Intellectual dishonesty is pure poison – A Crikey weblog

Earth Hour vs. Sydney blackout

   

Earth Hour haters are still getting all “sanctimonious” about the weekend’s conservation event, and some are trying hard to discredit it.

Andrew Bolt compares NSW power consumption graphs covering Earth Hour and yesterday’s Sydney CBD blackout and smells a rat.

Earth Hour at 8.30pm Saturday barely registered on NEMMCO’s graph of electricity demand:

eh1

Yet what wild – andd (sic) patently false – claims of success were made by the Sydney Morning Herald:

In Sydney, 50 per cent of people said they had turned off lights or appliances to show support…

Believe that? Then check what a real Earth Hour or Two looks like – when just 5 per cent of Sydney’s more than 1,500,000 households are forced to switch off not just a light, but everything for two hours from 4.45pm:

eh2

POWER has been restored in central Sydney following a massive outage which left large areas of the city without electricity.

About 70,000 homes and businesses were affected, mostly in the CBD’s north and some surrounding suburbs

If the second graph shows what a cut of power to just 70,000 households (with fewer than 200,000 people) looks like, how can the Sydney Morning Herald seriously claim that the first graph shows more than 3.3 million NSW residents switching off for Earth Hour?

Let’s look at this step by step. The Earth Hour graph shows a drop of about 100 units of juice for about thirty minutes during Earth Hour — presumably people did their symbolic bit for a half hour and then turned the lounge room light back on. The SMH‘s figure of 50% of Sydneysiders is based on what people said they did, and figures gleaned from a survey should be treated as rubbery at the best of times (just look at political opinion polls.) Even if 50% of Sydneysiders (and a much lower percentage of rural and regional NSW residents) participated in Earth Hour, the campaign requires them to make a symbolic gesture and turn off some lights. A household participating in Earth Hour would likely switch off a couple of 100W light bulbs or a couple of 12W energy efficient light bulbs, but still drawing power would probably be a fridge and a dozen or so electrical appliances on standby.

Most importantly, even if 100% of households participated in Earth Hour there would still be a massive draw on the state’s power resources by Sydney’s CBD. Think of all those multi-level office blocks running lights, air conditioning, elevators, computers and countless electrical appliances 24/7. Not to mention every single street light and traffic light across the state. When the CBD and surrounds blacked out yesterday afternoon, all of these were suddenly turned off while offices were packed with workers sitting at powered workstations and using the significant powered infrastructure that exists in the city to service them. So no wonder there was a drop of about 500-700 units during the outage.

Andrew claims that the second graph shows a loss of power to 70,000 homes, but it was actually 70,000 home and businesses — 70,000 electricity clients. A house of four people draws a metric shitload less power than a Sydney CBD business employing dozens or hundreds of people.

Comparing Earth Hour and the Sydney blackout is comparing apples and oranges, and conclusions drawn from the comparison aren’t worth the electricity required to display them on a computer screen.

55 Comments

Pages: « 1 [2] Show All

  1. 51
    Posted March 31, 2009 at 9:52 pm | Permalink

    ...] Particularly if you make your living doing a particular thing. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Around Azeroth: In the mood for [...

  2. 52
    Posted April 1, 2009 at 10:43 am | Permalink

    Recently I saw someone at Bolt’s seriously say that solar power was useless because it’s only sunny half a 24 hour period.

  3. 53
    DBD
    Posted April 1, 2009 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

    “solar power was useless because it’s only sunny half a 24 hour period”

    Surname, i saw someone on this very thread claim that wind and solar power were not only too expensive, but are actually dangerous.

    Sadly, despite prompting he to failed to elaborate on exactly HOW they were dangerous. He also failed to answer why he prefers nuclear for baseload power supply to safer, more sustainable alternatives.

    I reckon some people will oppose anything they percieve as being “green”, regardless of how good an idea it is.

  4. 54
    Aldaron
    Posted April 2, 2009 at 11:15 pm | Permalink

    Apparently the people complaining about the sun only charging solar cells half the time haven’t heard of hydrogen fuel cells…

  5. 55
    Sean
    Posted April 6, 2009 at 9:20 am | Permalink

    A horrible Boltian thought has occurred to me — a lot of the really heavy duty gear in the Sydney CBD was shut down for Earth Hour, and it doesn’t necessarily like being shut down — works better when everything is left running. Someone told me a whole lot of electricians get paid a fortune in O/T every Earth Hour attempting to shut off power to massive skyscrapers and their systems to avoid damage — lighting, power, aircon, lifts, whatever. These things are fraught with peril and unanticipated problems.

    It’s a strange co-incidence that the CBD has a number of problems immediately after Earth Hour — the first attributed to a ‘truck accident’, the second to ‘heavy rainfall’. All within a week of Earth Hour, sponsored by the WWF and the SMH. The SMH has been very quiet indeed on the issue, not like its normal investigative style. The Tele has taken the opportunity to use it to smear Rees, fairly predictably.

    I think it show the shallowness of Bolt that he can’t even be assed trying to connect the two together with a bit of digging, he’s content just to show the usage figures to make a rather weak point about nothing.

    I think my theory is even Boltier than Bolt…

Pages: « 1 [2] Show All

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.