4 ms·

> 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

by 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).
- jsrn 17y ago
  I think this is the logical flaw in your argument: > But if they got paid less, they would do less. So whoever pays them is the one responsible for their energy usage. Production (and thus energy usage) is not independent of cost (in this you are right), but not identical / interchangable in the sense that if cost goes to zero, nothing is produced and no energy is used. People produced things before there was money - as do animals. You can't seriously say that a pre-money society didn't use energy (or a bird that builds a nest doesn't use energy because no one pays for the bird). > On a previous post you excluded materials and wages. I can sort of understand wages, but why exclude energy cost of materials? ok, that was inprecise. Energy cost of materials should be included, but the rest of the material cost excluded (I know, you say, all cost of materials is energy...). > Let me shift a question to you: Which energy costs of manufacturing will you include, and which will you exclude? All measurable energy to produce something is included - except that I measure the energy in Joule which is more practical to analyze a wind turbine in terms of energy yield. Why do I think it is more practical? Let me also rephrase my questions to you. 1. Let's look at two identical wind turbines T1 and T2, identical environment conditions over 20 years (wind, ...). Over the 20 year span, they produce the same amount of energy. Do you agree? 2. Let's say wind turbine T1 is built in a world where average energy prices remain more or less equal over the 20 years. Wind turbine T2 is built in a world where the energy price is the same at first, but doubles one month after installation for some reason (invent your own) and stays the same afterwards. Now return on investment of T2 is nearly twice as high as the ROI of T1. Do you agree? But in your model (ROI = energy yield) you would say that T2 produces twice as much energy. Do you understand why I think this doesn't make much sense? I mean, I understand you, yes, but in your model you cannot predict the energy yield of a wind turbine without assuming a certain future price for energy - which makes this model impractical. It's good to be able to say "this wind turbine will have an expected energy output of x joules - independent of future energy cost fluctuations".

by jsrn 17y ago

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).

jsrn 17y ago
I think this is the logical flaw in your argument: > But if they got paid less, they would do less. So whoever pays them is the one responsible for their energy usage. Production (and thus energy usage) is not independent of cost (in this you are right), but not identical / interchangable in the sense that if cost goes to zero, nothing is produced and no energy is used. People produced things before there was money - as do animals. You can't seriously say that a pre-money society didn't use energy (or a bird that builds a nest doesn't use energy because no one pays for the bird). > On a previous post you excluded materials and wages. I can sort of understand wages, but why exclude energy cost of materials? ok, that was inprecise. Energy cost of materials should be included, but the rest of the material cost excluded (I know, you say, all cost of materials is energy...). > Let me shift a question to you: Which energy costs of manufacturing will you include, and which will you exclude? All measurable energy to produce something is included - except that I measure the energy in Joule which is more practical to analyze a wind turbine in terms of energy yield. Why do I think it is more practical? Let me also rephrase my questions to you. 1. Let's look at two identical wind turbines T1 and T2, identical environment conditions over 20 years (wind, ...). Over the 20 year span, they produce the same amount of energy. Do you agree? 2. Let's say wind turbine T1 is built in a world where average energy prices remain more or less equal over the 20 years. Wind turbine T2 is built in a world where the energy price is the same at first, but doubles one month after installation for some reason (invent your own) and stays the same afterwards. Now return on investment of T2 is nearly twice as high as the ROI of T1. Do you agree? But in your model (ROI = energy yield) you would say that T2 produces twice as much energy. Do you understand why I think this doesn't make much sense? I mean, I understand you, yes, but in your model you cannot predict the energy yield of a wind turbine without assuming a certain future price for energy - which makes this model impractical. It's good to be able to say "this wind turbine will have an expected energy output of x joules - independent of future energy cost fluctuations".