What most people forget to consider when looking at whether to buy green technologies is the costs that they will incur from buying the non-green option. The non-green product might have a lower price, but that's probably because the price to buy the product doesn't take into account the long term negative externalities of the product. If you made all producers pay for the aesthetic, health, business, and consumer costs of their products, that charge would be reflected in the prices of their products and I bet you 9 times out of 10 the green alternative would be cheaper. No let me just be clear that I am not saying that all "green" products are cheaper. Some "green" products aren't really all that beneficial to the environment and the green label is just slapped on there to trick you into paying more.
Like what? LED lightbulbs?Narupug wrote:
What most people forget to consider when looking at whether to buy green technologies is the costs that they will incur from buying the non-green option. The non-green product might have a lower price, but that's probably because the price to buy the product doesn't take into account the long term negative externalities of the product. If you made all producers pay for the aesthetic, health, business, and consumer costs of their products, that charge would be reflected in the prices of their products and I bet you 9 times out of 10 the green alternative would be cheaper. No let me just be clear that I am not saying that all "green" products are cheaper. Some "green" products aren't really all that beneficial to the environment and the green label is just slapped on there to trick you into paying more.
75W incandescent bulb = (75W)(3hrs/day)(365days/yr)($.12/1000Wh)=$9.86/yr to run
14W LED bulb = (14W)(3hrs/day)(365days/yr)($.12/1000Wh)=$1.84/yr to run
Savings = $8.02/yr
Ok, but the incandescent is rated for 3750 hrs, and it costs $0.75 to replace. (3hrs/day)(365days/yr)=1,095 hrs/yr, so every 3 years or so you'd have to replace the incandescent for $0.75.
The initial cost of the LED bulb is $29.97. ($29.97)/($8.02+.77)=3.43 years to break even. Not bad.
Try getting that return on anything else labeled green and you'll be shit out of luck. Solar Panels? Maybe if the price keeps coming down. Hybrid vehicles? Nope, not without tens of thousands of dollars in government subsidies (which is no savings at all since that comes out of taxes, theoretically). Will organic food keep you out of the hospital less? Nope. In very few instances does the ROI actually favor green products.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Ah, but that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about something like you have a steel factory that pollutes the air of the surrounding community giving 1 in 100 people cancer (let's just assume everyone accepts it does). If you add the cost of covering the medical bills of everyone who gets cancer from the factory, the cost of steel from that factory goes up and makes a factory that uses green technology that is more expensive, but doesn't put out carcinogenic gases at the very least more competitive. This is a purely hypothetical situation for the sake of illustrating a point, but I hope you can see how it can be applied to green technology in general.Jay wrote:
Like what? LED lightbulbs?Narupug wrote:
What most people forget to consider when looking at whether to buy green technologies is the costs that they will incur from buying the non-green option. The non-green product might have a lower price, but that's probably because the price to buy the product doesn't take into account the long term negative externalities of the product. If you made all producers pay for the aesthetic, health, business, and consumer costs of their products, that charge would be reflected in the prices of their products and I bet you 9 times out of 10 the green alternative would be cheaper. No let me just be clear that I am not saying that all "green" products are cheaper. Some "green" products aren't really all that beneficial to the environment and the green label is just slapped on there to trick you into paying more.
75W incandescent bulb = (75W)(3hrs/day)(365days/yr)($.12/1000Wh)=$9.86/yr to run
14W LED bulb = (14W)(3hrs/day)(365days/yr)($.12/1000Wh)=$1.84/yr to run
Savings = $8.02/yr
Ok, but the incandescent is rated for 3750 hrs, and it costs $0.75 to replace. (3hrs/day)(365days/yr)=1,095 hrs/yr, so every 3 years or so you'd have to replace the incandescent for $0.75.
The initial cost of the LED bulb is $29.97. ($29.97)/($8.02+.77)=3.43 years to break even. Not bad.
Try getting that return on anything else labeled green and you'll be shit out of luck. Solar Panels? Maybe if the price keeps coming down. Hybrid vehicles? Nope, not without tens of thousands of dollars in government subsidies (which is no savings at all since that comes out of taxes, theoretically). Will organic food keep you out of the hospital less? Nope. In very few instances does the ROI actually favor green products.
Deforestation, Global Warming, Over fishing, Water Pollution, and pretty much every other environmental problem is an issue referred to in economics as the Tragedy of the Commons, where by people tend to overconsume natural resources because they only look at the personal benefits of catching another ton of fish, or chopping down another acre of wood, and not the costs of having fewer fish to reproduce or of the devastating floods from deforestation.
Ah - your points on French agriculture ring very true. My parents have a farm house in France and none of the farmers around there have a clue what they are doing. Loads of land and no efficiency, all paid for by the CAP.Jay wrote:
Those farmers are generally just fucking themselves over though. Modern farming is literally a science and good land is expensive. In my opinion, it's much more likely that a small farmer would use unsustainable practices, mostly out of ignorance, compared to the huge agribusiness farms that employ teams of scientists to extract every ounce of productivity out of the land that they can. It's largely why I don't understand the organic 'buy local' movement. It hinges on emotion based marketing rather than hard science. Frankly, I blame the French influence on food culture more than anything else. They're the most conservative, progress resistant, people on the entire planet when it comes to food. They give people who don't understand science cover to push their ignorance on other ignorant people.Bertster7 wrote:
You seem to be neglecting that fact that many fertilisers used have a harmful effect on the ecosystem around them, often leading to increased costs and bigger problems further down the line. When I was at school we went on a trip to farms where they would show the effects of badly managed use of fertilisers from the 70s which meant there were huge swathes of land they effectively could not use for farming. I have a friend who works in agricultural research for Bayer, he's always saying stuff like that. Hear all sorts of horror stories about areas being destroyed by misuse of loads of nasty chemicals.Jay wrote:
Or... most of the claims made by people pushing green products are built on hucksterism rather than real science and people see through it. To use the example from the article, what is the benefit of organic cotton versus other cotton? That there are infinitesimal amounts of chemical transferred during the processing of it? Ok. Now prove those infinitely small levels of chemical are harmful. Oh, they can't? Right, it's a placebo effect and that is 99.99% of the benefit gained by people buying organic products. They get to feel better about themselves when they spend money. They sell people a chance to attain smug superiority, nothing more. Higher prices and lower output on the production end due to inefficient use of farmland are the results. And they expect people to buy in?
I'm with you on the organic thing, because the criteria for something to be classed as organic are meaningless, not because I don't think there is a problem. But it's a problem with some short sighted farmers fucking up relatively small areas of land for short term gains. In the US, with the amount of space you have, maybe it isn't a problem - but here in the UK, it is.
The EU need to get rid of the CAP. It's absurd and promotes this sort of inefficiency in agriculture. The EU could be really, really useful and effective - but is hampered by trying to do too much and the budget is strained by unnecessary hand outs like those seen under the CAP.
Anyway, back to organic Vs non-organic. I'm all for being very careful with what is used, but from everything I hear, some of the chemicals that can be most disruptive to the surrounding ecosystem are organic, fertilisers with nitrogen base for example.
Basically, I am concerned about chemicals being used on my food but I find the organic label deceptive and meaningless. Whereas for meat I try to get free range meat in general because that actually means something and makes a difference to the quality of the meat.
Geothermal. Micro hydro. Both will save you money - but as with all these things, require a big outlay.Jay wrote:
Like what? LED lightbulbs?Narupug wrote:
What most people forget to consider when looking at whether to buy green technologies is the costs that they will incur from buying the non-green option. The non-green product might have a lower price, but that's probably because the price to buy the product doesn't take into account the long term negative externalities of the product. If you made all producers pay for the aesthetic, health, business, and consumer costs of their products, that charge would be reflected in the prices of their products and I bet you 9 times out of 10 the green alternative would be cheaper. No let me just be clear that I am not saying that all "green" products are cheaper. Some "green" products aren't really all that beneficial to the environment and the green label is just slapped on there to trick you into paying more.
75W incandescent bulb = (75W)(3hrs/day)(365days/yr)($.12/1000Wh)=$9.86/yr to run
14W LED bulb = (14W)(3hrs/day)(365days/yr)($.12/1000Wh)=$1.84/yr to run
Savings = $8.02/yr
Ok, but the incandescent is rated for 3750 hrs, and it costs $0.75 to replace. (3hrs/day)(365days/yr)=1,095 hrs/yr, so every 3 years or so you'd have to replace the incandescent for $0.75.
The initial cost of the LED bulb is $29.97. ($29.97)/($8.02+.77)=3.43 years to break even. Not bad.
Try getting that return on anything else labeled green and you'll be shit out of luck. Solar Panels? Maybe if the price keeps coming down. Hybrid vehicles? Nope, not without tens of thousands of dollars in government subsidies (which is no savings at all since that comes out of taxes, theoretically). Will organic food keep you out of the hospital less? Nope. In very few instances does the ROI actually favor green products.
Over the life of a geothermal system you save loads. Will take a decade or so to break even, but with some systems guaranteed for 50 years, the remaining 40 years would be profit. Seem to see it in a fair few new build houses and it would be a good selling point when buying a house, but I can see why installation costs put most people off - including me.
Micro hydro is great. Very cost effective. Unfortunately, not everyone lives by a river.
The rest, well, depends on location. Wind can be good - if you live somewhere really windy, coastal maybe. Solar can be good, if you live somewhere really sunny.
I think this thread boils down to inconvenience, cost and the occasional deception. I'm all for it but I'm too lazy to fix the GFCI outlets that the electrician I hired incompetently installed, let alone revamp a 70 year old house to do all the rest.
- globefish23
- sophisticated slacker
- +334|6563|Graz, Austria
Your forgetting luminous efficiency.Jay wrote:
Like what? LED lightbulbs?
75W incandescent bulb = (75W)(3hrs/day)(365days/yr)($.12/1000Wh)=$9.86/yr to run
14W LED bulb = (14W)(3hrs/day)(365days/yr)($.12/1000Wh)=$1.84/yr to run
Savings = $8.02/yr
Ok, but the incandescent is rated for 3750 hrs, and it costs $0.75 to replace. (3hrs/day)(365days/yr)=1,095 hrs/yr, so every 3 years or so you'd have to replace the incandescent for $0.75.
The initial cost of the LED bulb is $29.97. ($29.97)/($8.02+.77)=3.43 years to break even. Not bad.
You don't even need a 14W LED bulb to achive the same luminous flux.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fl … chnologies
That comparison is based on 21,900 hours over 10 yrs at 15cent per kWh.
- globefish23
- sophisticated slacker
- +334|6563|Graz, Austria
globefish23 wrote:
You're forgetting luminous efficiency.Jay wrote:
Like what? LED lightbulbs?
75W incandescent bulb = (75W)(3hrs/day)(365days/yr)($.12/1000Wh)=$9.86/yr to run
14W LED bulb = (14W)(3hrs/day)(365days/yr)($.12/1000Wh)=$1.84/yr to run
Savings = $8.02/yr
Ok, but the incandescent is rated for 3750 hrs, and it costs $0.75 to replace. (3hrs/day)(365days/yr)=1,095 hrs/yr, so every 3 years or so you'd have to replace the incandescent for $0.75.
The initial cost of the LED bulb is $29.97. ($29.97)/($8.02+.77)=3.43 years to break even. Not bad.
You don't even need a 14W LED bulb to achive the same luminous flux.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fl … chnologies
That comparison is based on 21,900 hours over 10 yrs at 15cent per kWh.
I favor the beer powered forklifts
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Looks like a propane powered forklift to me.
- globefish23
- sophisticated slacker
- +334|6563|Graz, Austria
Yeah, the tank is too small for compressed air powered one.Extra Medium wrote:
Looks like a propane powered forklift to me.
You give the average Joe way too much credit, Jay. The average Joe is the reason that the company that made this load of shit:Jay wrote:
Or... most of the claims made by people pushing green products are built on hucksterism rather than real science and people see through it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Balance
Was able to sponsor an NBA arena for a year or so
http://www.kcra.com/Arco-Arena-To-Becom … index.html
holograms dont even emit a frequency or energy field :S how do people believe this crap?
'well that one sports dude on TV said it so it must be true. hurrrrr. hurrrrrrrr."Winston_Churchill wrote:
holograms dont even emit a frequency or energy field :S how do people believe this crap?
I don't, I'd rather drink alcohol than burn it.13rin wrote:
I favor the beer powered forklifts
- Posted from my iBottle of Wild Turkey
Last edited by BVC (2012-12-14 03:02:31)
Geo thermal is not so good.Bertster7 wrote:
Geothermal. Micro hydro. Both will save you money - but as with all these things, require a big outlay.Jay wrote:
Like what? LED lightbulbs?Narupug wrote:
What most people forget to consider when looking at whether to buy green technologies is the costs that they will incur from buying the non-green option. The non-green product might have a lower price, but that's probably because the price to buy the product doesn't take into account the long term negative externalities of the product. If you made all producers pay for the aesthetic, health, business, and consumer costs of their products, that charge would be reflected in the prices of their products and I bet you 9 times out of 10 the green alternative would be cheaper. No let me just be clear that I am not saying that all "green" products are cheaper. Some "green" products aren't really all that beneficial to the environment and the green label is just slapped on there to trick you into paying more.
75W incandescent bulb = (75W)(3hrs/day)(365days/yr)($.12/1000Wh)=$9.86/yr to run
14W LED bulb = (14W)(3hrs/day)(365days/yr)($.12/1000Wh)=$1.84/yr to run
Savings = $8.02/yr
Ok, but the incandescent is rated for 3750 hrs, and it costs $0.75 to replace. (3hrs/day)(365days/yr)=1,095 hrs/yr, so every 3 years or so you'd have to replace the incandescent for $0.75.
The initial cost of the LED bulb is $29.97. ($29.97)/($8.02+.77)=3.43 years to break even. Not bad.
Try getting that return on anything else labeled green and you'll be shit out of luck. Solar Panels? Maybe if the price keeps coming down. Hybrid vehicles? Nope, not without tens of thousands of dollars in government subsidies (which is no savings at all since that comes out of taxes, theoretically). Will organic food keep you out of the hospital less? Nope. In very few instances does the ROI actually favor green products.
Over the life of a geothermal system you save loads. Will take a decade or so to break even, but with some systems guaranteed for 50 years, the remaining 40 years would be profit. Seem to see it in a fair few new build houses and it would be a good selling point when buying a house, but I can see why installation costs put most people off - including me.
Micro hydro is great. Very cost effective. Unfortunately, not everyone lives by a river.
The rest, well, depends on location. Wind can be good - if you live somewhere really windy, coastal maybe. Solar can be good, if you live somewhere really sunny.
We have two problems with it at the moment.
1. The need for a full backup installation capable of running the house if the geo doesnt work. Therefore you have to pay for two full installations.
2. Permafrost. We now have fairly large areas, especially around london, where permafrost is a real issue as large developments are taking lots of heat of the ground and havent allowed for their neighbours to do the same thing. This causes permafrost and then no heating.
Organic food:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19465692
Only 30% less likely to contain pesticides? You would have expected 100% were it not for the bullshit marketing.Eating organic food will not make you healthier, according to researchers at Stanford University, although it could cut your exposure to pesticides.
They looked at more than 200 studies of the content and associated health gains of organic and non-organic foods.
Overall, there was no discernible difference between the nutritional content, although the organic food was 30% less likely to contain pesticides.
I hope people realise that the only reason europe doesnt depend on coal for power so much as the UK is because they have more nuclear plants.
Renewables are great and all but they do not supply enough power when we need it and we cannot store it properly.
As an example in the UK renewables peaked at 20% of the total power supply on something like the 20th June at 3pm. In the middle of december at 8pm when our power demand was more than double, renewables supplied 0.2%. So really it goes back to my first point, you dont realise the savings because you cannot rely on green / renewable technology, you still have to run something else as well.
I realize reliability is an issue with a lot of renewables because you are relying on something that you shockingly have very little to no control over. Research is working very hard to make better batteries and developing a "smart grid", but that's why it is important to diversify your energy portfolio with other renewables. If you will allow me to use an economic parallel again, it's just like if you have uncertainty in the economic market, you diversify your portfolio. If one isn't producing, maybe another will be able to pick up the slack. The same applies for trying to limit the environmental impact of each type of energy gathering.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Geo thermal is not so good.Bertster7 wrote:
Geothermal. Micro hydro. Both will save you money - but as with all these things, require a big outlay.Jay wrote:
Like what? LED lightbulbs?
75W incandescent bulb = (75W)(3hrs/day)(365days/yr)($.12/1000Wh)=$9.86/yr to run
14W LED bulb = (14W)(3hrs/day)(365days/yr)($.12/1000Wh)=$1.84/yr to run
Savings = $8.02/yr
Ok, but the incandescent is rated for 3750 hrs, and it costs $0.75 to replace. (3hrs/day)(365days/yr)=1,095 hrs/yr, so every 3 years or so you'd have to replace the incandescent for $0.75.
The initial cost of the LED bulb is $29.97. ($29.97)/($8.02+.77)=3.43 years to break even. Not bad.
Try getting that return on anything else labeled green and you'll be shit out of luck. Solar Panels? Maybe if the price keeps coming down. Hybrid vehicles? Nope, not without tens of thousands of dollars in government subsidies (which is no savings at all since that comes out of taxes, theoretically). Will organic food keep you out of the hospital less? Nope. In very few instances does the ROI actually favor green products.
Over the life of a geothermal system you save loads. Will take a decade or so to break even, but with some systems guaranteed for 50 years, the remaining 40 years would be profit. Seem to see it in a fair few new build houses and it would be a good selling point when buying a house, but I can see why installation costs put most people off - including me.
Micro hydro is great. Very cost effective. Unfortunately, not everyone lives by a river.
The rest, well, depends on location. Wind can be good - if you live somewhere really windy, coastal maybe. Solar can be good, if you live somewhere really sunny.
We have two problems with it at the moment.
1. The need for a full backup installation capable of running the house if the geo doesnt work. Therefore you have to pay for two full installations.
2. Permafrost. We now have fairly large areas, especially around london, where permafrost is a real issue as large developments are taking lots of heat of the ground and havent allowed for their neighbours to do the same thing. This causes permafrost and then no heating.
Organic food:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19465692Only 30% less likely to contain pesticides? You would have expected 100% were it not for the bullshit marketing.Eating organic food will not make you healthier, according to researchers at Stanford University, although it could cut your exposure to pesticides.
They looked at more than 200 studies of the content and associated health gains of organic and non-organic foods.
Overall, there was no discernible difference between the nutritional content, although the organic food was 30% less likely to contain pesticides.
I hope people realise that the only reason europe doesnt depend on coal for power so much as the UK is because they have more nuclear plants.
Renewables are great and all but they do not supply enough power when we need it and we cannot store it properly.
As an example in the UK renewables peaked at 20% of the total power supply on something like the 20th June at 3pm. In the middle of december at 8pm when our power demand was more than double, renewables supplied 0.2%. So really it goes back to my first point, you dont realise the savings because you cannot rely on green / renewable technology, you still have to run something else as well.
I also direct you to read my post that you quoted for more about how the private cost of non-green products do not include all of their social costs and how green products do.
What? Why would you build a 'diverse portfolio'? It would mean you have to build multiple systems. Instead, you can build a single gas fired plant for a fraction of the cost.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Once again, that's private cost. The actual cost of that gas fired plant is much more because of its greater effect on the environment. If you included the cost to reduce the damage from that gas plant to the levels of renewables producing the same output, I bet you the price would actually be higher.Jay wrote:
What? Why would you build a 'diverse portfolio'? It would mean you have to build multiple systems. Instead, you can build a single gas fired plant for a fraction of the cost.
http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ … ities.html
^this should make what I am saying a little clearer.
Last edited by Narupug (2012-12-15 10:36:31)
Blah blah blah whatever. No, the price is not higher. You want multiple systems, right? So you need multiple storage facilities as well. You need to build more equipment and use more land. Wind turbines and solar panels don't get created from pixie farts, the materials are pulled from the earth. Same for the battery banks. And you'd still need a gas fired plant or a nuke plant as a backup for when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing, you know, like any normal cloudy winter New England day. Or you can cut out all the bullshit and just build the gas turbine plant.
Between this and the gun control thread you're coming off as a typical liberal dreamer with big ideas and no foundation in reality.
Between this and the gun control thread you're coming off as a typical liberal dreamer with big ideas and no foundation in reality.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Wind, solar and gas work very well in conjunction - fire up the gas when the other two aren't producing so much -> Easy win.
You're going to have to build a replacement for the gas plant when the gas runs out so might as well get on with it.
You're coming off as the typical Luddite with no ideas or interest in reality.
You're going to have to build a replacement for the gas plant when the gas runs out so might as well get on with it.
You're coming off as the typical Luddite with no ideas or interest in reality.
Fuck Israel
We have hundreds of years of natural gas reserves, and thousands of years of methane.Dilbert_X wrote:
Wind, solar and gas work very well in conjunction - fire up the gas when the other two aren't producing so much -> Easy win.
You're going to have to build a replacement for the gas plant when the gas runs out so might as well get on with it.
You're coming off as the typical Luddite with no ideas or interest in reality.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
As long as you accept the risks of fracking and CO2 in the atmosphere - which not everyone does
And not every country has ample gas reserves.
And not every country has ample gas reserves.
Fuck Israel
Sucks to be them. Prisoner's dilemma. I'm not willing to cut my own throat.Dilbert_X wrote:
As long as you accept the risks of fracking and CO2 in the atmosphere - which not everyone does
And not every country has ample gas reserves.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
No foundation in reality despite the fact that I am using well accepted economic principles in this thread. I won't talk about the other thread since I prefer to keep my arguments compartmentalized.Jay wrote:
Blah blah blah whatever. No, the price is not higher. You want multiple systems, right? So you need multiple storage facilities as well. You need to build more equipment and use more land. Wind turbines and solar panels don't get created from pixie farts, the materials are pulled from the earth. Same for the battery banks. And you'd still need a gas fired plant or a nuke plant as a backup for when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing, you know, like any normal cloudy winter New England day. Or you can cut out all the bullshit and just build the gas turbine plant.
Between this and the gun control thread you're coming off as a typical liberal dreamer with big ideas and no foundation in reality.