Let us forget, for a moment, that “Earth Hour” is a pointless exercise serving only to make environmentalists feel better about themselves by marginally reducing electrical demand for 0.01% of the year. Let us disregard, for a moment, that the basic reason for having an “Earth Hour” in the first place is fatuous, because global warming alarmism has as much to do with actual science as alchemy does. Instead, as the MSM pushes this stupidity down our gullets once again, let us consider the effects of “Earth Hour,” in terms of power production and that environment. Indeed, a sober analysis suggests that “Earth Hour” doesn’t do anything to save a planet that doesn’t need saving and that it may in fact rather increase air pollution instead of reducing it.
Let us begin with a question: why is “Earth Hour” scheduled for the evening hours? Answer: you couldn’t do it during daylight with any credibility. Electric demand is highest during the daytime hours, therefore it’s only then that peaking units (generation assets that only operate during times of high demand) kick in to fill the gap. If “Earth Hour” were held when the sun was out, utilities would respond to the drop in demand by kicking the most expensive generating assets off of the grid. This would surely include one of our more expensive sources of power: wind turbines. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA, a part of the Department of Energy) the cost of wind power is about 50% to 100% more than the cost of coal-fired electricity. It’s obvious that, in times of peak demand, a responsible public utility looking out for consumers’ pocketbooks (and their own profits) will shut down a wind farm in deference to a more efficient, less expensive coal plant.
Accordingly, the only possible opportunity to reduce coal-fired emissions would be during the evening hours, when demand is relatively low and it might just be possible to reduce coal-fired generation. I rather doubt that this actually happens, to any significant degree, because the above logic still applies. Nuclear power, coal-fired power and hydroelectric power – all of which are more prevalent sources of energy than wind power – are cheaper than wind power. (Yes, the energy source for a windmill – wind – is free, but the capital costs to build a windmill are relatively high, which ultimately makes wind power expensive). If a utility is going to cut back on electricity generation for 0.01% of the year, it makes economic sense to cut off the windmills first.
However, let’s also assume that “Earth Hour” had its intended effect; to reduce the amount of power generated by coal-fired power plants. That’s the environmental goal, right? The only two fossil fuels used in large quantities to generate power are coal and natural gas. Gas-fired power plants, for the most part, operate during daylight hours to meet peak demand. Those gas-fired plants that operate all of the time have a much smaller carbon footprint than coal-fired power plants. If “Earth Hour” is going to save a planet that doesn’t need saving, the practical effect must be to reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants.
So, put yourself in the role of an operator of a coal-fired power plant. When “Earth Hour” happens, what do you do? You can’t shut your boilers down. That would be foolish and irresponsible. It takes a good deal of time to shut down a coal-fired boiler and a good deal of time to start one back up. By the time you got things wound down, you would be well behind schedule in terms of starting back up so that you could respond to the temporary, sixty minute, reduction in electrical demand.
The other option would be to reduce fuel consumption in your boilers, a practice known as “reducing load” in the industry. This too has consequences when it’s time to move back into high gear. Radical load shifts result in drastic increases in air pollution, akin to what happens if you floor the accelerator on your car instead of smoothly increasing speed. Plus, you would have to be ready to instantly respond to sudden changes in demand. It would not do if a 500 megawatt coal-fired power plant was purring along, generating 250 megawatts during “Earth Hour” when, at the conclusion of the exercise, 500 megawatts would suddenly needed again. A coal-fired power plant cannot respond to that kind of demand increase at a moment’s notice. The smart thing to do would be to keep the power plant operating at capacity and dump excess electricity that was not – for the moment – needed.
The global warming crowd ought to be crowing about the way that coal-fired power generation has been drastically reduced in the United States. According to EIA statistics, the amount of coal combustion used for power generation has decreased by more than ten per cent over the last year. The EIA reports that coal consumption by the utility industry in the dropped from over a billion tons two years ago to a little over 900 million tons last year. That translates into a greenhouse gas reduction of over 200 million tons. And yeah, some of that reduction is due to the economic downturn, but a lot of it is not. Against that backdrop, “Earth Hour” is a pointless, if painfully familiar, exercise in green do-gooderism. “Earth Hour” doesn’t change a thing in any measurable fashion, but it’s an invaluable piece of environmental propaganda.
The greenies don’t want you to know that they have been successful in achieving their larger purpose: derailing coal-fired power production. They prefer to make you feel guilty about your shameless exploitation of the planet. I don’t know about you, but – to paraphrase Motel Six spokesman Tom Bodette – when “Earth Day” 2010 rolls around, I’ll be happy to leave the lights on for you.
[youtube FclcMfzjwug nolink]
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.