- Thread starter oldfella
- Start date
Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
Repair should attract zero VAT.
biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
oldfella said:
If the govt did, it would have lost track of basic principles. Thatch may look nice and have its plus sides, but as a national roofing method it would make a pretty poor choice. It is not a common practice precisely because of its downsides, firstly high cost, which translates to high energy use. This is nota one time cost, but an ongoing repeating cost. There is also the fire issue.
The trouble with green issues is that what is called green and what is green are so often 2 different things. Unecessarily high pirchase price plus high maintenance requirement does not equal sustainable.
NT
Penners
Member
- Messages
- 17,294
- Location
- Suffolk, England
You're going to have to explain that a bit more clearly for me, NT.NT said:
Thatch is straw or reed that absorbs carbon dioxide as it grows. It requires no energy input to turn it into a roofing material, other than that expended in harvesting and transportation.
So where's the high energy use, by comparison with other roofing materials?
Can't see where NT is coming from on this, same as wattle and daub which is another sustainable building material. The high cost of these green materials, or rather the labour charge to have them used, is the very reason for the Goverment to consider tax inducements thereby encouraging more of us to use them sensibly. As for thatching straw, you cannot get greener or more sustainable surely, we don't even have to use those nasty nitrogen fertilizers to grow the stuff.
Its the Goverment who are looking at introducing 'green taxes' and I agree with biff' with his point. But whilst extra taxes look certain I would have thought a carrot for those who do their level best at greeness.
Its the Goverment who are looking at introducing 'green taxes' and I agree with biff' with his point. But whilst extra taxes look certain I would have thought a carrot for those who do their level best at greeness.
Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
Another nice old stone house in my village has had the uPVC windows installed, I noted today on my walk to the village shop.
I could cry.
The sashes had prob been there a century.
I could cry.
The sashes had prob been there a century.
Penners said:
There is a relationship between money and energy. If something costs a lot, its because it took a lot of energy to make. The energy use is not the electrical/oil energy used in the manufacturing step, as is often thought, rather it is the energy use of the total process from nothing to sold product.
Lets take an example to illustrate.
In 2006 I can buy a biro for 3p. It is made from plastic, metal and ink.
First there is the factory's energy use in pressing the plastic and filling the ink tubes.
Then there is the energy it took to get the metal. Land had to be found, bought, surveyed, mined, the ore processed into metal, and the metal transported. There are also the many costs involved in running the metal making company. And of course the railway that transports it.
A similar story is true for the plastic component, and the components of the ink.
Then there are the various running costs of the pen making company. These include much more than the energy directly in the materials of the pen. They include every activity and cost the company does, from the hiring of guards to the safe in the office.
The end price you pay is a summation of every cost incurred by every company along the way, divided over the number of end products produced. And every cost is measured mostly in energy. The more complexity involved in producing a given material, the more things energy has to be expended on to get it.
One of the key points here is that the energy used in the final factory by the processing machines is only a minority of the total product energy use. It is such a small component of total energy input that to use it to describe product energy input is something of a red herring.
To clarify further, lets compare what a biro cost in the first year after its invention. I dont know the figure, but I'll bet it was closer to £3 than 3p. Why? Smaller production batches meant more energy consumption per unit produced, because company expenses other than the manufacturing line would be similar, yet less units were produced. There were also expenses such energy use involved in research and energy use in growing the company larger. And again a cost and energy using marketing campaign was needed to generate a market for the goods. And so it goes on... all these energy inputs are part of the energy embodied in the final product in the _real world._
Thus the total energy inputs of tile and thatch are not measured by looking just at the material production line, that is in fact just a small part of the total energy input.
Then there is the story of human labour and energy use, and why it is a good green thing as well as economic good sense to reduce labour input per job. This is especially applicable to the thatch vs tile example. But I've written enough in one go, so another day maybe.
NT
NT, what you are saying makes tremendous common sense only if we accept ( like we all appear to do ! ) that we have to live in this cocoon of lifestyle which we have managed to manufacture for ourselves in order to gain as much as possible from mother earth instead of putting our own backs into it.
to take up Penners argument, in this case, thatch, mud, straw, wool, reeds, wood, twine, stone, etc,, etc., can usually be gotten within a mile or two of any living accomodation. Most of us don,t really care if it is harvested in Essex with expensive thirsty machinery, shipped to Korea to be manufactured, purchased by an American co., sold to a German firm, packaged in France so that this man can go to B&Q on a sunday morning to buy the stuff to repair his roof, which happens to be 300 yds from where it was harvested behind his house.
Well, you know what I mean.
If it means going to B & Q is a lot easier than getting the spade or the sickle out no wonder nobody can get in to B & Q on a Sunday morning
Middi
to take up Penners argument, in this case, thatch, mud, straw, wool, reeds, wood, twine, stone, etc,, etc., can usually be gotten within a mile or two of any living accomodation. Most of us don,t really care if it is harvested in Essex with expensive thirsty machinery, shipped to Korea to be manufactured, purchased by an American co., sold to a German firm, packaged in France so that this man can go to B&Q on a sunday morning to buy the stuff to repair his roof, which happens to be 300 yds from where it was harvested behind his house.
Well, you know what I mean.
If it means going to B & Q is a lot easier than getting the spade or the sickle out no wonder nobody can get in to B & Q on a Sunday morning
Middi
biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Like Pollock put a lot of energy into throwing the paint about so the picture costs a lot. Hmmmm.NT said:
My windows cost more than PVC ones but I bet they have less embodied energy even when the life-cycle analysis starts at the acorn. The most energy intensive component, the glass, is relatively cheap.
The trouble is, that for these brief years of the oil age, energy is really very cheap in comparison to human intellectual and manual skills. That will soon change, of course.
Penners
Member
- Messages
- 17,294
- Location
- Suffolk, England
Nope - sorry. I'm not going to agree with that.NT said:
The cost of something is dependent upon three main factors: the cost of materials, the cost of labour and market forces.
In the case of thatching, the first is the least significant factor. What makes it expensive is (a) the high labour input, and (b) a relatively scarce pool of skilled thatchers.
So a thatcher can value his time highly and charge accordingly.
So the cost has almost nothing to do with the amount of energy used in the process (other than human elbow grease).
gsport george
Member
- Messages
- 72
- Location
- Sheffield
To my mind there is no good reason not to adopt a few "carrots" as well as "sticks", some sort of positive inducement to use sustainable materials as well as taxing the "evils" like ordinary portland cement etc...
However in practical terms a scheme like this would probably cost as much to run and administrate as it handed out, and we already have far too much of this kind of inefficiency, which is in itself not very "green"...
Although I dont doubt that energy costs are set to continue their upward rise for the near future I cant see energy costs ever being significant enough to drive people back to highly labour intensive practices on a large scale... we are paying what, 4 or 5p a kWh (retail before tax) for fossil fuel based energy? If that doubles then I will be surprised. It will have such a BIG effect, people will really take efficiency seriously and the rush to other sources of energy will be staggering... but I cant see it having much of an effect on the amount of concrete and clay tiles used...
G.
However in practical terms a scheme like this would probably cost as much to run and administrate as it handed out, and we already have far too much of this kind of inefficiency, which is in itself not very "green"...
biffvernon said:
Although I dont doubt that energy costs are set to continue their upward rise for the near future I cant see energy costs ever being significant enough to drive people back to highly labour intensive practices on a large scale... we are paying what, 4 or 5p a kWh (retail before tax) for fossil fuel based energy? If that doubles then I will be surprised. It will have such a BIG effect, people will really take efficiency seriously and the rush to other sources of energy will be staggering... but I cant see it having much of an effect on the amount of concrete and clay tiles used...
G.
Middi:
> NT, what you are saying makes tremendous common sense only if we accept ( like we all appear to do ! ) that we have to live in this cocoon of lifestyle which we have managed to manufacture for ourselves in order to gain as much as possible from mother earth instead of putting our own backs into it.
I dont see why you say that. The same principle applies regardless - and it explains why people go to B&Q instead of getting their stone locally.
biffvernon:
NT wrote:
>> If something costs a lot, its because it took a lot of energy to make.
> Like Pollock put a lot of energy into throwing the paint about so the picture costs a lot. Hmmmm.
Sure, its not perfect and there are exceptions. No method of analysing relative energy uses is perfect. But the cost method is generally the closest to a realistic comparison. An order of magnitude closer than comparing only the fuel used by the production line.
> My windows cost more than PVC ones but I bet they have less embodied energy even when the life-cycle analysis starts at the acorn. The most energy intensive component, the glass, is relatively cheap.
The energy in the glass is trivial compared to the energy in Biff Vernon. Thats why their cost is so much higher than glass cost, people pay for your energy input plus the various business costs/activities you need to carry out.
> The trouble is, that for these brief years of the oil age, energy is really very cheap in comparison to human intellectual and manual skills. That will soon change, of course.
I dont think it ever will, short of a major war. Under 10p per kWh versus a minimum wage of about £5 for what, a quarter of a kWh at best.
Penners
NT wrote:
>> If something costs a lot, its because it took a lot of energy to make.
> Nope - sorry. I'm not going to agree with that.
> The cost of something is dependent upon three main factors: the cost of materials, the cost of labour and market forces.
And the biggest one, all the total costs of running the business. Manufacturing lines, factory, acounting, lighting, insurance... All these costs are what counterbalance market forces.
> In the case of thatching, the first is the least significant factor. What makes it expensive is (a) the high labour input,
yes - which translates back to high energy input. People are very expensive to run, ie need a whole lot of energy input.
> and (b) a relatively scarce pool of skilled thatchers.
So a thatcher can value his time highly and charge accordingly.
Yes, these short term unbalances of supply and demand tilt the field to some extent. But in a capitalist society they are short term effects. Anywhere someone's in demand and making good money there are sure to be many bandwagon-jumpers joining in pretty soon. If an unbalance occurs, the marketplace settles that by itself.
> So the cost has almost nothing to do with the amount of energy used in the process (other than human elbow grease).
Thats just a wrong turn imho, doesnt follow at all. If we take thatching, what rate will thatchers get when the market is reasonably stable? Thats the most realistic cost, and reflects the real energy input to the job. And its high compared to cement tiles, hence we use tiles.
Human elbow grease is the most expensive energy input of all. Why? Because to get x amount of human energy you have to supply housing, food, clothing, medical, recreation, assorted facilities, transport, etc etc etc. Electric motors dont need most of those.
This is a bit I didnt explain last time. And theres more not yet addressed, which I trust you'll bring up next
NT
> NT, what you are saying makes tremendous common sense only if we accept ( like we all appear to do ! ) that we have to live in this cocoon of lifestyle which we have managed to manufacture for ourselves in order to gain as much as possible from mother earth instead of putting our own backs into it.
I dont see why you say that. The same principle applies regardless - and it explains why people go to B&Q instead of getting their stone locally.
biffvernon:
NT wrote:
>> If something costs a lot, its because it took a lot of energy to make.
> Like Pollock put a lot of energy into throwing the paint about so the picture costs a lot. Hmmmm.
Sure, its not perfect and there are exceptions. No method of analysing relative energy uses is perfect. But the cost method is generally the closest to a realistic comparison. An order of magnitude closer than comparing only the fuel used by the production line.
> My windows cost more than PVC ones but I bet they have less embodied energy even when the life-cycle analysis starts at the acorn. The most energy intensive component, the glass, is relatively cheap.
The energy in the glass is trivial compared to the energy in Biff Vernon. Thats why their cost is so much higher than glass cost, people pay for your energy input plus the various business costs/activities you need to carry out.
> The trouble is, that for these brief years of the oil age, energy is really very cheap in comparison to human intellectual and manual skills. That will soon change, of course.
I dont think it ever will, short of a major war. Under 10p per kWh versus a minimum wage of about £5 for what, a quarter of a kWh at best.
Penners
NT wrote:
>> If something costs a lot, its because it took a lot of energy to make.
> Nope - sorry. I'm not going to agree with that.
> The cost of something is dependent upon three main factors: the cost of materials, the cost of labour and market forces.
And the biggest one, all the total costs of running the business. Manufacturing lines, factory, acounting, lighting, insurance... All these costs are what counterbalance market forces.
> In the case of thatching, the first is the least significant factor. What makes it expensive is (a) the high labour input,
yes - which translates back to high energy input. People are very expensive to run, ie need a whole lot of energy input.
> and (b) a relatively scarce pool of skilled thatchers.
So a thatcher can value his time highly and charge accordingly.
Yes, these short term unbalances of supply and demand tilt the field to some extent. But in a capitalist society they are short term effects. Anywhere someone's in demand and making good money there are sure to be many bandwagon-jumpers joining in pretty soon. If an unbalance occurs, the marketplace settles that by itself.
> So the cost has almost nothing to do with the amount of energy used in the process (other than human elbow grease).
Thats just a wrong turn imho, doesnt follow at all. If we take thatching, what rate will thatchers get when the market is reasonably stable? Thats the most realistic cost, and reflects the real energy input to the job. And its high compared to cement tiles, hence we use tiles.
Human elbow grease is the most expensive energy input of all. Why? Because to get x amount of human energy you have to supply housing, food, clothing, medical, recreation, assorted facilities, transport, etc etc etc. Electric motors dont need most of those.
This is a bit I didnt explain last time. And theres more not yet addressed, which I trust you'll bring up next
NT
biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Noooo. A bowl of muesli and a bacon sani powers me for hours and hours. To make glass they use North Seas full of gas.NT said:
And try explaining the energy input of a damp 'expert' beyond the battery in his dampmeter. How does that account for his fee?
biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
gsport george
Member
- Messages
- 72
- Location
- Sheffield
biffvernon said:
Sorry Biff, But any page that has this:-
"Moreover, no renewable energy systems have the potential to generate more than a fraction of the power now being generated by fossil fuels."
In it's opening paragraph does not deserve further reading.
This statement is patently absurd. There is masses of renewable energy available. Sure we may not CURRENTLY be able to tap this on a scale to replace Fossil fuels, but the "POTENTIAL" CLEARLY exists...
Given 10p/kWh prices there will be huge improvements in efficiency and a stampeed to develop Solar, Wave, Wind, Geothermal, Biofuels and the storage technology needed to help balance them.
George
NT, I've not come across that argument before and I must say it makes a great deal of sense having thought about it a bit. My initial reaction was that it was completely stupid (how can a thatched roof be considered non green compared to modern materials?) however if everyone had a thatched roof then 10% (?? complete guess - put your own figure here) of the population would have to be thatchers so as to be able to keep a roof over everyone's head. This 10% of the population would be using resources just like everyone else which would have to be factored into any energy comparison with modern materials.NT said:
Question - How green is X?
Answer - How much does it cost compared to alternatives?
I don't like this as an answer. It doesn't include anything that is normally talked about when looking at how green something is such as sustainability of materials etc but I can't anything wrong with it at the moment.
Another example which I have come across in the past. Why do supermarkets give out plastic bags rather than paper bags for carrying your shopping home in? Answer a) because users prefer plastic (don't break, leak, you can carry more etc). Answer b) because they are cheaper to make. Answer c) Less energy goes in their production even including the oil required to make the plastic. All of these are true and b) and c) backs up the money == energy we started with.
NT wrote:
> The energy in the glass is trivial compared to the energy in Biff Vernon. Thats why their cost is so much higher than glass cost, people pay for your energy input plus the various business costs/activities you need to carry out.
Biff:
> Noooo. A bowl of muesli and a bacon sani powers me for hours and hours. To make glass they use North Seas full of gas.
Are you saying then that you dont require housing, medical, transport, heating, police, schooling, and so on? It isnt even true for a homeless bum, or a 3rd world country.
> And try explaining the energy input of a damp 'expert' beyond the battery in his dampmeter. How does that account for his fee?
already have.
NT
> The energy in the glass is trivial compared to the energy in Biff Vernon. Thats why their cost is so much higher than glass cost, people pay for your energy input plus the various business costs/activities you need to carry out.
Biff:
> Noooo. A bowl of muesli and a bacon sani powers me for hours and hours. To make glass they use North Seas full of gas.
Are you saying then that you dont require housing, medical, transport, heating, police, schooling, and so on? It isnt even true for a homeless bum, or a 3rd world country.
> And try explaining the energy input of a damp 'expert' beyond the battery in his dampmeter. How does that account for his fee?
already have.
NT
MdB:
> Question - How green is X?
> Answer - How much does it cost compared to alternatives?
> I don't like this as an answer. It doesn't include anything that is normally talked about when looking at how green something is such as sustainability of materials etc but I can't anything wrong with it at the moment.
Yes, its good, though not the whole picture. It tells us the energy consumption in making, supplying and fitting a product. But the above figure does not include later disposal costs, running costs or consequential damage costs. Total cost of ownership is really the accurate figure, it includes all the above.
While we're here, its worthwhile bearing in mind something that seems to get overlooked at times, and that is that in 99% of cases disposal or cleanup costs are a small fraction of cost new, thus dont make a significant difference to the greenness of an item. The WTC is a famous example of this. Cleanup of 250,000 tons of steel + rubble does cost money, but the price of this is a pretty small percentage of the new build cost. IOW the cost of cleanup does not normally make something non-green. (As ever there will be a small minority of goods where this is not so.)
NT
> Question - How green is X?
> Answer - How much does it cost compared to alternatives?
> I don't like this as an answer. It doesn't include anything that is normally talked about when looking at how green something is such as sustainability of materials etc but I can't anything wrong with it at the moment.
Yes, its good, though not the whole picture. It tells us the energy consumption in making, supplying and fitting a product. But the above figure does not include later disposal costs, running costs or consequential damage costs. Total cost of ownership is really the accurate figure, it includes all the above.
While we're here, its worthwhile bearing in mind something that seems to get overlooked at times, and that is that in 99% of cases disposal or cleanup costs are a small fraction of cost new, thus dont make a significant difference to the greenness of an item. The WTC is a famous example of this. Cleanup of 250,000 tons of steel + rubble does cost money, but the price of this is a pretty small percentage of the new build cost. IOW the cost of cleanup does not normally make something non-green. (As ever there will be a small minority of goods where this is not so.)
NT
Carrier bags
> Another example which I have come across in the past. Why do supermarkets give out plastic bags rather than paper bags for carrying your shopping home in? Answer a) because users prefer plastic (don't break, leak, you can carry more etc). Answer b) because they are cheaper to make. Answer c) Less energy goes in their production even including the oil required to make the plastic. All of these are true and b) and c) backs up the money == energy we started with.
Yes, its long been known they're greener than paper bags. Except by the greenies The better ones are the plastic bags that disintegrate, theyre minimal energy input, they dont litter the environment long term, and they can be reused.
But again the popular green view is skewed. The main energy cost of carrier bags is not manufacturing eenrgy. Its not even total supply cost. The biggest cost of carriers is the food lost due to spillage / breakage. The socalled green movement wants us to move over to paper carriers which cost several times as much energy to produce, and spill more produce.
Really total cost of ownership is a better figure than supply and fit cost. Its just more convenient to use purchase cost for small products, as no calculation is needed, and most small items have minimal additional costs. However when comparing things with significant run cost, or consequential damage cost such as carrier bags, total cost of ownership is the accurate figure.
NT
> Another example which I have come across in the past. Why do supermarkets give out plastic bags rather than paper bags for carrying your shopping home in? Answer a) because users prefer plastic (don't break, leak, you can carry more etc). Answer b) because they are cheaper to make. Answer c) Less energy goes in their production even including the oil required to make the plastic. All of these are true and b) and c) backs up the money == energy we started with.
Yes, its long been known they're greener than paper bags. Except by the greenies
The better ones are the plastic bags that disintegrate, theyre minimal energy input, they dont litter the environment long term, and they can be reused.But again the popular green view is skewed. The main energy cost of carrier bags is not manufacturing eenrgy. Its not even total supply cost. The biggest cost of carriers is the food lost due to spillage / breakage. The socalled green movement wants us to move over to paper carriers which cost several times as much energy to produce, and spill more produce.
Really total cost of ownership is a better figure than supply and fit cost. Its just more convenient to use purchase cost for small products, as no calculation is needed, and most small items have minimal additional costs. However when comparing things with significant run cost, or consequential damage cost such as carrier bags, total cost of ownership is the accurate figure.
NT