Socialism

The lights in Time Square represent base load, as they are always on.

I don't see how that means turning them off at peak load wouldn't lower peak load. It would also send a message that society is taking the issue seriously.

For sure that's a better analysis of the whole thing. Although, I do think it is worth noting how much energy is devoted to stuff like advertising, which is ultimately not productive use of energy. And if that wasn't done in the first place, there would be more energy to go around avoiding the problem of not having enough of it at peak ours.

The lights in Time Square represent base load, as they are always on

That's not what base load means. Base loads are loads that you cannot turn off without putting the safety and well being of people in jeopardy. The hospital is a base load. Telecommunications is a base load. Traffic lights are base loads. The subway is a base load. Water and sweage pumps are base loads. Lights in a dark tunnel or underground space are base loads. Turning off any of these will have a significant detrimental effect to the population. Billboards and decorative lights are not base loads, keeping them on is a choice, not a necessity. What detrimental effect does turning them off have?

Compressor startup is more intensive than lighting. Once the compressor is running it's a pretty steady power consumption.

A window unit, for example, on startup (assuming it doesn't have a smooth start) will pull a full 20A. However, during operation it ultimately will pull around 5A.

That said, there's not some sort of special electrical budget which makes the lights in NYT come from baseload generators vs peakers. If those lights turned off, the total grid load would go down by the amount of power those lights consume. And, as it turns out, those lights are consuming around 150MW. That's ~4 steel mills worth of heat just being shoved into the atmosphere for advertisement. It's at least 1 powerplant's worth of power.

Shutting those lights off would take the coordination of something like 10 businesses vs telling the millions of residence of NY to adjust their power consumption. They absolutely would make a difference. It's not like there isn't still a base load of power needed with those lights off.

Edit: My numbers are off, it's closer to 35MW. ~1 steel mill worth

If the wealthiest intersection on the planet cant even pay lip service to an issue like that, how is anyone going to take the issue seriously? "You must reduce your comfort for the greater good, but the advertisements stay on" is callous and puts one of the least important things above the needs of the many. Its like saying emergency vehicles only on the roads in a snow storm, but then you see an ice cream truck driving around. Clearly, the priorities are not straight.

Just curious, where this is?

Power consumption is cumulative, and load shedding should start from the least necessary to most. If we're at the point where load shedding is necessary, turn off the fucking billboards first, then ask people to turn down their ACs. Doesn't matter how much or little the billboards consume compared to ACs, they're completely unnecessary compared to AC so they go first. And even after that, turn off the luxury commercial buildings like ball rooms and casinos before you tell people to turn stuff down in their homes.

I don’t think the consumption of even a few extra degrees of the whole population of NYC is even comparable to the consumption of Times Square.

I mean, YMMV. Lots of math behind the hardware that generates the climate, the insulation (or absence therein) that degrades unit temperature over time, the efficiency of Times Square light fixtures, yadda yadda yadda.

But there's definitely a Bloomberg Era attitude towards resource consumption that amounts to "rich people can afford to live richly, poor people must learn to live poorly". And then there's a more materialist response, which asks the question "How do we maximize the quality of life at the minimum long term socio-economic cost?"

A regional government that tackles unit insulation, efficient energy transmission, and clean power sourcing does infinitely more to reduce carbon emissions than one that just hangs up billboards saying "Please Use Less".

It's not even just AI. I used to work at a place that cleaned rugs, the amount of water we were using each day was mind blowing. 8 hours a day 5 days a week of thousands of gallons.

I honestly have yet to see meaningful CO2e reduction methods that do not involve less consumption in some way.

He does have the authority to send whoever operates it a letter asking them to pretty please shut it down. Unlike with regular people however, the chance the recommendation will be followed is zero.

Pretty cool story, but it was USSR that did pretty much all the slapping in WW2. The US was a minor player at best.