Sometimes it just amazes me, although by now I figured I would've been used to it. A nice example is something like a fridge, staple of the modern American household. Every time it's opened, cold air spills out, which results in more work done by the compressor to keep everything cool, and more electricity consumed. How much? Well... According to a poster on another board, quite a bit.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') went ahead and tried this. I built a thermostat, mostly out of surplus parts I had sitting around. It's an all-analog design, similar to the one in the first article, and it was just intended to be a one-off thing. Then I bought a 9 cubic foot Whirlpool chest freezer for $300. It's bigger than what I was planning on, but it fit in the space very well and came with two baskets. Under one of the baskets, I zip-tied the temp sensor and fan (set to turn on when the fridge does). So I could return the freezer to stock in seconds.
It's certainly efficient. I had it set to turn on at 36 F, with a two degree drop, and it runs for about 6 minutes every hour. The killawatt says about 0.25 kwh/day, or 20 times less than my old fridge.
PeakOil is You
The financial impact of inefficiency.
First unread post • 8 posts
• Page 1 of 1
The financial impact of inefficiency.
by yesplease » Fri 23 Mar 2007, 11:45:10
If the previous fridge used 5kwh/day, or ~150kwh/month, then it's cost was ~$15 per month, or ~$180 per year. At the very least it'll pay itself off in a year and a half. Now, for most people, iirc 10 cents per kwh is cheap, so they may end up saving ~$240-360 per year assuming they are paying ~15-20 cents per kwh and are still in their first alloted tier. If I go to the second, it would be ~$480-720, and I'd rather not talk about the third tier.
So, it's not like we have any want for resources to do useful work. We're using them up as fast as possible imo. Why are we doing this? In the case of a fridge, it means billions of dollars in additional profits per year. A little bit from everyone is a lot of coin. Waste generates profit. Not for the majority, but for the minority that owns said resources and distribution methods. I suppose the best question for the average person is, what do you want to do with your money?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
-
yesplease - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 3765
- Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Re: The financial impact of inefficiency.
by steam_cannon » Fri 23 Mar 2007, 15:04:40
Inefficiency is entertainment and convenience, the things people expect from modern life. And yes inefficiency is profit for companies. An electric toothbrush for example, wastes much more then a fixed bristle brush... Beany Babies, usesless collector junk (unless used for target practice). But people chose junk if it is offered because they like inefficiency.
This open air market is efficient. Local produce, low building cost, no electric costs, evaporative refrigeration...
Would Joe Sixpack go to this market if there was a Walmart? No, Joe hates efficiency! Joe wants circulars printed on shiny paper advertising specials! Joe wants food that traveled 6000 miles, air conditioning in the summer and sweltering heat in the winter, big open freezers running constantly to keep food cool and bigger parking spaces!
Sharing a refrigerator with your neighbor = pain.
Multi generation household = pain!
To Joe Sixpack efficiency = pain.
And hey Joe, if you are listening "peak oil" = Pain!
It is true that we can do a lot to be more efficient, multi generation households, sharing, wanting less, doing less... But very few people would willingly accept such solutions. People don't want to think about pain, hence peak denial...
This open air market is efficient. Local produce, low building cost, no electric costs, evaporative refrigeration...
Would Joe Sixpack go to this market if there was a Walmart? No, Joe hates efficiency! Joe wants circulars printed on shiny paper advertising specials! Joe wants food that traveled 6000 miles, air conditioning in the summer and sweltering heat in the winter, big open freezers running constantly to keep food cool and bigger parking spaces!
Sharing a refrigerator with your neighbor = pain.
Multi generation household = pain!
To Joe Sixpack efficiency = pain.
And hey Joe, if you are listening "peak oil" = Pain!
It is true that we can do a lot to be more efficient, multi generation households, sharing, wanting less, doing less... But very few people would willingly accept such solutions. People don't want to think about pain, hence peak denial...
-
steam_cannon - Expert
- Posts: 2859
- Joined: Thu 28 Dec 2006, 04:00:00
- Location: MA
Re: The financial impact of inefficiency.
by steam_cannon » Fri 23 Mar 2007, 16:10:27
Inefficiency - Living Large
Efficiency - Slow Sustainable Living
Probable result of achieving greater efficiency?
Less economic activity.
Efficiency - Slow Sustainable Living
Probable result of achieving greater efficiency?
Less economic activity.
-
steam_cannon - Expert
- Posts: 2859
- Joined: Thu 28 Dec 2006, 04:00:00
- Location: MA
Re: The financial impact of inefficiency.
by steam_cannon » Fri 23 Mar 2007, 17:04:16
Re: The financial impact of inefficiency.
Human Resource Management is another scientific approach to maximizing efficiency. Two companies merge and fire 1/3 of their staff... The poster started by talking about mechanical efficiency but resource distribution, jobs for people, food distribution - these are also elements of efficiency.
In our current inefficient system, lots of table scraps fall to the dogs below, metaphorically speaking. That will change as there are less available resources. Meaning high unemployment and large scale social problems.
Of course we will be able to increase our mechanical efficiency to some extent, like what the poster mentioned buying more efficient refrigerators... There are a lot of things that we can do, but we are not going to do what we used to do.
Human Resource Management is another scientific approach to maximizing efficiency. Two companies merge and fire 1/3 of their staff... The poster started by talking about mechanical efficiency but resource distribution, jobs for people, food distribution - these are also elements of efficiency.
In our current inefficient system, lots of table scraps fall to the dogs below, metaphorically speaking. That will change as there are less available resources. Meaning high unemployment and large scale social problems.
Of course we will be able to increase our mechanical efficiency to some extent, like what the poster mentioned buying more efficient refrigerators... There are a lot of things that we can do, but we are not going to do what we used to do.
-
steam_cannon - Expert
- Posts: 2859
- Joined: Thu 28 Dec 2006, 04:00:00
- Location: MA
Re: The financial impact of inefficiency.
by The_Toecutter » Sat 24 Mar 2007, 01:27:53
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Efficiency - Slow Sustainable Living
Efficiency - can also equal Fast, Sustainable, High Living Standards
All depends on how we address it. It will be impossible for a middle class with today's living standards to continue to sustainably exist if members of today's parasitic power elite continue to consume orders of magnitude more resources than even your average American.
The average world GDP per capita is about $9,000/year(around half that is sustainable if biodiversity is to be maintained). This is about the limit that the planet can sustain. If we had access to 100+ mpg cars(possible by addressing aerodynamics and adding a diesel engine running on B100 without reducing size, without reducing performance, without significantly increasing cost), long range electric cars(NiMH EVs can achieve cost parity with gas cars at under $1.30/gal gas), used wind energy and hemp biomass to their limits in those areas that don't severely encroach further onto the environment, made our buildings much more efficient, built products to last instead of to be disposable(eg. desiging computers and TVs to last 20+ years instead of 5), used more efficient lighting, widespread availability of mass transit, used hemp in place of timber and cotton, ended all wasteful corporate welfare and defense spending, stopped subsidizing oil use, we could actually make that small amount of money do a hell of a lot.
We don't have to live like serfs to achieve sustainability, but in order to achieve that sustainability without living like serfs, the power elite class has got to go. They simply have too much of the pie and there isn't enough to go around for everyone else. This means no more big government, no more big business, no more stuopid oil wars. They suck up too much of our money. We need a more even distribution of income earning potential and we need greatly reduced taxes.
To put things in perspective, the average ecological footprint worldwide is 2.4 hectares per person. The wealthiest 2.5% of the world's population account for 80% of the world's current ecological footprint, needing an average of 13 hectares per person. The top one percent wealthiest need about 25 hectares per person. The average American consumes about 9 hectares per person. By increasing efficiency, we could cut the ecological footprint of the average American down to about 4 hectares per person without a huge living standard reduction(we'd live slightly better than the Western Europeans of today if everything was managed properly), This means Americans could have access to automobiles(albeit very efficient ones), electronics, and an abundance of food, but with increased efficiency, it would be much cheaper and they wouldn't need to work as much to have a good living standard, freeing up jobs for others. But for this to happen, less of that income has to go to taxes and profit margins. Those in impoversished countries would at least have enough to eat if everything was done right, and this reduction of poverty would lead to an eventual population decline so the population could be brought out of overshoot soon enough to avoid most of the massive dieoff.
Will that happen? Probably not. The Mad Max scenario will make the most money for the wealthiest among us, and they're currently calling the shots. Instead of sustainability, they want oil wars. Instead of more even use of resources, they'd rather most of the world's population to not have enough to get by. This will lead to war, famine, diesease, and dieoff.
Last edited by The_Toecutter on Wed 05 Mar 2008, 17:49:00, edited 1 time in total.
The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson
-
The_Toecutter - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2142
- Joined: Sat 18 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Re: The financial impact of inefficiency.
by steam_cannon » Tue 27 Mar 2007, 00:52:01
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Toecutter', '
')Efficiency - can also equal Fast, Sustainable, High Living Standards
This means Americans could have access to automobiles(albeit very efficient ones), electronics, and an abundance of food, but with increased efficiency, it would be much cheaper and they wouldn't need to work as much to have a good living standard, freeing up jobs for others. But for this to happen, less of that income has to go to taxes and profit margins. Those in impoversished countries would at least have enough to eat if everything was done right, and this reduction of poverty would lead to an eventual population decline so the population could be brought out of overshoot soon enough to avoid most of the massive dieoff.
')Efficiency - can also equal Fast, Sustainable, High Living Standards
This means Americans could have access to automobiles(albeit very efficient ones), electronics, and an abundance of food, but with increased efficiency, it would be much cheaper and they wouldn't need to work as much to have a good living standard, freeing up jobs for others. But for this to happen, less of that income has to go to taxes and profit margins. Those in impoversished countries would at least have enough to eat if everything was done right, and this reduction of poverty would lead to an eventual population decline so the population could be brought out of overshoot soon enough to avoid most of the massive dieoff.
As someone who does efficiency work, increased efficiency means job cuts, not more vacation time. The problem is growth. Peak oil means the end of economic growth, which is what most of our economy is based on. Sure peak energy/materials means the system will have to be more efficient, but that means less jobs.
Regarding windmills... Well, as they say windmills don't breed windmills. Though a car next to a windmill makes a great picture.
The problem with these wonderful technologies is that they cannot make up for sharp depletion curves and even sharper EROEI. Historically painful shortages have happened in this country before. In 1973 US oil field depletion meant the end of growth for the US for that time. That is until we secured a new river of oil from the world market. Now that river is running dry and we are back in 1972 talking about windmills (again).
Not only is oil running out, but copper for electrical distribution, alloys for steel making, and arable land for biofuel crop production. Lithium is great for batteries and is a common element. But quality deposits are not common.
This is a lithium mine and when a mine is empty it's just a hole in the ground.
Manganese Production (Used for steel making in the US)
Natural gas is following a similar decline curve. World food production presently draws from grain reserves to keep production meeting demand. Fields drying up due to climate change, these are not problems that can be solved by planting more switch grass. Biofuels will be tried to shorten the gas lines, but lines and shortages are historically what happens.
My vision of the future is based on historical observations of The United States, The Former Soviet Union, and happening demand destruction events in the world.
History or the future? It's happened before, just like past talk about windmills in Mother Earth Magazine.
What can we learn from all this:
* Wind, Biofuels production, efficient cars will all become important.
* From our history of metal mining, recycling is going to become more important.
* Eliminating food waste, victory gardens...
* Change happens against peoples will, as in gas lines... That's the rub.
-
steam_cannon - Expert
- Posts: 2859
- Joined: Thu 28 Dec 2006, 04:00:00
- Location: MA
