Earth Hour has come and gone in California (8:30 to 9:30 PM PDT) for 2010 without so much as a blip. In fact the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) power usage graph looks much like last year when there was also no discernible difference.
Using the graph provided by CAISO, here’s what Earth Hour 2010 looked like in California, can you spot where everybody turned off their lights?
FYI CAISO says on the graph page that: Sudden spikes in resource curve graph may indicate false data briefly reported by system
Here’s what Earth Hour in California looked like in 2009:
Note the the drop in power you see just prior to Earth Hour is normal. As proof, have a look at the Sunday after Earth Hour from last year:
Some said last year that Earth Hour made a difference. Well Treehugger doesn’t know how to read the graph, and assumes the drop they saw was not business as usual. See that little blip around 0700 on all three graphs? That’s the signature of streetlights all around California automatically shutting off because the photocells get enough light:
From the NOAA sunrise/sunset calculator, San Francisco sunrise on March 27th is: 7:02AM PDT. In Southern California, Los Angeles has a sunrise time of 6:47AM, which is why the “streetlights off” power drop is gradual for about 30 minutes starting before 0700 on the graphs.
If there was a big effect from Earth Hour, you’d see a step event like the street lights at 7AM as everybody turned off their home lights in California at 8:30PM (2030). Plus, the greens don’t seem to realize that no power plants get switched off, so there’s really no CO2 savings. The power plants are run based on demand forecast. Short term spikes from well intentioned stunts really don’t make a blip of difference to CO2 emissions.
Earth Hour is a failure in California and according to Richard North at the EU Referendum, a failure in Britain too.
Feel free to post any power use graphs from other parts of the world in comments.
From commenter Bahumbug in the previous thread:
Here is a wonderful short article by Ross McKitrick regards Earth Hour via Donna Laframboise at nofrakkingconsensus
“The whole mentality around Earth Hour demonizes electricity. I cannot do that, instead I celebrate it and all that it has provided for humanity…. 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.
…….
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.
Ross McKitrick
Full article in pdf (single page) here
WWF would be better off preaching year round energy conservation than publicity stunts, but unfortunately publicity stunts are what wow the gullible and fill the till.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@rbateman (17:45:29) :
“Roger Sowell (17:08:29) :
Great. Let’s include the glare induced by overlighting since then, along with all the household items big business has contrived to sell that are ‘always on’.
The consumer is at the mercy of utility and product design.”
I maintain that the consumer has a choice, usually of several products of varying design. Plus, a consumer has the ultimate power over an appliance: pulling the plug. A few people I know plug some appliances in to power strips, then flip off the strip at night.
“And, on the other end of the spectrum, we can say that endless expansion of lighting and devices sold to consumers is likewise not sustainable.”
And why would they not be sustainable? In a non-recycling world, perhaps. But products are recycled these days, and that is likely to increase, not increase.
“Question: Will Utility and Manufacturing listen to the call to reduce the hardwired 80% of demand?”
I maintain that the “hardwired 80% of demand” is not what you might suspect it is. Some operations, industries, and all refineries and continuous process plants, run 24/7 operations. This creates a demand for power, of course. It would be economic ruin for these to stop operations at night (reduce the “hardwired 80%”) then crank up again each day during daylight. That is therefore not going to happen. Those industrial demands far outweigh any residual demand from a tv left plugged in overnight, or a clock radio.
“And an even tougher question: WIll Utility, if in fact it cuts back on the hardwired portion, resist the temptation to raise rates to make up for the shortfall in sales that will surely follow?”
Utilities do not set their rates, a public utility commission does. The factors that the PUC (it goes by different names in different jurisdictions) considers in a rate increase are numerous. A key consideration is the funds required to pay for new generating facilities. Similarly, a utility cannot unilaterally build a new power plant – it must receive a construction permit from a regulatory body such as an energy commission. The projected demand (increase or decrease) over the planning horizon (a few years, usually) has a great influence on both the PUC’s rate decisions, and the utilities’ construction decisions.
The current debate (one among many) is what effect “energy conservation” will have on utility demand in the future. It appears (although it is early in the game) that some PUC’s are not granting rate increases, and energy commissions are not granting new construction permits, because an increase in demand just does not appear likely. Some reasons for this are the economic recession, more efficient residential and commercial appliances (energy star ratings in the US), distributed generation (via solar or wind or small cogeneration plants on-site for small businesses), the much-touted potential reductions due to a “smart grid” and the smart meters associated with that, large industrial cogeneration that removes huge blocks of power demand from a utility grid, and others.
Now, will a PUC grant a rate increase such that a utility maintains a constant revenue even with decreasing demand? Yes, that happens (but not in all utility systems). I wrote about this under the subject Nuclear Death Spiral, where a utility in Louisiana built a nuclear power plant, was granted a large rate increase, and then had many industrial customers build cogeneration plants because they could make electricity cheaper than buying it. The PUC then granted a further rate increase, more customers built cogeneration, and so on. The people most affected were the average Joe and Jane Sixpack, who had no choice but to pay the higher bills. This is but one of many reasons that new nuclear power plants in the USA are stupid decisions.
M Simon, and Rebecca C,
The green line for available power on the graphs is not showing how much power is generated at that time. Power and demand are balanced (equal each other) at all times.
The green line shows the power that COULD be generated, if ramped up to maximum generating capacity.
In California, the ISO tries to maintain a good cushion of 30 to 40 percent to allow for generating stations to trip off line without warning, and still maintain the grid operating. During peak demand periods on hot summer days, the cushion decreases to 10 percent and sometimes 5 percent. At that point, some customers are required to cut back their usage to reduce demand to prevent brownouts or rolling blackouts. These customers know this in advance, and sign up to do this in exchange for a reduced power bill.
The consumer is at the mercy of utility and product design.
You could always make your own stuff. Nothing stopping you. And there is no one forcing you to buy anything at stores or from utilities (at least until the insurance mandate kicks in).
So what is it you have bought that you don’t want? Send it to me. A big screen TV would be really nice. Or one of those polluting big computer monitors. You don’t want to pollute do you? As a service I will do it for you. And best of all my service is free. Just send me your stuff.
Roger Sowell (18:45:35) :
Roger. I’m an EE. I know that generated power must match (within tolerance) required power or the grid crashes. I understand what reserve capacity means. BTW filament light bulbs help absorb some of that tolerance. Getting rid of them may be a good idea re: energy. It is a bad idea re: grid stability. As are all those computer (and other modern) power supplies. They are negative resistors. i.e, as the voltage goes up the current goes down. Very bad for stability.
Roger Sowell (18:38:19) :
“And, on the other end of the spectrum, we can say that endless expansion of lighting and devices sold to consumers is likewise not sustainable.”
And why would they not be sustainable?
——————————-
My bad for not being specific: I was referring to the constant addition of demand, not the recycling of dead products.
I have turned off my power strips also, but it does no good to my bill, which is a set rate + 2 surcharges.
The question to utility is will they cut back on excess lighting?
The question to PUC is will they continue to allow higher and higher base rates as consumers try to cut back?
I prefer to try an alternative to help out my fellow Americans struggling with ever-dwindling pocketbooks rather than stand by and watch them plunged into peasantry by the Cap & Trade bill.
I remember driving from Virginia to Wisconsin with my Dad, to visit my grandpa. We went through Gary, IN and then through Chicago. You could smell Gary about 30 miles before you entered it. It seemed dramatically different last time I drove through in 2002. Seemed like most of the industry was gone or idle.
Oops, the driving to Wisconsin with my Dad was in the 70s…
M. Simon (18:53:40) :
You could always make your own stuff. Nothing stopping you.
Yes, I could always start up No. Calif. Electronics Corp.
Got a couple billion you want to invest??
Nothing stopping you.
But I like your alternative: Send all my devices to you. That’s very Cap & Amish.
You first.
What about the new supplies of Shale Gas? I have a lefty acquaintance who is fearful! of new gas supplies wrecking the Wind power ponzi scheme…
Mods, pls, a repost of the last (mea culpa) … tnx.
Amen. I don’t even like camping … (BUT that’s just me)
.
.
I always turn off things that’re not in use, and only have on the lights I need. Hey, I was born in the mid-70s and got taught by my parents to shut the lights off when I wasn’t in the room. Electricity costs money, y’know.
So, no, I won’t be participating in ecology theatre because they’re asking me to do something I just do all the frickin’ time, not just one hour a year so I can feel good about myself.
rbateman,
I have no complaints about the current situation. I love having a 1,000X more powerful computer on my desk than any even contemplated in 1950.
I have no complaints about what is available in stores or Goodwill for that matter.
I love electricity, too. Because I like talking to you guys. Good show, Ross McKitrick.
“And it sounds like there were two idiots involved. The man for walking in the street in the dark, and the motorcycle driver for not being alert enough.”
The street being dark was not the man’s fault, but Earth Hour’s. Without the campaign he wouldn’t have walked in the dark, but in a normal lighting. Earth Hour was clearly a cause, most likely the principal cause of the accident.
“I’m still not sure why the old man would be walking in the street because the lights were out, that part of your argument doesn’t make sense. It sounds like he was an accident waiting to happen.”
I’m not sure what you mean. Perhaps he was walking in the wrong place because our species CAN’T SEE IN THE DARK. That’s why streetlights were invented in the first place.
Perhaps he was doing his routine evening walk, the lights went suddenly out and he didn’t see where to go. Your argument that he was an idiot who died for his own fault is indeed interesting.
Earth Hour was an accident, and several other accidents, waiting to happen which is exactly what I (and many others) have been saying since the campaign started.
I have often had caused to believe that the kind of people that read newspapers like the Guardian want the rest of us to modify OUR behaviour whilst having no intention of modifying THEIR behaviour.
I guess they have just proved this.
“Looking at all these power generation charts over the past 24 hours, it’s striking that on average over the course of a day, the available megawatts exceed the expected usage by an average of 40% or so. ”
Yes, because once a big power station is up and running it isn’t going to get cold anytime soon, so it can generate power continuously and therefore generates a lot of electricity during the night when its not needed. Nuclear power stations in particular take 6 months to run up to full power – so they tend to be run at full power all the time.
The US has a particular issue with this because it works on a fully free-market approach to energy generation whereas Europe runs on a planned economy model which is less wasteful (but potentially more expensive because you have to make complicate arrangements to encourage load balancing and energy storage). For instance, Europe has 5% pumped storage generating capacity compared to 2.5% in the US.
Finn: I can appreciate your argument. The street lights weren’t put in place to use up electricity, they were installed to help prevent accidents. Turning them off won’t save electricity but the resulting darkness will contribute to the likeliness of accidents. Why not turn off the traffic lights while they are at it?
RE: Motorcycle/pedestrian accident:
Although there is debate regarding the cause of the accident, and that the immutable laws of common sense should apply, there is another reality that is taking place.
Over the past few decades, more and more people are placing their own safety in the hands of others, typically those in authority (e.g. government). It is at the point where any assumed risk is not on the individual and any accident, fault or failure is placed on others; they have assumed said risk.
The local authority assumed responsibility for providing a safe roadway (lit, paved, etc.) We have placed our safety – rightly or wrongly – in that authority to a greater or lesser extent. When the authority fails in that duty, they have failed that responsibility. But cause and blame are two very different things, particularly when it is an authority which has taken responsibility.
The authorities action of removing the adequate lighting – presumably in place to provide a safer roadway – was a contributing factor to the incident. But it is almost impossible to actually *blame* an authority for such.
The laws rules and regulations imposed by authorities are but a thin veneer, an egg shell, that keeps us safe from ourselves. More and moire, these authorities encourage abdication of personal responsibility to the state like a drive-by Volcano Insurance salesman.
WWF Finland just published a press release saying they regret the accident which lead to the death. They say WWF trusts the judgement and expertise of the participating organizations when they choose the lighting to be turned off.
The police of Uusikaupunki is still investigating the accident and circumstances that lead to it.
http://www.wwf.fi/tiedotus/tiedotteet/tiedotteet_2010/pahoittelee_onnettomuutta.html
“WUWT… has become an entertainment blog with a bunch of climatic ditto-heads.”
Hmmm. Mark, I don’t believe we’ve met….
“Looking at all these power generation charts over the past 24 hours, it’s striking that on average over the course of a day, the available megawatts exceed the expected usage by an average of 40% or so. The greatest gains in energy efficiency would seem to come from tightening that gap (without, of course, running into brownouts). You’d think the power companies would be all over that, since it would save them tons of money.”
A lot of that margin is in hydro power. It is not a “true” margin in that you can’t tap into it continuously. Many of the dams have idle generators that can be called to be turned up at any time. But once they are fired up, they can only run a short while because of the limited quantity of water in the reservoir. When they are used, they must then make an offsetting reduction below average to bring the reservoir back to targeted capacity.
finn (02:04:14) :
The street being dark is a natural consequence of Earthly rotation.
The motorcycle is supposed to have a headlight, which allows the operator to see and also the pedestrian to see coming.
You are still dealing with a lack of proper awareness.
The power transformer can fail, tree fall on a line, truck hit a power pole, lightning strike the lines, light bulb burn out, etc.
What was the pedestrian or operator doing besides travelling at the moment?
Texting or listening to ITunes?
Were they in a hurry or were they distracted?
There is much to an accident investigation. It is best to withhold prejudgement until the details of the accident and circumstances are fully known.
OceanTwo (06:11:10) :
Well put. No authority, however well meaning and adept, can replace individual awareness of safety, nor can it ever successfully implement an “Idiot Proof” world.
Where the prosperous West fails, they seem to have managed to do their *bit* in Vietnam.
http://english.vietnamnet.vn/photogal/201003/The-Earth-Hour-in-Vietnam-901371/