4 ms·

> Energy is exactly equal to the cost. Ok, what does that mean? In physics, if something is exactly equal to an amount of energy, it has to be measured in the

by jsrn 17y ago

> Energy is exactly equal to the cost. Ok, what does that mean? In physics, if something is exactly equal to an amount of energy, it has to be measured in the same unit as energy (joule). But cost is measured in dollars (or some other currency). So the above statement makes no sense. > why does stuff cost? Because it takes energy to make it, and to transport it. That is a factor for cost, but not the only factor. > R&D, marketing: You have pay someone. Why does he need money? Because he spends it on things that cost energy to make. By this argument, a product takes more energy to produce if the workers negotiate a better wage - because after work, they spend their extra money on something that costs energy to make. I'm not convinced that this makes sense. Taken to the extreme this would mean: A product made by unpaid volunteers takes far less energy to produce than an equivalent product made by paid workers.

ars 17y ago
Energy is measured in dollars, not just in joules, so yes, energy and cost are equivalent. > That is a factor for cost, but not the only factor. Actually, yes it is. It's the only factor. Name any other factors, and I'll show you how each one actually boils down the to the energy used for it. > By this argument, a product takes more energy to produce if the workers negotiate a better wage - because after work, they spend their extra money on something that costs energy to make. Correct. Real world example: Americans use a lot more energy per capita then Chinese. Americans earn a lot more per hour then Chinese. Check if you like, in every area $/h = energy/capita > A product made by unpaid volunteers takes far less energy to produce than an equivalent product made by paid workers. Also correct. Think of a dorm with lots of volunteers. It costs far less energy to house and feed them than 10 separate houses. Since they have no money, they buy nothing. Since they buy nothing, no one spends energy making things for them. An important note: Just because it uses less energy doesn't mean it's better! A slave uses very little energy, but is obviously bad.
- ars 17y ago
  If someone has time, perhaps they could take the data from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_con... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GNI_(PPP)_per_capita http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GNI_(PPP)_... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomin... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GNI_(nominal)_per_capita http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GNI_(nomin... And see how well they correlate.
- jsrn 17y ago
  > Check if you like, in every area $/h = energy/capita Even if one does as you do (i.e., measure energy in dollars) I smell a unit mismatch: left side of your "equation": dollars per hour right side of your "equation": dollars per human which would only make sense if you also show that 1 human = 1 hour... perhaps I should stop now. But: > Think of a dorm with lots of volunteers. It costs far less energy to house and feed them than 10 separate houses. yeah, but consider 10 volunteers who live in their own separate houses, eat lots of high caloric food and write a free software program that I use. Cost for me to get the free software program: ca. 0$. Energy used by our 10 independently housed volunteer programmers to create it? I say: Far more than zero. I guess we should just agree to disagree here: I think it makes sense to look at the energy used to produce a product without looking at how much the product costs - the measure "energy yield" for products like wind turbines makes sense in my understanding. Your model says that we don't need an energy yield measure for wind turbines - because energy yield is the same as return on investment.
  - ars 17y ago
    > Even if one does as you do (i.e., measure energy in dollars) I smell a unit mismatch: left side of your "equation": dollars per hour right side of your "equation": dollars per human > which would only make sense if you also show that 1 human = 1 hour... perhaps I should stop now. Come on, I thought you would do that yourself. Fine: capita := person/year person/year * 260(work days/year) * 8(hours/day) = person/hour energy/capita = energy/person/hour $/hour := $/person/hour energy/person/hour = $/person/hour energy = $ Seriously, you could not do that yourself? As to your second paragraph - someone is paying for those people. You are basically shifting the energy cost of your free software program onto the energy cost of whatever they are doing for money. Which is exactly right. People will do _something_ with their free time, and the energy cost of that item, should be, and is 0. Since if they did not do one thing, they would do another. But if they got paid less, they would do less. So whoever pays them is the one responsible for their energy usage. > I think it makes sense to look at the energy used to produce a product without looking at how much the product costs" Except that they are the same thing. Let me shift a question to you: Which energy costs of manufacturing will you include, and which will you exclude? On a previous post you excluded materials and wages. I can sort of understand wages, but why exclude energy cost of materials? > Your model says that we don't need an energy yield measure for wind turbines - because energy yield is the same as return on investment. Correct. You keep coming up with these points that are totally correct. So I think you understand me very well (despite the silly thing about capita and $/hour).

by jsrn 17y ago

ars 17y ago

Energy is measured in dollars, not just in joules, so yes, energy and cost are equivalent. > That is a factor for cost, but not the only factor. Actually, yes it is. It's the only factor. Name any other factors, and I'll show you how each one actually boils down the to the energy used for it. > By this argument, a product takes more energy to produce if the workers negotiate a better wage - because after work, they spend their extra money on something that costs energy to make. Correct. Real world example: Americans use a lot more energy per capita then Chinese. Americans earn a lot more per hour then Chinese. Check if you like, in every area $/h = energy/capita > A product made by unpaid volunteers takes far less energy to produce than an equivalent product made by paid workers. Also correct. Think of a dorm with lots of volunteers. It costs far less energy to house and feed them than 10 separate houses. Since they have no money, they buy nothing. Since they buy nothing, no one spends energy making things for them. An important note: Just because it uses less energy doesn't mean it's better! A slave uses very little energy, but is obviously bad.

ars 17y ago
If someone has time, perhaps they could take the data from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_con... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GNI_(PPP)_per_capita http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GNI_(PPP)_... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomin... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GNI_(nominal)_per_capita http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GNI_(nomin... And see how well they correlate.
jsrn 17y ago
> Check if you like, in every area $/h = energy/capita Even if one does as you do (i.e., measure energy in dollars) I smell a unit mismatch: left side of your "equation": dollars per hour right side of your "equation": dollars per human which would only make sense if you also show that 1 human = 1 hour... perhaps I should stop now. But: > Think of a dorm with lots of volunteers. It costs far less energy to house and feed them than 10 separate houses. yeah, but consider 10 volunteers who live in their own separate houses, eat lots of high caloric food and write a free software program that I use. Cost for me to get the free software program: ca. 0$. Energy used by our 10 independently housed volunteer programmers to create it? I say: Far more than zero. I guess we should just agree to disagree here: I think it makes sense to look at the energy used to produce a product without looking at how much the product costs - the measure "energy yield" for products like wind turbines makes sense in my understanding. Your model says that we don't need an energy yield measure for wind turbines - because energy yield is the same as return on investment.
- ars 17y ago
  > Even if one does as you do (i.e., measure energy in dollars) I smell a unit mismatch: left side of your "equation": dollars per hour right side of your "equation": dollars per human > which would only make sense if you also show that 1 human = 1 hour... perhaps I should stop now. Come on, I thought you would do that yourself. Fine: capita := person/year person/year * 260(work days/year) * 8(hours/day) = person/hour energy/capita = energy/person/hour $/hour := $/person/hour energy/person/hour = $/person/hour energy = $ Seriously, you could not do that yourself? As to your second paragraph - someone is paying for those people. You are basically shifting the energy cost of your free software program onto the energy cost of whatever they are doing for money. Which is exactly right. People will do _something_ with their free time, and the energy cost of that item, should be, and is 0. Since if they did not do one thing, they would do another. But if they got paid less, they would do less. So whoever pays them is the one responsible for their energy usage. > I think it makes sense to look at the energy used to produce a product without looking at how much the product costs" Except that they are the same thing. Let me shift a question to you: Which energy costs of manufacturing will you include, and which will you exclude? On a previous post you excluded materials and wages. I can sort of understand wages, but why exclude energy cost of materials? > Your model says that we don't need an energy yield measure for wind turbines - because energy yield is the same as return on investment. Correct. You keep coming up with these points that are totally correct. So I think you understand me very well (despite the silly thing about capita and $/hour).