Earth Hour

So the farce that is Earth Hour is upon us once again.  Obviously, I'm not the biggest fan of it.  However, my real problem isn't with the vague concept.  It's the thought process behind it and the practical reasons for doing it.  It is simply a matter of people assuming things which make sense until you know the true science.

A Terry-like rant is about to ensue.  You've been warned.

I will preface the following paragraphs with a brief statement: I am by no means an expert on electrical power generation and distribution.  But with a degree in computer engineering and a few years experience working with electronics, I believe I have a pretty good grasp on the basics.

Electrical devices, in general, are fairly efficient when operating at what is referred to as "steady state".  This means that once the device is on and running in its normal state where it is not changing how much power it needs, all is well and it's using (likely) a minimal amount of power (relative to what the device is).  However, when an electrical device is turned on, it briefly can consume from 10 up to 50 times more power than when in steady state due to an electrical phenomena known as Inrush Current.  Although this can be minimized using various techniques, it cannot be completely removed and the amount by which it is reduced depends heavily on the quality of the design and local regulatory requirements.  To summarize for a non-technical audience: at the end of Earth Hour when millions turn their lights, computers, TVs, etc back on, the sudden hit to the power grid can be quite large.

In addition, when Earth Hour starts, the electrical requirements for an area would, naturally, drop.  This leads to the power company (or, at least, the company that owns the generating station(s)) to reduce their production level (i.e., make less power).  The principle for power generation is somewhat similar to that of power consumption: steady state is more efficient.  So, again, when Earth Hour ends, power generation must rise back to "normal" levels.  Especially for areas such as Alberta where power is mostly generated by burning coal, the analogy of a steam train best explains the problem here: to go faster (read: make more power), you need to throw more coal on the fire.

Now, I will be perfectly honest here that I have found difficulty in finding a reputable engineering study that either proves or disprove what I acknowledge as my theory above.  However, it makes sense to me and I encourage anyone to invalidate my arguments.

There are other reasons why I dislike Earth Hour (and consequently won't be participating).  Ross McKitrick, professor of Economics at the University of Guelph sums up a lot of these ideas in his March 25 article "Earth Hour: Why I will leave my lights on" in the Vancouver Sun.  His two key points are that Earth Hour demonizes electricity, one of mankind's greatest achievements, and that in the last 40 years industry has greatly expanded while air quality has actually improved.

And realistically, I don't think the savings to the environment are all that tangible either.  Most people will turn their lights off for one hour and then be able to brag about how eco-conscious they are.  But at the end of the hour, they will turn on their lights and go back to their normal level of consumption.  Earth Hour's marketing  team will argue that Earth Hour shows how the simple act of reducing power usage for an hour can make a difference for the environment.  While I agree with this in its most basic concept, if this simple act does not lead to long term reduction of power usage, it has no impact whatsoever.

I'd like to finish up with a simple point on how simple misconceptions and assumptions can lead people into doing the opposite of what they mean to.  Today, YouTube has a switch which allows you to "turn off the lights" during Earth Hour by turning most of the page black rather than white.  This seemed to make sense at first until I started to think about LCD monitors.  A quick search of Scientific American yielded this.  The article presents arguments from some studies saying that a black screen on an LCD monitor actually uses more power than a white screen.  Although far from conclusive, it lends a lot of credence to two points: most people do not have enough solid information to know the real savings/cost of Earth Hour and not enough solid information on such subjects exists.

To summarize, if you feel like turning off your lights for Earth Hour, go for it.  However, there are only two results which I can guarantee: it will be dark in your house and it might make you feel better about your environmental impact.  However, real savings to the environment can only come from sustained reduction in power usage, not a single night of flipping off a few lights for an hour.