humidistatic dehumidifiers

[NT]

The wool is a by-product - if we stop eating the sheep, it may be true, but as I eat sheep, its not that much effort to collect the wool.

If that were accurate it would cost less than mineral fibre. The reality is sheep's wool requires more labour per pound than producing mineral fibre. Its very hard for a few inches per year process to outperform factory machinery producing > 10 metres a second.

The demand for it in clothing has fallen considerably. Its also used as mulch - not a high value (energy?) item.

Valid question to ask why things have 2 different selling prices. Sale prices reflect costs, when differences occur there are marketing and business costs at play as well as often extra manufacturing steps.

There are probably other issues you may wish to consider such as promoting sheep farming in the UK which has various beneficial aspects so far as I am concerned.

There are a lot of serious problems in the world. I'm not aware of any that subsidising uk sheep farming solves, but admittedly I know not a whole lot about that one.

Rockwool is also pretty shitty stuff to work with. The wool is quite fun.

yup

Cost = energy? Maybe. What's the interaction with capital then? Capital is not universally linked to energy, is it?

Capital costs interest... money is a measure of energy. What did it take to generate that capital in the first place? Energy. What will the interest payments go on? They will be invested in businesses, used to purchase energy, both directly and indirectly.


NT

 

[biffvernon]

Nemesis, why is the horizon in your photo at a funny angle? It's not like that in Lincolnshire.

 

[Flyfisher]

However, I've been over and over the argument myself and discussed it with various people and I don't see any obvious mistakes in it. It does make sense and can be applied to a lot of things.

I agree, but it throws up some odd and, initially, counter-intuitive examples, such as importing cheap slate from China (to use a current thread for example).

I tend to agree with MdB; 'money = energy' doesn't really sound quite right, but it seems to hold up under scrutiny - or are there some examples where it doesn't make sense?

 

[Nemesis]

Those, Biff me lad, are what are called hills. At the bottom of them are lakes in many places.

I noticed last week when we drove through Lincs a distinct dearth of anything humpy and hillocky. Boring really...

 

[biffvernon]

I charge a fair bit of money for making a window but there's not a lot of embedded energy in them. I'm listening to a Beethoven string quartet on the radio. You can pay a lot to hear a fiddle player but they don't need a lot of oil.

 

[MdB]

Nemesis, why is the horizon in your photo at a funny angle? It's not like that in Lincolnshire.

There you go Biff. Is that better?

Unfortunately, the sheep fell off

 

[biffvernon]

Good url, this one:

http://www.lincolnshire-isntboring.co.uk/

 

[Nemesis]

The windmills make it a little more interesting.

A little.

 

[Flyfisher]

I charge a fair bit of money for making a window but there's not a lot of embedded energy in them. I'm listening to a Beethoven string quartet on the radio.

Well . . . the radio you're listening to is a high-tech device with loads of embedded energy and it's receiving a signal from a very high powered transmitter, another hi-tech device with lots of embedded energy (and R&D history), then there are the staff running the radio station, not to mention the number of people involved in the recording you're listening to . . . etc etc.

Maybe the window-maker in China or India doesn't have all that infrastructure at their disposal, so you have to charge more to pay for it all?

 

[biffvernon]

No no. You misunderstand. What I mean is that if you went (on foot) to a string quartet concert and listened to the live music you might have to pay a lot for the ticket yet little energy would have been consumed. The arts, generally, are expensive in money but not in energy.

 

[Nemesis]

Here's an interesting part of Lincs:

http://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/windmills/section.asp?catId=3326

 

[MdB]

No no. You misunderstand. What I mean is that if you went (on foot) to a string quartet concert and listened to the live music you might have to pay a lot for the ticket yet little energy would have been consumed. The arts, generally, are expensive in money but not in energy.

But why are they expensive? Follow the money and you will find energy usage. In this case the money (well at least some of it) goes to the performers who spend it on their lifestyle. The more expensive the tickets, the more lavish the lifestyle of the performer and the greater the energy usage.

Going to listen to the local WI concert for a few quid will be a lot greener than going to a local concert to listen to some fiddle superstar.

 

[Flyfisher]

Absolutely.
The string quartet spend their entire lives playing concerts and this involves loads of travelling, around the world if they are good enough, which is why the concert tickets are so costly. You may have walked to their concert, but they may have flown around the world to get to you.
And, of course, in the world of rock stars (or popular beat combos) there are all the drugs to pay for as well :roll:

 

[Craig]

Thats a too simplistic view of capital, I think. The return on capital can be driven by risk, amenity, fashion, speculation, rarity - all manner of things as well as cost/energy. I think that for a basic ROE manufacturing business its a good proxy, but I dont see it as universal?

 

[Flyfisher]

I think the trick is to think of how the money is used; spending it involves the consumption of energy. The more you spend, the more energy you consume - not directly yourself necessarily but in the provision of what you are spending it on.

Of course, if you don't spend it then you won't be converting it to energy (a sort of sequestration in your bank account), although there is still all the energy that was used to accumulate it in the first place.

It's hard to think of an example where it doesn't make sense.

 

[Craig]

If I buy an artwork by a famous artist it costs a lot, but it didnt require more energy than one painted by someone who isnt famous.

If I buy a very old motorbike (which I do occasionally) it may cost a lot more than one that is 10 years old, but doesnt require more energy.

 

[MdB]

If I buy an artwork by a famous artist it costs a lot, but it didnt require more energy than one painted by someone who isnt famous.

If I buy a very old motorbike (which I do occasionally) it may cost a lot more than one that is 10 years old, but doesnt require more energy.

Best counter examples so far.

In these cases the rarity distorts the overall picture and pushes the value above the energy cost to manufacture. However, buying an expensive item is still ungreen as through the purchase you are potentially allowing the seller to purchase other goods which require energy to make. It is second order effect but it is still there.

The only real way of being green is to stop buying stuff.

 

[Flyfisher]

It's not the painting (or the classic bike) that's the immediate issue, it's what happens to the inflated sum of money you hand over to the art dealer who probably flies down to Cannes in his private jet for a long weekend on his gin-palace of a yacht.

Or, you buy a painting from a struggling artist for a few pounds, which enables them to eat for another day.

Which scenario utilises the most energy?

 

[Craig]

Nah - that’s not a reasonable extension of the argument. How do you know I haven’t bought the painting off a painter who is an irrational aesthete who burns the money in his barbecue with his mates as a "statement" (remember the K foundation/Justified Ancients of Mu Mu)?

The energy/price argument holds up as a rough proxy in a manufacturing situation, but that is only part of a capitalist system.

Sometimes, the green option may be very expensive due to clever exploitation of intellectual property rights, not energy required to create.
.

 

[Flyfisher]

Even if the artist burns your cash as an artistic statement, think of all the energy used to amass the purchase money in the first place.

IPR, potentially, allows you to create a small fortune out of thin air, but when you start spending that money you will be converting it to energy, one way or the other. The more of it you spend, the more energy you consume (directly and indirectly). The truly 'green' thing to do with your IPR would be to release it into the public domain and not make any money from it at all (or sequester the cash under your mattress and never spend it perhaps?).

Looks like we need some more examples :wink: