Earth Hour

[Flannen]

The first I heard of this was actually through this thread and then I heard it mentioned on the news, but I don't really know what/when it was. Didn't sound like a bad idea really, there's nothing wrong with encouraging people to save a bit more energy - especially as it could also help save them pennies!

I always try to turn everything off, that it's convenient to anyway, but I'm a student and am now experiencing having to pay my own bills, so its more about the pennies for me and if I help save the world in the process - go me!

And I'm sorry but I can't help but comment on the fact that you don't BELIEVE in global warming nerd4hire! Even George Bush relented and admitted it IS a problem. It may not be as critical and close as the media etc makes out, but seriously? Why would you align yourself with the intelligence of Bush and Palin?!

So yeah, was this just one-off thing or are they planning on doing it again?!

 

[Buffanator]

Some scientists support the man-made, catastrophic, global warming hypothesis. Others do not.

THAT is the bottom line. I work in the field of oceanography. Every scientist I know (and I know a buttload of them, believe me) supports the belief of global warming. However, they all have different angles of what they believe to be the cause or answer to the problem.

 

[clemsgirlfriend]

Global warming isn't a theory or a hypothesis - it's an observation. What causes it is the arena where there are different hypotheses. But there is enough evidence that humans are at least contributing to the phenomenon that a large majority of scientists working in the field who have published their work on the topic do come to that conclusion based on the available evidence. Like evolution over millions of years, it cannot be directly proven, but that does not mean that hypotheses with vastly different amounts of evidence supporting them are equally good, just because neither can be proven.

However, that doesn't even matter. Air pollution is easily observable, that it is caused by human activities is easily observable, and that it leads to major health problems in people is also readily observable. A lot of the same actions that would decrease air pollution would also decrease human contributions to global warming, so there is really no need to decide if one agrees that humans contribute to global warming or not - just acting to decrease air pollution is both necessary in its own right, and can have side-benefits related to global warming if the vast majority of scientists are right in concluding that there is a causal link between human activities and measured temperature increases.

My difficulty with earth hour is that it can lead people to feeling like they've done "their part" by just turning off lights for an hour, but without making efforts throughout their lives to minimize consumption and eliminate waste. It's even worse if they replace the electrical lights with candles, which create more air pollution and release more greenhouse gases than even electricity made by burning coal. If by raising awareness it can get people to make ongoing changes, it can be useful, but if it causes people to conclude that they have already done their part because they burned candles for an hour, then it could actually cause more harm than help.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

there's nothing wrong with encouraging people to save a bit more energy - especially as it could also help save them pennies!

Actually thats a misconception.
It costs more money to turn the lights on and off within a 5 hour window then it does to leave them on for 5 hours.

Granted its only pennies BUT its not saving you much.

The ONLY reason I would do this is because I like to sit by candle light anyway, especially when chatting with friends or reading a book.

 

[sk]

Actually thats a misconception.
It costs more money to turn the lights on and off within a 5 hour window then it does to leave them on for 5 hours.

That just can't be true.
There is no way that the startup energy for any light is that high.

It does brake easier though if you turn it on/off often. So you might save some by not needing to buy new lamps.
And a lamp generates some heat that you can take into consideration.

Still, generally speaking I'm pretty sure you will always save by turning the lights off.

/SK

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

That just can't be true.
There is no way that the startup energy for any light is that high.

It does brake easier though if you turn it on/off often. So you might save some by not needing to buy new lamps.
And a lamp generates some heat that you can take into consideration.

Still, generally speaking I'm pretty sure you will always save by turning the lights off.

/SK

It is true, my dad spent 15 years working for an electric company.
Lighting systems are set up to take pennies as soon as you turn them on because of the initial (very slight) surge.
It costs the same amount for that instant turn on than leaving the lights on for 5 hours (well its just slightly shorter than that).
Its also the same for those Energy Saving ones - they DO save you money over a lonegr time period, but thats worked out on the basis of having a light on for 7-9 hours per day.

 

[Friendly Lurker]

It is true, my dad spent 15 years working for an electric company.
Lighting systems are set up to take pennies as soon as you turn them on because of the initial (very slight) surge.
It costs the same amount for that instant turn on than leaving the lights on for 5 hours (well its just slightly shorter than that).
Its also the same for those Energy Saving ones - they DO save you money over a lonegr time period, but thats worked out on the basis of having a light on for 7-9 hours per day.

This was tested on Mythbusters (yes, it's a better source than "my dad worked for an electric company") and they found out that turning the lights on took the same amount of power as having them on for a few seconds. There also isn't any kind of a fee for turning the lights on so clearly flicking the lights doesn't cost as much as having them on for 5 hours. 😛

 

[sk]

It is true, my dad spent 15 years working for an electric company.
Lighting systems are set up to take pennies as soon as you turn them on because of the initial (very slight) surge.
It costs the same amount for that instant turn on than leaving the lights on for 5 hours (well its just slightly shorter than that).
Its also the same for those Energy Saving ones - they DO save you money over a lonegr time period, but thats worked out on the basis of having a light on for 7-9 hours per day.

How can they been setup to take pennies?
Doesn't you guys only pay for the total amount of energy that you have been using for the previous month or whatever time period?

And having a lamp lit for 5 hours absolutely uses more energy than having it turned on for only 4 hours and whatever minutes.
Exactly how much more energy depends of course on how often you turn it on off... but the startup energy isn't that high.

So I just don't understand where those pennies are taken from.

/SK

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

This was tested on Mythbusters (yes, it's a better source than "my dad worked for an electric company") and they found out that turning the lights on took the same amount of power as having them on for a few seconds. There also isn't any kind of a fee for turning the lights on so clearly flicking the lights doesn't cost as much as having them on for 5 hours. 😛

My dad worked for an electric company that actually dealt with that side of it.

I haven't seen this Mythbusters so I cannot comment on that, however when my father, someone who picks pennies up from the floor because he's that cheap, does something he knows, in a field he know, and tells us why, its not a big leap to listen to him.

If this wasn't my dad, but someone else with the same level of experience, he would be cited as a 'source'.

You also have to take into account that turning lights off and on again decrease the life span of the bulb, which incurs costs and when light bulbs are made to replace ones that have died, they have a carbon foot print as well as a price tag as well.

So yes, all that added together makes me believe him more than something from a show I've not even seen.

EDIT:

I just saw the show and you learn something new.
Having said that, I have never had a bulb thats lasted 5 years BUT they did feature a bulb that has been left on for 105 years and is still running - thats some savings!

I'm still not entirely convinced and won't be changing my lighting routine, however I concede that there is a possibility!

 

[sk]

they did feature a bulb that has been left on for 105 years and is still running - thats some savings!

Thats impressive.
I wonder if they turned it off for Earth Hour though... 🙂

/SK

 

[Friendly Lurker]

Through numerous tests, the MythBusters calculated that the power surge from turning on a light would only consume as much power as leaving it on for a fraction of a second (except for fluorescent tube lights; the startup consumed about 23 seconds' worth of power). Furthermore, the wear and tear of turning the light on and off repeatedly did not reduce the bulb's total life expectancy enough to offset the increased electricity usage. Therefore, it is far more economical to turn a light off rather than leaving it on.

I'm pretty convinced. 😉

 

[Perny]

randiann agrees: I can't stand it anymore! Your banner is scary!!!

What???????? It's not scary. It's totally rocksome!

 

[Lemon]

I completely forgot about Earth Hour. I suck... =(