Earth hour tomorrow: Light Globes vs Candles in Tasmania

Open discussion regarding technological or telecommunication issues
Post Reply
felix
Posts: 120
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 11:41 pm
Location: Orange, NSW, Australia
Contact:

Earth hour tomorrow: Light Globes vs Candles in Tasmania

Post by felix » Fri Mar 28, 2008 2:53 pm

Analysis completed by a chemical engineer at my work.


Light Globes vs Candles in Tasmania

Globes.

last year (Hydro annual report 07) -Tassie electricity was 77% Hydro (Co2 free) 9.1% gas and 13% from mainland (assume coal)

at 1300 kg CO2/MWh for coal and 500 kg/CO2/MWh for gas this give an average 214.5 kg/MWh of CO2 for Tassie. The best in Australia.

this is 214.5 g/kWh

A 100W globe for one hour is 0.1kWh = 21.45 g of CO2 per hour.

Candles

A candle is parrafin wax. Average formula is C25H52. THis is 85% carbon and 15% hydrogen by weight.

Combustion is something like C25H52 + 38O2 --> 25 CO2 + 26H2O

for each gram of wax burnt, 3.7g of CO2 are produced.

Say a candle is 50 g (possibly this is a bit light on - ha ha - punny)

Each candle burnt produces therefore 185 g of CO2.
Say a candle lasts three hours.

This gives an hourly CO2 output of 61.7g CO2 per hour.

COMPARISON FOR TASMANIA ONLY

100W light globe = 21.45g of CO2 per hour
Candle = 61.7 g of CO2 per hour.

Therefore in Tasmania a 100W light globe is nearly three times better from a CO2 emissions point of view than a candle.
Or a candle would need to last 8.6 hours to be that same CO2 output as a 100W globe.

If you are talking a 60W globe things just get better for electricity.
if you are talking fluoros - well - now youre talking.

MikeTurner
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 3:34 pm
Location: Sydney

Post by MikeTurner » Sat Mar 29, 2008 12:07 pm

Yep, "Earth Hour" really should be called "self-indulgent hour".

Many of the people involved have just moved their events to outside of earth hour - take Kate Blanchett for example, who moved her play(??) to finish by 6:30pm. Still uses the same amount of power though.

Virgin Blue are flying (a few thousand ??) guests in for a candlelit dinner in a massive hanger for "self-indulgent hour". The hypocrisy is mind boggling.

It's just a token effort. Last years Earth Hour (sic) was equal to removing 6 cars off the streets for 12 months.

The amount of advertising and glossy brochures produced this year is staggering!

tocpcs
Posts: 523
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 10:01 am
Location: Online

Post by tocpcs » Sat Mar 29, 2008 12:29 pm

I wonder if they take to account the carbon cost of marketing earth hour in the results of the program to get a true effect?

After all, creating ads, and marketing cost carbon.

Aquard
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 3:15 pm

Post by Aquard » Sun Mar 30, 2008 2:27 pm

It's power will be in increasing public awareness.

tocpcs
Posts: 523
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 10:01 am
Location: Online

Post by tocpcs » Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:09 pm

Aquard wrote:It's power will be in increasing public awareness.
Didn't the media do enough of that? You know, the doomsday scare tactics, and the like?

I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who could be randomly asked what they think "Global Warming" is, and the response should be near accurate.

The awareness might be focused on 'just 1 hour of no lights makes an impact' - but, what happens when that 1 hour is up. The power plants probably won't reduce output, because they'll not be sure what the demand will be, there is no trend to work off. If a power plant is working overload (ie. not being fed enough juice) then there is catastrophic failure possible.

So, whilst they may think that 1 hour of no lights did some good, I doubt it did it in the aggregate forms it should have.

1 hour would have been better spent getting all those collective people out to plant a tree each. That'd have done more good IMO.

Munka
Posts: 289
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Rural NSW

Post by Munka » Mon Mar 31, 2008 12:25 pm

At the risk of being trite "Everyday is earth day" as far as I am concerned, that said, it is an unfortunate commercialization to raise awareness.

Being the old greenie that I am, I have watched early environmental "speak"
being absorbed by both popular and corporate culture, sometimes followed up with meaningful, and occasionally, wonderful results, sometimes tokenism. So I am prepared to suspend judgment, it will be an interesting future.

Meanwhile I live a fairly low impact lifestyle, and no I didn't 'celebrate' Earth Hour as I am 100% solar powered :D
Munka

Aquard
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 3:15 pm

Post by Aquard » Mon Mar 31, 2008 5:33 pm

tocpcs wrote:
Aquard wrote:It's power will be in increasing public awareness.
Didn't the media do enough of that? You know, the doomsday scare tactics, and the like?

I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who could be randomly asked what they think "Global Warming" is, and the response should be near accurate.

The awareness might be focused on 'just 1 hour of no lights makes an impact' - but, what happens when that 1 hour is up. The power plants probably won't reduce output, because they'll not be sure what the demand will be, there is no trend to work off. If a power plant is working overload (ie. not being fed enough juice) then there is catastrophic failure possible.

So, whilst they may think that 1 hour of no lights did some good, I doubt it did it in the aggregate forms it should have.

1 hour would have been better spent getting all those collective people out to plant a tree each. That'd have done more good IMO.
No, I'd say media scare tactics aren't effective. People will just switch off.

Yes a collective tree planting would be good, but how many people will go? Call it x. After several more years of earth hour and similar initiatives, we might have 10 times x out there planting trees...

It's one thing to know what Global warming is, another to actually do something about it. Gotta start small.

Post Reply