanks which eloquently sums up the feelings of many engineers. It's well worth a read:

...Abundant cheap electricity has been the greatest source of human liberation in the 20th century. Every material social advance has depended on the proliferation of inexpensive and reliable electricity....

The whole mentality around Earth Hour demonizes electricity. I cannot do that, instead I celebrate it and all that it has provided for humanity... By repudiating the greatest engine of liberation Earth Hour is nothing more that an hour devoted to anti-humanism. It invites people to become sanctimonious do-gooders by turning off trivial appliances for a trivial amount of time, in service of some ill-understood abstract concept of "the Earth," all the while hypocritically retaining the real benefits of electricity. People who want to do without electricity in service of some symbolic solidarity with nature should shut off their fridge, stove, microwave, computer, water heater, lights, TV and all other appliances for a month, not an hour. And pop down to the cardiac unit at the hospital and shut the power off there too.

I don't want to go back to nature. Haiti just went back to nature. For humans, living in "Nature" meant a short life span marked by violence, disease and ignorance. People who work to end poverty and disease are fighting against nature. I hope they leave their lights on.

...through the use of pollution control technology and advanced engineering, our air quality has dramatically improved since the 1960s despite the expansion of industry and the power supply. If, after all this, we are going to take the view that the remaining air emissions outweigh all the benefits of electricity, and that we ought to be shamed into sitting in darkness for an hour, like naughty children who have been caught doing something bad, then we are setting up unspoiled nature as an absolute, transcendent ideal that obliterates all other ethical and humane obligations. No thanks. I like visiting nature but I don't want to live there, and I refuse to accept the idea that civilization is something to be ashamed of.

Compare this to Gordon Brown's sanctimonious comments - views shared by Cameron and Clegg.

"I'm delighted to support WWF's Earth Hour. Tackling climate change is urgent and vital to both safeguard our environment and our children's future. We can make a difference if we act now and act together."

God help us.
 29 March 2010 10:45 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19841
Joined: 23 March 2004

Well as I said, I neither added to nor reduced what I consumed during earth hour.

With regrad to Mr McKitricks comments, I suspect like all zealots, he has missed the point. Abundant cheap electricity is fine - as long as we fully undertsand the real cost of generation - will it remain abundant and cheap when the last of the expliotable carbon based resources are gone - I suspect not.

Equally, I also suspect that Mr Brown has in part missed the point although his view is perhaps a little closer.

I prefer to think in terms of sustainability - the definition from Bruntland is quite apt I think.

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 29 March 2010 11:32 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



drhirst

Posts: 46
Joined: 24 December 2002

Like most (if not quite all) economists, McKintrick distorts reality. Earth hour is a celebration of all that electricity has achieved, and undoubtedly will continue to contribute to our well being. As engineers, it is good to see us being reminded of all that we stand to lose if electricity becomes unaffordable. We all have to pay the full bill for wasteful use of energy.
Electricity is the core technology that will enable us to use (nearly) harmless sources of renewable energy. As engineers, we need to work out how best to deliver that, not to condemn those who seek to make it possible and less wasteful.
Regards

-------------------------
David Hirst
 29 March 2010 12:24 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Ipayyoursalary

Posts: 265
Joined: 21 November 2009

OMS - your comments seem to be based on the false assumption that we are about to run out of fossil fuels. This is certainly not the case as the recent additions of massive shale gas reserves demonstrates.

Mr Hirst, how can you possibly view Earth Hour as a celebration of electricity? You don't celebrate something by sitting in the cold & dark for an hour. No, it's a celebration of ignorance, backwardness and superstition which all engineers should instinctively reject.

I'm sure the billion poor people struggling to survive without electricity need no reminding of what life is like without it. What they need is cheap reliable fossil-fueled electricity - using the latest clean burn technology & exhaust scrubbers - yes. But the last thing they need is to be burdened with expensive, unreliable wind & solar schemes which they can't afford.
 29 March 2010 12:52 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19841
Joined: 23 March 2004

OMS - your comments seem to be based on the false assumption that we are about to run out of fossil fuels. This is certainly not the case as the recent additions of massive shale gas reserves demonstrates.


I see - so you not only believe that shale gas reserves are infinite (I guess you don't do irony) and that thier explotation by principally the western populations at increasing rates is not of concern. I think the point I was trying to make is that until we factor in the true cost of this energy then we perhaps shouldn't be burning it indiscriminately - meeting our needs whilst respecting the needs of future generations perhaps

What they need is cheap reliable fossil-fueled electricity - using the latest clean burn technology & exhaust scrubbers - yes.


No they don't - what they need is appropriate technology transfer to allow development of a sustainable energy infrastructure in a move away from carbon based fuels and potentially a means to generate growth in a hydrogen economy

But the last thing they need is to be burdened with expensive, unreliable wind & solar schemes which they can't afford.


I think you shouldn't judge the potential of wind and solar (why not hydro) by your own limited views. All of these have the potential to easily replace fossil fuels - the only barrier is the desire of a current generation to continue to exploit finite resources(ie cheap energy) that actually have much more value than simply being converted into low grade heat.

Regards


OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 29 March 2010 03:08 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

"I suspect like all zealots"

However there are 'zealots' on either side of the argument...unfortunately. Let's hope that sensible heads prevail.....and that counts Brown out.

Regards.
 29 March 2010 03:42 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



rogerbryant

Posts: 867
Joined: 19 July 2002

I think Hydroelectricity comes into a different catagory of 'renewable' energy than wind and solar.
The vital difference is that hydro electricity is predictable and controllable. I can judge how many kwh there are in my top reservoir and plan how I wish to use them.
Wind and solar are not predicable, you get energy when the sun shines or the wind blows. If you can store this energy and use it when required all well and good, but other than pumped storage (hydro in reverse) there are no large scale techniques currently avaiable. If the wind and solar generators have to be backed up by spinning reserves at thermal (fossil fuel burning) generation plants it's not as green as it's made out to be.
There is a limit to the amount of hydroelectric power generation that can be installed due to geographical constraints, and most of the available sites in western Europe have already been used. There are other sites, but the environmental impact of flooding valleys has been classed as too great.

As ever our best way forward is to reduce our consumption, this can be aided by charging a realistic price, but how do you price a finite resource?

I am not sure if wind and solar do offer a realistic way to reduce our dependance on fossil fuels. It is difficult to find data on the wholelife carbon balance for wind power, especially considering the distribution infrastructure requirements. The figures I have found seem to be based on the peak output of the system or with an unrealistically high utilisation factor and do not take into account the requirement for the distribution system to be specified for the peak power but operated at an average load of less than 20%.

One solution may be to use the inconsistent renewables for hydrogen generation, but again you end up sizing the system for peak power and runing it at and average of 20%.

As an aside from that the HSE in the UK have produced a report on the addition risks posed by the use of hydrogen fuelled road vehicles and their fuel distribution systems:

http://news.hse.gov.uk/2010/02...rogen-position-paper/

Best regards

Roger
 29 March 2010 05:07 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Ipayyoursalary

Posts: 265
Joined: 21 November 2009

Interesting paper Roger thanks - and some good points about wind and solar. I also read the wikipedia page on the Hydrogen Economy. Of course wiki pages must be treated carefully since they're written by vested interests - but the overall impression I got was that it's not a practical proposition at the moment - for a number of reasons including safety.

OMS. I'm puzzled by your idea that people in the developing world should suffer today because it wouldn't be fair for them to use cheap fossil fuels incase future generations need them. You fail to take into account the benefits continued economic development will bring to future generations. They'ill be far better placed to look after themselves than we are. The important thing is that development should continue - and not be derailed by the crazy Gaia-worshipping climate cult and their 'Earth Hour'.
 29 March 2010 06:19 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19841
Joined: 23 March 2004

OMS. I'm puzzled by your idea that people in the developing world should suffer today because it wouldn't be fair for them to use cheap fossil fuels incase future generations need them. You fail to take into account the benefits continued economic development will bring to future generations. They'ill be far better placed to look after themselves than we are. The important thing is that development should continue - and not be derailed by the crazy Gaia-worshipping climate cult and their 'Earth Hour'.


I didn't suggest they should suffer (although suffer they will regradless of the fuel used - look at the coal mining industry in china as an example)) - just that the focus should be on appropriate technology transfer. Take that basket case we call Africa - plenty of predictable solar potential for energy and potential to become an energy exporter when we move to a hydrogen economy. I was suggesting that there is far more we could do with say oil than to burn it as low grade heat energy when that low grade heat energy can be sourced from more appropriate technologies.

Again, I suspect that you believe continued dependance on fossil fuel to be inevitable - actually it's not - but it does need the appropriate technology to be used in the right geographic location and the day to day problems of using say hydrogen as the storage medium to be overcome - but that's all in the nature of man.

I also suggest that you don't confuse a focus on sustainable energy with the bearded boy wonders who want to return to 12th century permaculture - they are not the same thing at all.

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
IET » Energy » Earth Hour

1 2 Next Last unread
Topic Tools Topic Tools
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.