biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
The older properties were built before the age of fossil fuel. It should be possible to maintain them without fossil fuel if the same methods are used.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Money measures Energy
- Thread starter NT
- Start date
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,200
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
You could certainly use labour instead of fossil fuels and power tools, but that would cost a lot of money and therefore consume a lot of energy. The wages would also support the 'modern western lifestyle' of all the workers, so it would be almost impossible not to be reliant on fossil fuels, even if only indirectly.
I suppose it might be possible to find half a dozen 'back to nature' types willing to work for half a groat a day but I don't know of any around these parts.
I suppose it might be possible to find half a dozen 'back to nature' types willing to work for half a groat a day but I don't know of any around these parts.
Supply & Demand
Supply & demand is an important factor in pricing, but not the only one. Prices are set as much by total costs as by demand.
When supply or demand fluctuates, we see a temporary price imbalance, ie profits temporarily become high or low. However capitalism settles this soon. If a price rises to the point where profits are high, more businesses will be tempted into the product, supply will increase, and prices will settle down again. And vice versa.
Once settled, a price always reflects the true costs. Not production line costs, but all the costs of providing the product, which includes profit. While unsettled, things are less certain. Profit is temporarily high (or non-existent) and people work to change total product output.
Modern cars are not cheaper due to oversupply. Manufacturers are not foolish enough to keep producing cars they dont believe they can sell. Modern cars are cheaper because the technology is moving on, and one of the prime thrusts of this tech is to reduce total costs. A comparison of a 1980s car to a new one would show various ways costs have been cut.
NT
Supply & demand is an important factor in pricing, but not the only one. Prices are set as much by total costs as by demand.
When supply or demand fluctuates, we see a temporary price imbalance, ie profits temporarily become high or low. However capitalism settles this soon. If a price rises to the point where profits are high, more businesses will be tempted into the product, supply will increase, and prices will settle down again. And vice versa.
Once settled, a price always reflects the true costs. Not production line costs, but all the costs of providing the product, which includes profit. While unsettled, things are less certain. Profit is temporarily high (or non-existent) and people work to change total product output.
Modern cars are not cheaper due to oversupply. Manufacturers are not foolish enough to keep producing cars they dont believe they can sell. Modern cars are cheaper because the technology is moving on, and one of the prime thrusts of this tech is to reduce total costs. A comparison of a 1980s car to a new one would show various ways costs have been cut.
NT
Inflation
Money changes value over time as more money is printed.
Goods change cost over time as the technology & business practices slowly improve, reducing costs and/or increasing product utility.
Worldwide energy consumption also increases over time.
The ratio of money to energy may therefore change over time. It would be interesting to look at a century long graph of total money in circulation vs total energy use, and see if the ratio changed widely, remained roughly constant, or changed a bit. I dont know what the change of ratio is at this time.
If the change is large, then figures provided by money=energy would only be comparable for a given point in time, and the ratio would change over time. However there are reasons to not assume thats how things stand.
NT
Money changes value over time as more money is printed.
Goods change cost over time as the technology & business practices slowly improve, reducing costs and/or increasing product utility.
Worldwide energy consumption also increases over time.
The ratio of money to energy may therefore change over time. It would be interesting to look at a century long graph of total money in circulation vs total energy use, and see if the ratio changed widely, remained roughly constant, or changed a bit. I dont know what the change of ratio is at this time.
If the change is large, then figures provided by money=energy would only be comparable for a given point in time, and the ratio would change over time. However there are reasons to not assume thats how things stand.
NT
Investment
The word investment, and the money value changes that go with it, actually describes more than one process.
Comparing the antique in the attic that goes up in value to the stocks & shares, the 2 investments are quite different in nature.
In the latter case, has no energy been invested, or wouls it be fair to say that attic storage space is not free, not valueless, and does cost energy? (after all the mortgage isnt paying for nothing.)
Either way, since some items will go up in value and some down, we can't say that change in value reflects energy invested in the item during storage. The market reevaluates goods values over time.
In short, 'cost equals energy input' is true for new goods when the market price is stable, but for other situations its open for debate, and for resale of old and rare items it can be inaccurate.
This begs a question: how does it compare to the other methods currently used to assess energy input of products & services? I think I can answer that, but am too hungry etc.
NT
The word investment, and the money value changes that go with it, actually describes more than one process.
Comparing the antique in the attic that goes up in value to the stocks & shares, the 2 investments are quite different in nature.
In the latter case, has no energy been invested, or wouls it be fair to say that attic storage space is not free, not valueless, and does cost energy? (after all the mortgage isnt paying for nothing.)
Either way, since some items will go up in value and some down, we can't say that change in value reflects energy invested in the item during storage. The market reevaluates goods values over time.
In short, 'cost equals energy input' is true for new goods when the market price is stable, but for other situations its open for debate, and for resale of old and rare items it can be inaccurate.
This begs a question: how does it compare to the other methods currently used to assess energy input of products & services? I think I can answer that, but am too hungry etc.
NT
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,200
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
I agree with all that, but I don't think "money = embedded energy" is the issue.Penners said:No, I'm sorry, NT - cost as a measure of embedded energy doesn't work for me.
An item is not worth the energy it represents. An item is worth what someone is prepared to pay for it.
Take a house. Two years ago it cost £200,000. Today the same house costs £240,000. Are you telling me that £40,000 of energy has been embedded in that house in two years?
I think the house example can explain this quite well. Clearly, the house itself has not accrued anymore energy input (assuming it remained unchanged over the two years). But if it now costs £40k more to buy, where does that £40k come from? More energy is going to be expended by someone in order to earn the extra £40k (or pay the extra mortgage payments).
Conversely (or perversely?), a £500k, 500 year old timber-frame period property might well have a lower embedded energy content than a £250k brand-new, brick-built property, but the energy cost of raising £250k for a purchase will be a lot less than raising £500k.
On the other hand, living on the breadline to afford a £500k mortgage for the period property example might be energetically better than having a £250k mortgage for the modern house and spending the extra disposable income on carribean holidays.
A lot seems to depend on the level of "zoom" applied to any particular example. The wider the angle of view, the more things to take into account and the less obvious things become (apologies for the camera analogy).
Penners
Member
- Messages
- 17,294
- Location
- Suffolk, England
No, I'm sorry. This mish-mash of cost/energy (in its various forms) just doesn't hack it for me.
If I buy a bottle of water from a supermarket, it'll cost, say, 50p. If I buy an identical bottle of water in a restaurant, it'll cost maybe two quid.
Why? Because the restaurant knows that I have chosen to eat there, and buy the time my wife and I have made the booking, travelled there, settled down, chosen our meals from the menu, etc.... we're not going to walk out over an overpriced bottle of water.
So I'm prepared to pay two pounds, so that's what it costs.
Nothing whatsoever to do with energy or input costs.
If I buy a bottle of water from a supermarket, it'll cost, say, 50p. If I buy an identical bottle of water in a restaurant, it'll cost maybe two quid.
Why? Because the restaurant knows that I have chosen to eat there, and buy the time my wife and I have made the booking, travelled there, settled down, chosen our meals from the menu, etc.... we're not going to walk out over an overpriced bottle of water.
So I'm prepared to pay two pounds, so that's what it costs.
Nothing whatsoever to do with energy or input costs.
bower1
Member
- Messages
- 132
- Location
- Dorset, UK
I think the idea would be that the extra cost at the restaurant goes towards running the restaurant, which requires more energy per customer/product than running the shop.
Penners
Member
- Messages
- 17,294
- Location
- Suffolk, England
You can explain the extra cost any number of ways, but ultimately if I (and all other customers) wasn't prepared to pay it, it wouldn't cost that much.
plumbers mate
Member
- Messages
- 430
- Location
- Frozen north
Biff said a while ago (26th April) ---- >>The older properties were built before the age of fossil fuel. It should be possible to maintain them without fossil fuel if the same methods are used. <<
No they weren't.
Even Bronze Age man was using fossil fuels ..... (not Bronze Age women though).
Lime was burned with coal.
Iron smelted with charcoal or coke.
Glass uses fossil fuel.
Bricks? Need fossil fuel to make them.
Heating these properties? Wood? Coal?
How old *is* your house, Biff? Paleolithic?
No they weren't.
Even Bronze Age man was using fossil fuels ..... (not Bronze Age women though).
Lime was burned with coal.
Iron smelted with charcoal or coke.
Glass uses fossil fuel.
Bricks? Need fossil fuel to make them.
Heating these properties? Wood? Coal?
How old *is* your house, Biff? Paleolithic?
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,200
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
Yes. Food/drink costs more in a restaurant than a shop because there are more costs = more energy used. Your extra money goes towards paying the staff wages and they all have a life style that requires energy usage. So you pay more for your meal than if you buy the raw ingredients in a shop and your extra expenditure goes towards paying for the energy requirements of the restaurent and its staff.bower1 said:I think the idea would be that the extra cost at the restaurant goes towards running the restaurant, which requires more energy per customer/product than running the shop.
Ultimately, yes, but if you pay too little the restaurent will go out of business, thus reducing the energy consumption.Penners said:You can explain the extra cost any number of ways, but ultimately if I (and all other customers) wasn't prepared to pay it, it wouldn't cost that much.
I don't think anyone is arguing that money is a measurement of the energy contained within any particular item, more that all money is eventually converted into energy usage eventually.
If I sell you my car for £1000, you have expended a certain amount of energy earning the £1000 and I can spend the money on something else that will require energy in some form. If I sell you the same car for £2000, you will have to work twice as hard to earn the money, utilising twices as much energy in the process and I will have £2000 to spend, thereby utilising twice as much energy. Same car, same embedded energy (in the car), but more energy utilised in the overall transaction.
Penners
Member
- Messages
- 17,294
- Location
- Suffolk, England
Fair points, PM, except I don't agree that the above are fossil fuels.plumbers mate said:...charcoal... Wood
In most cases, business costs dominate. This is especially so with restaurants, which have similar business costs yet serve way less customers than a supermarket, so cost per customer is far higher. Thats what youre paying for when you buy water. And its all energy, some directly, some indirectly.
NT
NT
Penners
Member
- Messages
- 17,294
- Location
- Suffolk, England
No - sorry. That's one of the reasons why the restaurant wants me to pay that amount for water - the other reason is the profit motive.NT said:Thats what youre paying for when you buy water
But the reason I do pay that amount is because I'm prepared to.
If I wasn't (and I am of course using myself to represent any customer, and the water to represent any commodity), then one of two things would happen: the restaurant would drop the price of water, or it would ultimately go out of business because nobody would eat there.
I say again, the price of anything is what someone is prepared to pay for it. If nobody is prepared to pay the price that your formula arrives at (costs, plus energy input) then the product or service will not exist.
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,200
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
Of course, and there are loads of examples of failed products because nobody wanted to buy them, for whatever reason.Penners said:I say again, the price of anything is what someone is prepared to pay for it. If nobody is prepared to pay the price that your formula arrives at (costs, plus energy input) then the product or service will not exist.
But I don't think that's what we were discussing. I thought the point was that, broadly, money converts to energy. If no-one wants to buy a product, they don't spend the money, so they don't need to expend energy to earn the money, so the seller doesn't make any money and so can't use it to spend on an energy-intensive lifestyle, so less energy is used as a direct result of less money being spent. If the product was a runaway success, then more money would be spent and more energy would be used. It's not the product itself that's consuming the energy (well, only a small part of it), it's the whole web of interactions associated with it.
I've heard it similarly argued that all money ends up as tax revenue; you earn money (pay tax), you spend money (pay tax), the money you spend makes someone else a profit (pay tax), they spend their profits on stuff (pay tax), which makes someone else a profit (pay tax) etc etc.
Penners
Member
- Messages
- 17,294
- Location
- Suffolk, England
Well, there you'll get no argument from me!Flyfisher said:all money ends up as tax revenue
Penners said:No - sorry. That's one of the reasons why the restaurant wants me to pay that amount for water - the other reason is the profit motive.NT said:Thats what youre paying for when you buy water
Profit is one of the business costs as I see it. Without profit no-one would undertake the business. Its just one of the necessary costs.
But the reason I do pay that amount is because I'm prepared to.
If I wasn't (and I am of course using myself to represent any customer, and the water to represent any commodity), then one of two things would happen: the restaurant would drop the price of water, or it would ultimately go out of business because nobody would eat there.
I say again, the price of anything is what someone is prepared to pay for it. If nobody is prepared to pay the price that your formula arrives at (costs, plus energy input) then the product or service will not exist.
The 2 go together in the real world, as either they do or the business ceases to exist. So I dont think it goes anywhere to say its one not the other.
NT
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,200
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
This article explains why buying goods from China and shipping them around the world can generate LESS carbon emissions than buying them locally.
If it's cheaper, it's 'greener'.
If it's cheaper, it's 'greener'.
middi said:....MONEY MEASURES GREED....
If you can find a formula to separate the two, everything takes care of itself. Now, this would be a real challenge to humankind.
Making money is good, because it involves turning resources into more valuable goods & services, which benefits society.
If as you claim, money measures greed, then greed would also be good.
NT