Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 4:42 pm Post subject: efficiency == inconvenience
Convenience which is often associated with time savings is unfortunately often Inefficient which is associated with energy consumption.
examples:
1) fast food drive ins: you don't even have to step out of your car but unfortunately you're car is still burning gasoline while idling
2) single passenger car ridership: everybody knows that squeezing 30 people onto a bus is more efficient then putting 30 cars on the road but wow is it convenient to be able to walk only 25 feet from your sofa in the living room to your car parked in the driveway. That sure beats walking 250 feet to the nearest bus stop!
3) prepackaged foods - imagine the myriad number of examples from individually wrapped cheese slices to single serving prepackaged Jello pudding desserts. Even if you recycle the packaging energy was still consumed in it's production. But who wants to buy a big block of meat and slice it into lunch meat when you can just buy it prepackaged!
4) etc...
The optimists quite often say we can be more efficient. That may be true but the "Inconvenient Truth" (no pun intended) is:
Efficiency is the sacrificing of conveniences in life.
Joined: Oct 18, 2004 Posts: 2124 Location: kiwibush
Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 6:46 pm Post subject: Re: efficiency == inconvenience
I guess your comment raises the question, are the energy reserves of the human race (hard as well as potential), subject to limitation? _________________ Bugger me, I hear oil's runnin out mate!
Joined: Jul 26, 2006 Posts: 1770 Location: Nirvana
Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 8:11 pm Post subject: Re: efficiency == inconvenience
It's a matter of the usage of energy into something that has better RO(Energy)I. Since environmental costs are externalised from the economy and geological limitations where not acknowledged in the price of oil until Peak Oil, then Oil is cheaper than it should be. If our civilization was wiser; burning oil will be more expensive than now just with the damage of the climate and prohibitely expensive for most including geological limits. _________________ @deviantART @wordpress @hi5
Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 8:40 pm Post subject: Re: efficiency == inconvenience
Cube's right. Our family has lived with scratch cooking, clotheslines, home canned food, home baked bread, gardens, wood heat, and farmed with horses. These things are not the convenient way. In striving for self sufficiency, we quickly ran up against the limits of what we could accomplish ourselves, and learned about specialization and division of labor benefits the hard way. No doubt in my mind.
BUT. That's where we're headed. _________________ Local fix-it guy..
Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 9:12 pm Post subject: Re: efficiency == inconvenience
It depends on the examples of inefficiency used. On one hand, things such as insulating a house, switching to CFLs, switching to more efficient appliances (eg computers, fridges, etc...), removing parasitic loads when not in use, getting a smaller more efficient vehicle and driving more efficiently, etc... tend to pay themselves off very quickly, and save money after that. The increase in time required to do these things is small compared to the alternative of not doing them and having to work more over the years in order to pay for the additional energy usage.
That being said, evidently, a lot of people have no problem working 40 hours per week in order to drive a large inefficient vehicle and go through drive-thrus eating lots of prepackaged/prepared food. I depends on what people want to do with their time. If they want more free time and less work, efficiency/alternatives generally allows them to achieve this. If they enjoy working and spending money, then they will generally spend all they earn on what they can.
So... It really depends on how someone compares the inconvenience of having to work more to the inconvenience of having to drive a more efficient car, or insulate their house, or not eat out, etc... In terms of free time efficiency is the way to go, but in terms of social status, ie having a nicer car or eating more expensive food, then working (and dying IMO) like a dog is where it's at. _________________
Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 11:17 pm Post subject: Re: efficiency == inconvenience
patience wrote:
Cube's right. Our family has lived with scratch cooking, clotheslines, home canned food, home baked bread, gardens, wood heat, and farmed with horses. These things are not the convenient way. In striving for self sufficiency, we quickly ran up against the limits of what we could accomplish ourselves, and learned about specialization and division of labor benefits the hard way. No doubt in my mind.
....
wow that's a hard life. I have more respect for you now. I'll be honest. I have squishy hands and no tan lines on my arms. Folks like me wouldn't last 20 minutes pulling weeds out in the back yard let alone a "power down" scenario.
I actually like the lifestyle that cheap energy has made possible.
Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 12:31 am Post subject: Re: efficiency == inconvenience
cube wrote:
zensui wrote:
It's a matter of the usage of energy into something that has better RO(Energy)I.
examples please?
Depends on what we're doing with the energy. In the case of CFLs, the efficiency is higher so we get the same amount of light and less heat, and as a result spends less on energy. So... Unless we use our light bulbs for generating heat, having more efficient light bulbs results in a better RO(Energy)I. The same goes for more efficient cars. We don't need to all hop into fully loaded thirty passenger buses, at least until there's 1/30th of the amount of oil we used to have and no alternatives. increasing the fleet mileage by 1.5-2 times would result in half the consumption, and the penalty would be that instead of using something like a pickup to move a single couple hundred pound human, we would use something like a car to use a single couple hundred pound human. _________________
Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 6:57 am Post subject: Re: efficiency == inconvenience
yesplease wrote:
It depends on the examples of inefficiency used. On one hand, things such as insulating a house, switching to CFLs, switching to more efficient appliances (eg computers, fridges, etc...), removing parasitic loads when not in use, getting a smaller more efficient vehicle and driving more efficiently, etc... tend to pay themselves off very quickly, and save money after that. The increase in time required to do these things is small compared to the alternative of not doing them and having to work more over the years in order to pay for the additional energy usage.
Sorry, yesplease, but I have to say "no" to that. (Really sorry, I couldn't resist the yes-no thing. I'm a little weak-willed until I finish my first cup of coffee.) Cube does need to make a change to his equation, but that's to recognize that time = money = social status. Having done the things you mention above, I think they're mostly inconvenient pains in the arse, though I still do them because I'm compulsive about not wasting.
Adding insulation, for example, was a major weekend project. Since it was the second layer of insulation in our attic, the payoff won't come *that* fast. *Very* inconvenient. I have to take the compact fluorescent bulbs to a special recycling center because they have mercury in them. What a pain.
Biking to work, OTOH, doesn't take more time because I'm only 2.5 miles away from work and I need the exercise anyway, but costs because of the social status hit. We bicyclists are the "colored" of the road. In a society built on conspicuous displays of consuming fossil fuels, using less energy either means you can't afford to consume or you're some counter-culture type.
Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 12:52 pm Post subject: Re: efficiency == inconvenience
kjmclark wrote:
yesplease wrote:
It depends on the examples of inefficiency used. On one hand, things such as insulating a house, switching to CFLs, switching to more efficient appliances (eg computers, fridges, etc...), removing parasitic loads when not in use, getting a smaller more efficient vehicle and driving more efficiently, etc... tend to pay themselves off very quickly, and save money after that. The increase in time required to do these things is small compared to the alternative of not doing them and having to work more over the years in order to pay for the additional energy usage.
Sorry, yesplease, but I have to say "no" to that. (Really sorry, I couldn't resist the yes-no thing. I'm a little weak-willed until I finish my first cup of coffee.)
The problem with yesplease's examples is that it's nothing more than taking "baby steps". I think most people can cut a little bit without too much of a painful sacrifice in time / convenience. Out here in California almost EVERYBODY has already done what yesplease has mentioned. Florescent light bulbs, more efficient appliances, and insulated houses. California has some of the most strict building codes in the nation in regards to energy efficiency.
BTW guess which state in the country has some of the most severe energy problems?
Joined: Mar 04, 2007 Posts: 504 Location: Hong Kong
Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 1:12 pm Post subject: Re: efficiency == inconvenience
kjmclark wrote:
yesplease wrote:
It depends on the examples of inefficiency used. On one hand, things such as insulating a house, switching to CFLs, switching to more efficient appliances (eg computers, fridges, etc...), removing parasitic loads when not in use, getting a smaller more efficient vehicle and driving more efficiently, etc... tend to pay themselves off very quickly, and save money after that. The increase in time required to do these things is small compared to the alternative of not doing them and having to work more over the years in order to pay for the additional energy usage.
Sorry, yesplease, but I have to say "no" to that. (Really sorry, I couldn't resist the yes-no thing. I'm a little weak-willed until I finish my first cup of coffee.) Cube does need to make a change to his equation, but that's to recognize that time = money = social status. Having done the things you mention above, I think they're mostly inconvenient pains in the arse, though I still do them because I'm compulsive about not wasting.
Adding insulation, for example, was a major weekend project. Since it was the second layer of insulation in our attic, the payoff won't come *that* fast. *Very* inconvenient. I have to take the compact fluorescent bulbs to a special recycling center because they have mercury in them. What a pain.
Biking to work, OTOH, doesn't take more time because I'm only 2.5 miles away from work and I need the exercise anyway, but costs because of the social status hit. We bicyclists are the "colored" of the road. In a society built on conspicuous displays of consuming fossil fuels, using less energy either means you can't afford to consume or you're some counter-culture type.
You are a counter-culture type, and you should be proud of it. _________________ "We shall live in interesting times, and we shall die in them too." - Heineken
Joined: Nov 27, 2004 Posts: 243 Location: The District
Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:29 pm Post subject: Re: efficiency == inconvenience
kmjclark wrote:
Quote:
In a society built on conspicuous displays of consuming fossil fuels, using less energy either means you can't afford to consume or you're some counter-culture type.
I'm on board with this, but it's not quite that simple. When you say "less energy" I'm assuming that you're talking about fossil fuel energy. I only mention that because sure as hell it takes energy to bike to work.
It's also an important distinction because you're just using one form of energy (fossil fuel) over another (muscle power). It's central to this discussion because invariably muscle power almost always takes longer than fossil fuel power to accomplish a given task: hence, convenience wins out for most people over efficiency.
It's unfortunate that those who choose efficiency over convenience are labeled as kooks, or more likely: broke. But, if it's any consolation, a lot more people are going to start choosing efficiency whether they like it or not. _________________ What fortune has made yours is not your own. -Seneca
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:33 am Post subject: Re: efficiency == inconvenience
kjmclark wrote:
Adding insulation, for example, was a major weekend project. Since it was the second layer of insulation in our attic, the payoff won't come *that* fast. *Very* inconvenient. I have to take the compact fluorescent bulbs to a special recycling center because they have mercury in them. What a pain.
Like I said, it depends on how you define inconvenient. For me, since the time and money spent improving efficiency, is far less than the extra time I would need to work in order to get money to pay the extra needed to maintain the same conditions w/o the insulation/etc.
For instance, lets say my water heater isn't insulated and my attic only has R10. I add another layer of R30 in the attic and insulate the water heater for ~$650. There is a $40 savings per month on the gas bill for the coldest four months, a $30 savings per month on the electric bill for the warmest four months, and ~$15 per month over the other eight months on both bills. In about twenty months, my additions will have paid themselves off, and assuming your estimate of a weekends worth of work, it would've taken me about ten to twenty hours.
The alternative is to not do it, and pay an extra ~$400 per year in bills, which at the average American wage, would require about twenty five hours. So... Working about twenty five hours all at once, to save about the same amount of time spent working for all the extra energy needed every year. Seems to be pretty damn convenient. Course, that's just my opinion. You stated it wasn't very convenient for you, so I'm guessing that you make more money per hour and/or don't mind working, but do mind adding insulation to your house, depending on circumstance. CFLs are similar, and the payback time IME is much lower.
So, it really depends on whether the average American wants to work more over their life for the same climate/lighting/etc, or if they find working tens of thousands of extra hours over their lifetime more convenient than spending a fraction of that time improving their homes/etc...
kjmclark wrote:
Biking to work, OTOH, doesn't take more time because I'm only 2.5 miles away from work and I need the exercise anyway, but costs because of the social status hit.
I'm curious, what do you think it costs you in social status compared to alternatives. _________________
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:42 am Post subject: Re: efficiency == inconvenience
cube wrote:
The problem with yesplease's examples is that it's nothing more than taking "baby steps".
My baby steps have, or likely will, cut my energy usage to a tenth of what it was. They're a quite big, perhaps Giant baby steps would be a better name than just baby steps.
cube wrote:
Out here in California almost EVERYBODY has already done what yesplease has mentioned. Florescent light bulbs, more efficient appliances, and insulated houses. California has some of the most strict building codes in the nation in regards to energy efficiency.
Oh, except for my grandparents, aunt and uncle, cousins, friend's dad, some of his relatives, and probably others. Everybody in CA has not switched to CFLs, more efficient appliances, better insulation, etc.. California may have some of the most strict building codes, but not all houses were built at the same time and many could benefit with changes given the requirements at the time they were built.
cube wrote:
BTW guess which state in the country has some of the most severe energy problems?
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:13 am Post subject: Re: efficiency == inconvenience
Sweat equity means substituting one's time or labor for money. Effectively there is a trade-off. If I am retired and have a lot of surplus time then I can do most things by myself because I am discounting the value of my labor. However, when I am working I am not reducing my costs, but maximizing my income.
I am not necessarily using more energy because I am working at my job earning income versus working at home producing sweat equity. I can trade my income earned for an energy efficient home and solar panels on the roof. I do not have to install them myself.
On the otherhand I can give up some nights and weekends when I am not working in any case to do jobs around the house. However, I have to ask myself whether that time is better spent learning Russian, social networking or working on my PhD that will have a higher return on my investment of time?
As for social status for me that is no debt and money in the bank, and has everything to do with class and nothing to do with conspicuous consumption. You cannot buy class. Either you have it or you do not.
So therefore it is quite beside the point whether I walk or bike to work or drive a smaller fuel efficient car versus a newer luxury model. It is enough to know that I can afford to drive any car that I want. So I do not have to! The same for my apartment. I live near my office and close to the beach. I do not need a larger villa further away to impress others. So I don't! ; - )) _________________ The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
