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.
Why we should think....Part 2
- Thread starter tom.harrigan
- Start date
DaveBrigg:
> Example 1: I want a painting by Turner. It will cost at least £80 000. There is high demand, and a very limited supply. To tranfer it to my possession takes no energy at all. However, if I want my house painted inside and out this will take a team of decorators a couple of weeks, but cost a lot less than the canvas, because the supply of decorators in this area matches demand.
Paying 80k takes a whole lot of energy!
The fine art world is perhaps the hardest to fit to the time=energy concept. The cynic in me says that perhaps this is because what youre really paying for is marketing, and that perhaps the market is more a hype driven bubble than a settled one.
On the supply side, a turner is an energy intensive process, although the energy is not just in the direct production of the painting. Artists need a lot of marketing activity to get anything for their work, to buid a reputation for themselves. Like any skilled craft it takes years to master. Thats why the price is high for highly skilled craftspeople. If it didnt take that long and that much input, many would come onto the market and price would fall.
> Example 2: B&Q reduce the cost of their patio furniture by 50% in September. Not because it is suddenly made with half the energy, but because demand has fallen.
The total money coming into the store equates to the total energy used. In a steady state market the prices would not fluctuate, but IRL there is some fluctuation as sellers in the market for some goods wobble a bit in the process of seeking the true equivalent price.
Reality is B&Q knows ahead of time it will need to discount some lines to get rid of them, and prices on all goods are slightly higher to account for this. Overall it works out, the total money in is the right amount. If it werent, either theyd go bust or more competitors would open and the price would drop to a more accurate level.
> One has only to look at Ebay to see items sold for a whole range of prices depending on how many people are bidding at the time.
The money thats equivalent to the energy it took to produce them has already been paid when they were bought new.
I guess their real used value varies as the sale price varies. One day its worth x, another y. Also dont overlook that items dont consistently sell for their value on auction sites, because the prospect of dealing with certain sellers is a big negative factor. IOW its often a case of I'd pay 20, but to this dodgy character dealing with them is worth £18 so I'll only pay the £2 balance for the item from them. That £18 worth of energy then gets used up on hassle with idiot sellers.
> Having prostituted myself working in a burger chain as a student I can confirm that we charged what people were willing to pay, not what the item cost to produce. The aim was to maximise profit, rather than cover the cost of production.
That is of course true for all businesses, but its not the whole story. The basics of Capitalism tell us that if they make a lot of profit competitors will come into the market and the price drops, so in a reasonably stable market their prices are not overly high at all. Their real costs are not the bread & mince costs, but the total business costs. For most products the materials and energy used in the production line process are a minority of the total energy used and total production cost.
NT
> Example 1: I want a painting by Turner. It will cost at least £80 000. There is high demand, and a very limited supply. To tranfer it to my possession takes no energy at all. However, if I want my house painted inside and out this will take a team of decorators a couple of weeks, but cost a lot less than the canvas, because the supply of decorators in this area matches demand.
Paying 80k takes a whole lot of energy!
The fine art world is perhaps the hardest to fit to the time=energy concept. The cynic in me says that perhaps this is because what youre really paying for is marketing, and that perhaps the market is more a hype driven bubble than a settled one.
On the supply side, a turner is an energy intensive process, although the energy is not just in the direct production of the painting. Artists need a lot of marketing activity to get anything for their work, to buid a reputation for themselves. Like any skilled craft it takes years to master. Thats why the price is high for highly skilled craftspeople. If it didnt take that long and that much input, many would come onto the market and price would fall.
> Example 2: B&Q reduce the cost of their patio furniture by 50% in September. Not because it is suddenly made with half the energy, but because demand has fallen.
The total money coming into the store equates to the total energy used. In a steady state market the prices would not fluctuate, but IRL there is some fluctuation as sellers in the market for some goods wobble a bit in the process of seeking the true equivalent price.
Reality is B&Q knows ahead of time it will need to discount some lines to get rid of them, and prices on all goods are slightly higher to account for this. Overall it works out, the total money in is the right amount. If it werent, either theyd go bust or more competitors would open and the price would drop to a more accurate level.
> One has only to look at Ebay to see items sold for a whole range of prices depending on how many people are bidding at the time.
The money thats equivalent to the energy it took to produce them has already been paid when they were bought new.
I guess their real used value varies as the sale price varies. One day its worth x, another y. Also dont overlook that items dont consistently sell for their value on auction sites, because the prospect of dealing with certain sellers is a big negative factor. IOW its often a case of I'd pay 20, but to this dodgy character dealing with them is worth £18 so I'll only pay the £2 balance for the item from them. That £18 worth of energy then gets used up on hassle with idiot sellers.
> Having prostituted myself working in a burger chain as a student I can confirm that we charged what people were willing to pay, not what the item cost to produce. The aim was to maximise profit, rather than cover the cost of production.
That is of course true for all businesses, but its not the whole story. The basics of Capitalism tell us that if they make a lot of profit competitors will come into the market and the price drops, so in a reasonably stable market their prices are not overly high at all. Their real costs are not the bread & mince costs, but the total business costs. For most products the materials and energy used in the production line process are a minority of the total energy used and total production cost.
NT
Biff:
> I love the idea that money = energy. We could increase the amount of energy just by increasing the money supply - printing banknotes
As we were taught at school, printing more money devalues all money so the total value of all money remains about the same.
> The idea that the health service comes to a halt if clinical waste cannot be burnt in cement kilns is almost as bizarre.
I dont really believe you think thats what I said.
> A great many occupations, including mine, earn a wage without using much energy.
As I'm sure we've covered before, the money you earn is spent on energy, both directly and indirectly.
> It is quite conceivable that we could have a society that does not use fossil fuels ... but money will still lubricate the transfer of goods and services.
And money will still be a fairly good measure of energy.
NT
> I love the idea that money = energy. We could increase the amount of energy just by increasing the money supply - printing banknotes
As we were taught at school, printing more money devalues all money so the total value of all money remains about the same.
> The idea that the health service comes to a halt if clinical waste cannot be burnt in cement kilns is almost as bizarre.
I dont really believe you think thats what I said.
> A great many occupations, including mine, earn a wage without using much energy.
As I'm sure we've covered before, the money you earn is spent on energy, both directly and indirectly.
> It is quite conceivable that we could have a society that does not use fossil fuels ... but money will still lubricate the transfer of goods and services.
And money will still be a fairly good measure of energy.
NT
Flyfisher:
> I'm curious about hating an argument that you concede is a good one but I do agree with your conclusion, being a recent convert myself. It could form an interesting 'guiding principle' for people wishing to reduce their 'energy footprint', but in the modern world circumstances seem to drive people to want more and more of the stuff.
Its a basic human drive to try and do well and do better in life. For any green political group to override that in the population is quite some uphill battle. Not a very realistic goal imho.
NT
> I'm curious about hating an argument that you concede is a good one but I do agree with your conclusion, being a recent convert myself. It could form an interesting 'guiding principle' for people wishing to reduce their 'energy footprint', but in the modern world circumstances seem to drive people to want more and more of the stuff.
Its a basic human drive to try and do well and do better in life. For any green political group to override that in the population is quite some uphill battle. Not a very realistic goal imho.
NT
>>> Do you think the population could be persuaded to downshift to save the planet?
>> It might eventually have to.
> Agreed. The Americans think that technology will get everyone out of this hole.
As income rises, earth is able to support more human lives. If we cut wealth in half, the planet would support many less people. Thats what wealth means, the ability to purchase food, medical care, benefits, research, etc, and when there is a surplus other goods.
Unfortunately when you go downward in population supported this means mass death, which isnt nice.
PS most mericans I speak with dont think we're in a hole to begin with.
NT
>> It might eventually have to.
> Agreed. The Americans think that technology will get everyone out of this hole.
As income rises, earth is able to support more human lives. If we cut wealth in half, the planet would support many less people. Thats what wealth means, the ability to purchase food, medical care, benefits, research, etc, and when there is a surplus other goods.
Unfortunately when you go downward in population supported this means mass death, which isnt nice.
PS most mericans I speak with dont think we're in a hole to begin with.
NT
Flyfisher said:I entirely agree, and I suspect this is the real problem. It's one thing to start thinking about changing our behaviour to reduce our environmental impact but it's quite sobering to consider it in terms of simply spending less money, even though that would do the trick.MdB said:I like my standard of living and would find it hard to give it up and this would be required if I was to reduce my impact on the environment.
Asking people to change their light bulbs, recycle their rubbish, maybe even take the train instead of the car, use a cooler wash, only half-fill the kettle etc etc is likely to elicit a reasonably positive response (I think), but imagine asking the same people to take a 25% salary cut!
The people: we need a greener society
The Govt: if you want to reduce your energy spending, please feel free to do so.
People: Oh no, we're not willing to do that! Cant you make everyone else do it?
Govt: No, you the people are free to purchase as little or much energy as you choose.
People, all in chorus: Its someone elses fault then, not mine!
NT
DaveBrigg
Member
- Messages
- 908
- Location
- North Lincs
This whole money = energy argument is bizarre. What is the equation? Does it only apply to new goods (as per the Ebay example)?
When spending money I can buy a £15 chair produced in a huge air conditioned factory and shipped halfway around the world, or a £195 bespoke chair made by the cabinet maker in the village, from locally sourced wood. Does the cabinet maker use 13 times as much energy as the imported version? Why do apples grown and picked under identical conditions cost the same amount, when one batch is local and the other imported from New Zealand.
Is there any relationship between wages and energy? I earn more sitting in a room all day than a neighbour who drives a 40 tonne truck unloading coal at the docks. If I'd inherited shares I'd earn even more, and work even less.
If I buy a house for £100 000, do nothing to it and sell it five years later for £150 000, without needing to advertise, how much extra energy has that extra £50 000 bought? I am now £50 000 better off without having expended any more energy than it takes to walk to the solicitor and sign the papers.
Yes, more money = more spending power, and if that money is spent on consumables, an unquantifiable amount of energy will have been used somewhere on the line. It is possible to spend a huge sum of money without using much energy though, and possible to use a large amount of energy without personally spending a thing. It is just as valid to say that money =water, or labour costs.
The Bank of England already has a way of making us consume less - it raises interest rates. Not everyone is engufed by rampant consumerism, and many people do make informed choices about what they buy. For example, by spending the usual sum on a summer holiday, but choosing not to fly abroad. I agree that for lifestyles to change, people must be willing to make some major sacrifices, but the link between cutting wages and reducing energy is vague at best. In some cases more money has to be spent in order to reduce energy consumption.
When spending money I can buy a £15 chair produced in a huge air conditioned factory and shipped halfway around the world, or a £195 bespoke chair made by the cabinet maker in the village, from locally sourced wood. Does the cabinet maker use 13 times as much energy as the imported version? Why do apples grown and picked under identical conditions cost the same amount, when one batch is local and the other imported from New Zealand.
Is there any relationship between wages and energy? I earn more sitting in a room all day than a neighbour who drives a 40 tonne truck unloading coal at the docks. If I'd inherited shares I'd earn even more, and work even less.
If I buy a house for £100 000, do nothing to it and sell it five years later for £150 000, without needing to advertise, how much extra energy has that extra £50 000 bought? I am now £50 000 better off without having expended any more energy than it takes to walk to the solicitor and sign the papers.
Yes, more money = more spending power, and if that money is spent on consumables, an unquantifiable amount of energy will have been used somewhere on the line. It is possible to spend a huge sum of money without using much energy though, and possible to use a large amount of energy without personally spending a thing. It is just as valid to say that money =water, or labour costs.
The Bank of England already has a way of making us consume less - it raises interest rates. Not everyone is engufed by rampant consumerism, and many people do make informed choices about what they buy. For example, by spending the usual sum on a summer holiday, but choosing not to fly abroad. I agree that for lifestyles to change, people must be willing to make some major sacrifices, but the link between cutting wages and reducing energy is vague at best. In some cases more money has to be spent in order to reduce energy consumption.
DaveBrigg
Member
- Messages
- 908
- Location
- North Lincs
Which part of the post about wind power is a popular misconception?
I checked about base loading:
"Electricity generated from wind power can be highly variable at several different timescales: from hour to hour, daily, and seasonally. Annual variation also exists, but is not as significant. This variability can present substantial challenges to incorporating large amounts of wind power into a grid system, since to maintain grid stability, energy supply and demand must remain in balance.
While the negative effects of intermittency have to be considered in the economics of power generation, wind is unlikely to suffer momentary failure of large amounts of generation, which may be a concern with some traditional power plants. In this sense, it may be more reliable (albeit variable) due to the distributed nature of generation. That said, winds often stagnate during periods of peak demand, such as during heat waves. [10][11] ...
Grid management
Grid operators routinely control the supply of electricity by cycling generating plants on or off at different timescales. Most grids also have some degree of control over demand, through either demand management or load shedding. Management of either supply or demand has economic implications for suppliers, consumers and grid operators but is already widespread.
Variability of wind output creates a challenge to integrating high levels of wind into energy grids based on existing operating procedures. Critics of wind energy argue that methods to manage variability increase the total cost of wind energy production substantially at high levels of penetration, while supporters note that tools to manage variable energy sources already exist and are economical, given the other advantages of wind energy. Supporters note that the variability of the grid due to the failure of power stations themselves, or the sudden change of loads, exceeds the likely rate of change of even very large wind power penetrations.
There is no generally accepted "maximum" level of wind penetration, and practical limitations will depend on the configuration of existing generating plants, pricing mechanisms, capacity for storage or demand management, and other factors.
A number of studies for various locations have indicated that at least 20% of the total electrical energy consumption may be incorporated with minimal difficulty[49]."
Seems to support my comment that 100% wind power is not going to happen with current technology, but no-one is even close to reaching a point where they have too much wind power in their grid. Denmark is the leader at 20%, and they are still expanding, supported by 90% of the population (who presumably are not dieing horribly as a result, or being charged £100 000 each)
I remember my science teacher telling me that wind power wouldn't work because the whole country would need to be covered in turbines, and by stopping the wind they would cause a devastating heat wave. And guess what?
Wind power is falling in cost, increasing in use, being embraced by the two largest developing nations (where it has brought economic benefit), and shows no sign of slowing up. The biggest problem at the moment is that demand for turbines outstrips supply.
I checked about base loading:
"Electricity generated from wind power can be highly variable at several different timescales: from hour to hour, daily, and seasonally. Annual variation also exists, but is not as significant. This variability can present substantial challenges to incorporating large amounts of wind power into a grid system, since to maintain grid stability, energy supply and demand must remain in balance.
While the negative effects of intermittency have to be considered in the economics of power generation, wind is unlikely to suffer momentary failure of large amounts of generation, which may be a concern with some traditional power plants. In this sense, it may be more reliable (albeit variable) due to the distributed nature of generation. That said, winds often stagnate during periods of peak demand, such as during heat waves. [10][11] ...
Grid management
Grid operators routinely control the supply of electricity by cycling generating plants on or off at different timescales. Most grids also have some degree of control over demand, through either demand management or load shedding. Management of either supply or demand has economic implications for suppliers, consumers and grid operators but is already widespread.
Variability of wind output creates a challenge to integrating high levels of wind into energy grids based on existing operating procedures. Critics of wind energy argue that methods to manage variability increase the total cost of wind energy production substantially at high levels of penetration, while supporters note that tools to manage variable energy sources already exist and are economical, given the other advantages of wind energy. Supporters note that the variability of the grid due to the failure of power stations themselves, or the sudden change of loads, exceeds the likely rate of change of even very large wind power penetrations.
There is no generally accepted "maximum" level of wind penetration, and practical limitations will depend on the configuration of existing generating plants, pricing mechanisms, capacity for storage or demand management, and other factors.
A number of studies for various locations have indicated that at least 20% of the total electrical energy consumption may be incorporated with minimal difficulty[49]."
Seems to support my comment that 100% wind power is not going to happen with current technology, but no-one is even close to reaching a point where they have too much wind power in their grid. Denmark is the leader at 20%, and they are still expanding, supported by 90% of the population (who presumably are not dieing horribly as a result, or being charged £100 000 each)
I remember my science teacher telling me that wind power wouldn't work because the whole country would need to be covered in turbines, and by stopping the wind they would cause a devastating heat wave. And guess what?
Wind power is falling in cost, increasing in use, being embraced by the two largest developing nations (where it has brought economic benefit), and shows no sign of slowing up. The biggest problem at the moment is that demand for turbines outstrips supply.
skier-hughes
Member
- Messages
- 3,414
- Location
- Staffs, UK
DaveBrigg said:I remember my science teacher telling me that wind power wouldn't work because the whole country would need to be covered in turbines, and by stopping the wind they would cause a devastating heat wave. And guess what?
We have global warming.......... how right he was :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
> Which part of the post about wind power is a popular misconception?
What you quoted from somewhere doesnt explain the issue. A grid needs at least 2 types of gen plant t repond to varying consumer demand: baseload and peaking plant. The value of the 2 types is very different, with baseload (ie generation with poor control) achieveing a low price and peaking plant high price. Wind gen has the qualities of neither type of gen, it cant be relied on as baseload and cant be controlled as peaking either. This gives it the lowest market value of all types. Consequently comparing its price per kWh to other types of trad gen is misleading, they simply arent comparable.
At 20% you can incorp wind into the grid, but if you try to take it to 100% you've got such unreliable output that you have to build far more gen plant than the needed output, thus the cost goes upward heavily.
> Denmark is the leader at 20%, and they are still expanding, supported by 90% of the population (who presumably are not dieing horribly as a result, or being charged £100 000 each)
Would be clearer if you didnt misrepresent that comment
> I remember my science teacher telling me that wind power wouldn't work because the whole country would need to be covered in turbines,
it might possibly have been true at one time. Technology moves on.
NT
What you quoted from somewhere doesnt explain the issue. A grid needs at least 2 types of gen plant t repond to varying consumer demand: baseload and peaking plant. The value of the 2 types is very different, with baseload (ie generation with poor control) achieveing a low price and peaking plant high price. Wind gen has the qualities of neither type of gen, it cant be relied on as baseload and cant be controlled as peaking either. This gives it the lowest market value of all types. Consequently comparing its price per kWh to other types of trad gen is misleading, they simply arent comparable.
At 20% you can incorp wind into the grid, but if you try to take it to 100% you've got such unreliable output that you have to build far more gen plant than the needed output, thus the cost goes upward heavily.
> Denmark is the leader at 20%, and they are still expanding, supported by 90% of the population (who presumably are not dieing horribly as a result, or being charged £100 000 each)
Would be clearer if you didnt misrepresent that comment
> I remember my science teacher telling me that wind power wouldn't work because the whole country would need to be covered in turbines,
it might possibly have been true at one time. Technology moves on.
NT
DaveBrigg said:This whole money = energy argument
I tihnk this needs its own thread.
NT
wobs
Member
- Messages
- 536
- Location
- Hull - there's a nip in the air.
DaveBrigg said:Seems to support my comment that 100% wind power is not going to happen with current technology, but no-one is even close to reaching a point where they have too much wind power in their grid. Denmark is the leader at 20%, and they are still expanding, supported by 90% of the population (who presumably are not dieing horribly as a result, or being charged £100 000 each)
Denmark also imports large quantities of energy from its neighbours to make up for this, and so to use this as an example is extremely misleading. They also have come close to power failures when the wind drops unexpectantly. They do export it sometimes in certain conditions as well.
20% is the accepted limit of how much intermittant supply you can have in our national grid. New technology may nibble away at getting a few more from it, but to say we can have far more than that is unproven at best, and dishonest at worst.
Penners
Member
- Messages
- 17,294
- Location
- Suffolk, England
Undiscovered? It's sold in every "alternative lifestyle" shop across the land. You get a free whale-song CD with it.Flyfisher said:'xyz' being a yet undiscovered, but unlimited, source of totally clean energy emanating from human aura and catalysed by a combination of resonant crystal and homeopathic alchemy
We once had a guy turn up at the door (*) of our office / workshop wanting to know if we would build him a device to photograph human aura. We said we would build anything he could provide circuit diagrams for if he had enough money. Unfortunately, his circuit diagrams where just blocks with names on so we declined. We did offer to build him a device to photograph the heat plume coming off the human body which looks a bit like the ready brek glow but he wasn't interested in this. Effects which had a scientific explaination didn't seem to interest him - then again it might have been the cost of IR cameras.Flyfisher said:... emanating from human aura ...
(*) Strange how the wackos always turn up at the door rather than phoning.
Penners
Member
- Messages
- 17,294
- Location
- Suffolk, England
Well, I was going to come and ask you to build me a Long Range Sensor Array, for detecting approaching alien life forms - but if that's your attitude I shan't bother.MdB said:Strange how the wackos always turn up at the door rather than phoning.
But how could that possibly work? It would be going off all the time!?! Who do you think runs government?Penners said:Well, I was going to come and ask you to build me a Long Range Sensor Array, for detecting approaching alien life forms - but if that's your attitude I shan't bother.
Penners
Member
- Messages
- 17,294
- Location
- Suffolk, England
I'm sorry - don't bother me with problems. They're your job.MdB said:But how could that possibly work? It would be going off all the time!?! Who do you think runs government?Penners said:Well, I was going to come and ask you to build me a Long Range Sensor Array, for detecting approaching alien life forms - but if that's your attitude I shan't bother.
DaveBrigg
Member
- Messages
- 908
- Location
- North Lincs
wobs said:Denmark also imports large quantities of energy from its neighbours to make up for this, and so to use this as an example is extremely misleading. They also have come close to power failures when the wind drops unexpectantly. They do export it sometimes in certain conditions as well.
20% is the accepted limit of how much intermittant supply you can have in our national grid. New technology may nibble away at getting a few more from it, but to say we can have far more than that is unproven at best, and dishonest at worst.
Interesting comments. I hadn't come across the 20% accepted limit before. Do you have a source for this?
Denmark's nearest neighbour is the German province of Schleswig-Holstein, which apparently produces 36% of its electricity from wind power, although presumably the German grid allows power to be transferred to Denmark from coal stations elsewhere.
DaveBrigg
Member
- Messages
- 908
- Location
- North Lincs
New goods take energy to produce. This energy can be in a range of forms, not necessarily producing harmful side-effects.
Part of the production and transport cost of a new item pays for this energy use.
New good are usually bought with money.
That is as far as the link goes. There is no direct link at all between the cost of an item and the amount of energy involved in its manufacture and delivery.
Sometimes, for example when buying aluminium ingots, most of the cost goes towards energy costs.
Sometimes none of the cost goes towards energy. For example, there is a Queen Victoria £5 stamp on Ebay at the moment with bids at £1, 650. If the person who first bought it for £5 paid for the energy used to produce it (and deliver a parcel), and it has sat in a drawer evr since, where does the extra £1, 650 of energy come from?
Sometimes money can produce a negative amount of energy, for example by buying loft insulation. Part of the total price will cover the energy costs of manufacture and delivery, but over time the net result will be a drop in energy use greater than than the amount used to produce and deliver the insulation.
Sometimes, spending more uses more energy, for example buying a bigger house. Sometimes, spending more uses less energy, for example paying someone £10 for your car to be washed by hand, rather than spending £5 for the full cycle at Tesco's.
It is possible to earn money without expending any energy, for example by leasing your spare field to a farmer. It is possible to expend lots of energy and earn nothing, for example as a voluntary helper.
It is easy enough to show that mass consumerism is probably not very good for the planet without needing to concoct a notion that energy use is the only factor. For any company with shareholders, maximising profit is the only guiding force when goods are priced. If a company can cut costs by reducing energy use they will do so, but don't expect the price on the shelf to change.
There is no-one in B & Q calculating the amount of energy used to manufacture and deliver each item in the shop! Someone guesses the demand for an item, and the highest price they can get away with. If they get it wrong, and supply exceeds demand, someone else guesses how much the price will have to drop beofre they can flog the surplus, however much energy was used.
Our milkman used to come every weekday. The round was then changed to every other day. The dairy used less energy, but the price of a pint stayed the same.
Part of the production and transport cost of a new item pays for this energy use.
New good are usually bought with money.
That is as far as the link goes. There is no direct link at all between the cost of an item and the amount of energy involved in its manufacture and delivery.
Sometimes, for example when buying aluminium ingots, most of the cost goes towards energy costs.
Sometimes none of the cost goes towards energy. For example, there is a Queen Victoria £5 stamp on Ebay at the moment with bids at £1, 650. If the person who first bought it for £5 paid for the energy used to produce it (and deliver a parcel), and it has sat in a drawer evr since, where does the extra £1, 650 of energy come from?
Sometimes money can produce a negative amount of energy, for example by buying loft insulation. Part of the total price will cover the energy costs of manufacture and delivery, but over time the net result will be a drop in energy use greater than than the amount used to produce and deliver the insulation.
Sometimes, spending more uses more energy, for example buying a bigger house. Sometimes, spending more uses less energy, for example paying someone £10 for your car to be washed by hand, rather than spending £5 for the full cycle at Tesco's.
It is possible to earn money without expending any energy, for example by leasing your spare field to a farmer. It is possible to expend lots of energy and earn nothing, for example as a voluntary helper.
It is easy enough to show that mass consumerism is probably not very good for the planet without needing to concoct a notion that energy use is the only factor. For any company with shareholders, maximising profit is the only guiding force when goods are priced. If a company can cut costs by reducing energy use they will do so, but don't expect the price on the shelf to change.
There is no-one in B & Q calculating the amount of energy used to manufacture and deliver each item in the shop! Someone guesses the demand for an item, and the highest price they can get away with. If they get it wrong, and supply exceeds demand, someone else guesses how much the price will have to drop beofre they can flog the surplus, however much energy was used.
Our milkman used to come every weekday. The round was then changed to every other day. The dairy used less energy, but the price of a pint stayed the same.
wobs
Member
- Messages
- 536
- Location
- Hull - there's a nip in the air.
DaveBrigg said:Interesting comments. I hadn't come across the 20% accepted limit before. Do you have a source for this?
Denmark's nearest neighbour is the German province of Schleswig-Holstein, which apparently produces 36% of its electricity from wind power, although presumably the German grid allows power to be transferred to Denmark from coal stations elsewhere.
Well the 20% limit (for intermittent supplies) is something we were taught at Uni, and is often mentioned in reports on this subject.
Germany has a lot of wind turbines, but overall, they don't actually produce a lot compared to their capacity. I think they run at about 15-17 % capacity (?) (load factor) owing to the amount of wind they get there. That 36% is probably the capacity of the system, not what actually gets produced. Wind turbine manufactureres will tell you that you can get 30% load factor, but that doesn't make it real.
However, that doesn't mean that all that energy will get used. That 15-17 %(ish) doesn't all get used, as it won't all get produced when its needed.
Denmark, with its abundance of turbines has a similar problem:
"With the build-up of wind power, this problem has increased ( 03). During 2003, close relationships were observed between the generation of wind power and net exports of electricity from West Denmark ( 49; 64). Possibly 84 percent of the annual output of wind electricity was surplus to demand at its moment of generation ( 36; 64), and only about 4 percent of the region’s domestic power need was covered directly from this source ( 65). In 2004, wind power accounted for about 18.5 percent of all the electricity produced in Denmark, but could directly satisfy only about 6 percent of the country’s electricity consumption. Exports accounted for 70.5 percent of the total national generation of wind power, and were sold at an overall loss ( 75). "
http://www.countryguardian.net/vmason.htm
So although Denamrk has a large proportion of its energy produced by wind, most of it isn't actully very useful.
Also:
"The average annual load factor for the wind turbine carpet in west Denmark is measured at approximately 20%."
http://www.thomastelford.com/journals/DocumentLibrary/CIEN.158.2.66.pdf
20% is quite good. The UK is getting about 24%, but that will fall as more turbines inevitably are put in less appropriate areas.