Seriously thoughtful Contemplating the Onuissance

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

From the source:
Onus \n (ca.1640): Obligation; Responsibility.

Onuissance \ onn-uh-sonns\ n (ca.2280): Historic period known as The Age of Responsibility.

A word (yes, made up by the author--me) to suggest a future Renaissance based on ecologic sensibility and responsibility.



They only appear to be richest... because we have purchased everything on debt, and the day the bill comes due, it will be quite obvious how badly we have been fooling ourselves...

And the rest of the world built up equivalent credit balances. (see double-entry bookkeeping.) Look at the improvement of life throughout Asia in the period 1980-2000 (even including the 1997 crisis). Look at the improvement in India, in South Africa, even South America. Those aren't lives?

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

See? Told you someone would call me a communist.
.

Well, let's see. Control how people live by govenment rules? Check. Limit debate? Check. Still need govenrment control of all communication and centralized planning...

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

We tried that 30 years ago. People largely did nothing, and bought SUVs.

Maybe they like SUV's....Besides, as I already pointed out, we've dropped the cost of solar by a factor of 250 times in forty years, doesn't that count as being innovators?

The times, they are a changin'. But it's not a light switch, and we're not quite there. I believe that when the economics get there, people will change over. Me personally, I'm a peak oil person. But as oil rises, people will change over because the economics encourage it, not because of some government dikta.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

But, yes, the cigarette thing was just wishful thinking.

But, nonetheless, it's one which many countries have adopted, with considerable success. It both gives people an incentive to give up smoking and simultaneously punishes those who choose to continue, despite knowing the issues involved in doing so.

[LazyScot]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

If you mean me: I'm not trying to attack Americans. I'm trying to figure out a way to get Americans to act responsibly, despite the attacks I receive (from my fellow Americans) for attempting to do so.

I stand corrected; apologies.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Too true. I was convinced decades ago that the real strategy by Detroit upper management was to milk the industry and the public dry with gas-guzzling low-cost-high-profit SUVs, then just before the bottom fell out, take their nice big pensions and jet to their personal islands in the Caribbean for an early retirement. Even now, GM CEO Rick Wagoner is laughing all the way to the bank...

But in this case, sacking the upper management is better than they deserve: As they were all in collusion on the plot, they should all have been fined, and many of them should have been jailed, for openly operating against the best wishes and needs of the American public, the American government, and the Constitution (which they repeatedly bribed--ahem, lobbied--their way into manipulating to their own ends).

Agreed, but most of the people in the company, and those it subcontracts to, can (and I suspect want to) be part of the solution. Somehow they need to all be taken along. My hope was/is that the "grand challenge" approach is the easiest way to build the spirit and give the execs the get out of jail free card (yes, I know the execs are effectively holding the workforce to ransom). And if the country can be made to feel patrotic (I hope the US views that word better than I do; it is intended to be interpreted positively) about being involved in this, even if only by buying these "grand challenge" vehicles over other, less efficient alternatives, all to the good.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

How 'bout this: Larger, heavier vehicles create more wear and tear on highways, requiring greater funds (and taxes) to keep repaired; their greater size lowers traffic visibility around them, making roads less safe for other drivers; and they take up more space on the roads, creating more traffic simply by virtue of their sheer bulk. So even a 1000mpg SUV is worse than a 1000mpg car.

I don't see why they have to generate more wear and tear (which some people will view as good since it employs repair crews). Surely SUVs can be designed to be lighter or whatever to make them less damaging (extra axles; different tyres?). That's part of the challenge of the 1000mpg SUV. And as had been mentioned some people do need such vehicles, so why not make them are efficient as we can, accepting that some males need such a vehicle to offset their insecurities.

I agree they take up more bulk on the road, but given the separations needed between cars, the size difference is less ("only a fool breaks the two second rule" as I was taught). Or develop into them ability to drive closer more safely (e.g. chaining of breaking, etc.). The whole point is that it's a challenge....

As an aside, does the US have something like the European Union Enery Label?

[pilotbob]

@steve Bigger cars are already taxed more due to the increased wear and tear on infrastructure.

BOb

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I think, Ralph, with the greatest respect, that the very real issue of "global warming" is too important to take that attitude to. You and I will probably be dead before anything too catastrophic happens, but I really don't want to leave a crisis awaiting my grandchildren.

Harry, I was born in a top 10 target during Mutually Assured Destruction. I came of age in the OPEC/We're running out of resources/Survivalist era. I listened to the Nuclear Winter arguments (Solve global warming by a few clean nukes in the Sahara? Hmm...). Nowadays, it's the world is coming to an end due to Global Warming. Sorry, I've heard endless tales of catastrophy "if we didn't do something" (usually couched as some version of give up your freedom/lifestyle/future for somebody else's fears). Well, we "didn't do something" over and over and the world didn't come to an end. It just got more affluent. I'm sorry, but I'm not buying catastrophy now. Maybe the wolf is really coming, but I'm not even certain about that. And certainly not going to give up my lifestyle for other people's fears.

[Lady Blue]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Yes, I get what you are saying. But, sin taxes are very well known and common.

But, yes, the cigarette thing was just wishful thinking.
BOb

On April 1st the federal cigarette tax was increased by 62 cents which brought the federal tax on a single pack of cigarettes to over $1. So it's not really wishful thinking. I think federal and state taxes on cigarettes is the majority of the total cost. So yes, sin taxes are becoming more and more common. Totally unfair, but common.

Originally Posted by HarryT

But, nonetheless, it's one which many countries have adopted, with considerable success. It both gives people an incentive to give up smoking and simultaneously punishes those who choose to continue, despite knowing the issues involved in doing so.

Why is it acceptable to punish those who choose to continue smoking?

If that is acceptable, then we need to punish those who do all manner of other things that threaten, or may threaten, the safety, health, well being, or personal space of each and every one of us.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Lady Blue

Why is it acceptable to punish those who choose to continue smoking?

Because they are not only damaging themselves (which they have a perfect right to do, of course), but also everyone around them. The dangers of "passive smoking" are well established.

[philpalm]

Even though I live on the West Coast, I don't think the rise of the Ocean will effect me directly. However GW folks claim that Katrina damage is caused by GW, what more warning do people need?

How about the rash of Volcanic eruptions? That would be very hard to prove that they are caused by GW. And if they proved it would anyone take more specific action?

Yes non-scientific people will tend to ignore Scientist (though they did heed the warning of the thining of the Ozone layer). I suppose Scientist should ignore those non-scientific people or think of new ways to brainwash them.

------------------------------------
Disclaimer: I install bathroom lights with dimmers (many people can't stand the CFL at night because they are too bright). I ride an electric scooter and don't drive IC cars. I am not a writer but more of a reader/commenter.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

To the consumer, it doesn't. That's why, I think, the EU's method of doing it - by passing legislation to ban the sale of incandscent lightbulbs - is, I think, the only way that you're going to make people change.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

@Xenphon: So leave my 1 bulb because it does so little damage? I submit that if it was the only bulb out there, fine. But in fact, it has millions of friends, and the damage is cumulative... As I said, everyone has an excuse to slack off somewhere. Problem is, we all end up slacking off... and look where we are...

Actually, I was attempting what I thought would be a straight-forward economic argument. Remember the following useful and well proven concepts: time-value of money, time required to pay back investment, value of energy/pollution saved given when the savings happens.

With those concepts in mind, here's the questions that lead to the economic argument:

• Given the current usage of that specific light-bulb, what is the time needed to pay back investing in a more expensive bulb?
• What fraction of my total electric usage is represented by the attic bulb, and what fraction is represented by the other lights where I might place a CFL instead?
• If I spend $5 on a CFL for my attic, does that reduce my ability to spend $5 on a CFL that would go in a more heavily used fixture?

Oh yeah, a further piece of data about that bulb -- it's an old-fashioned bulb of a size and shape I haven't seen in any store in my memory (which suggests that it was installed before the mid-60s). It appears to be roughly a 100W bulb, but it's difficult to tell, because it isn't marked (I just looked last night!).

If I estimate the life of such a bulb at 1000 hours usage (arbitrary, probably too high, but typical of the bulbs I might buy to replace it now), we see that it will consume 100KWh over its entire service life. That's about $10 worth of electricity (in back-of-the-envelope numbers). Now, even though I estimate that it is likely to be more than 40 years old, let's use the 20 years I've lived in the house as a baseline (that is, we're assuming it burns out this evening after a total lifespan of 20 years). We'll also assume that the use of electricity (and the price of electricity!) is evenly spread across the entire period -- 50 cents of electricity each year.

Note that this set of assumptions boils down to using the attic light for 50 hours per year; in reality I probably haven't used it as much as 50 hours over the entire 20 years we've been in the house! But never mind, we'll run with it.

More facts: a comparable CFL costs $5 at my local big-box store (actually a bit less, but we're using round numbers to make the calculations easy), and consumes 28W for the same light output. We'll call that 25W for simplicity. A new 100W incandescent costs $1 (actually rather less, but... round numbers!)

First we'll calculate the payback period for a CFL in the attic (Q1 above):
So if I install a CFL in the attic I spend $5 today, and gain back $0.375 each year into the future. If I install another 100W incandescent, I spend $1 today and gain back nothing each year. Without considering the time value of money, the payback period for putting a CFL in my attic is...
Ten years eight months.

Normal financial estimation says that (low-risk) investment paybacks under 3 years are "no-brainers." Jump on the opportunity right away.
Paybacks under 7 or 8 years are worth investigating; paybacks over 8 years are questionable. Remember, this is BotE estimation for simple stuff, not questions of "corporate strategy" or long-term R&D. Simple stuff, like light-bulbs and insulation, and vehicle purchases.

If we estimate the time value of money using a 3% deflator, we would say that this years savings is worth $0.375 today, next year's saving is worth $0.36, and the final (10th) year's savings is worth $0.28. This adds another couple of years to the payback period.

BotE says not to put a CFL in the attic... at this time!

Now let's look at Q2: Is there some other bulb in the house I might replace with a CFL instead of the attic bulb?

Answer:

Sure. I have some closets whose lights are used substantially more than the attic light. I probably replace their bulbs every 3rd or 4th year. Assuming, once again, 1000-hour 100W bulbs (for simplicity) and the same costs as above, I'm looking at $10 in electricity spread over 3 or 4 years. Using 4 years as the number, BotE says that payback period is right around 2 years. Time to replace those bulbs, even if they haven't burned out yet!
(Good thing I already did...)

Now for Q3:
Even assuming it costs $0.50 per year, that attic bulb is insignificant in my total electricity usage picture. If I want to invest $5 ($4, really due to the up-front price-difference in bulb cost) in reduced usage, I should put the money where it will make a larger difference. Specifically, that attic bulb is certainly the very last one that I should consider replacing. Every other light in the house sees substantially more use.

Before spending extra money replacing that particular bulb, I should first spend money on:

• High-efficiency bulbs everywhere else in the house.
• Making sure that wall-wart transformers that are plugged in to the wall are energized only when the device they power is active, and not at any other time.
• A more efficient refrigerator!
• A more efficient fan on my furnace.
• A more efficient air-conditioner (if I use one at all, which I mostly don't).
• A very very long list of other items that matter more.

In fact, the list of items that matter more than the attic light is so long that I cannot afford to do them all in any one year. Thus, any extra money I spend on the attic light really does reduce my ability to deploy that money on solving a more important problem with greater impact on energy usage and the environment. Really!

So, what I believe I have shown above is that efficient lights aren't the right solution for rarely used fixtures, unless and until all the higher-benefit/shorter-pay-back problems are addressed first.

To connect back to the original discussion:
Don't legislate lower efficiency things out of existence! Instead, educate people about the choices they are making. You'd be surprised what response you get when you point out that folks are unthinkingly leaving money on the table (or worse, sending it to "the big bad utility company!") when they could have used it for something they wanted more but couldn't afford.

I submit that Steve's propose Onuissance is better served through education than legislation in cases like this.

Xenophon

[Lady Blue]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Because they are not only damaging themselves (which they have a perfect right to do, of course), but also everyone around them. The dangers of "passive smoking" are well established.

I understand your point, but I've never been forced to be around people who smoke. I have a choice not to be.

Vehicle emissions are an entirely different story. People who cough in your face, use the restroom without washing their hands afterwards, and have a miriad of other bad personal habits (that are often unseen/unknown to me) are of a greater danger to me and my welfare than any smoker. People who drink alcohol are a greater threat to my welfare, especially if I can't avoid them or the danger they can be to me unless I see a drink in their hand.

As long as smoking is legal, I see no cause to punish smokers any more than we should punish anyone for doing anything that is perfectly legal, and wihin their rights to do, no matter how repulsive it might be to us personally.

[vivaldirules]

Electrical power was deregulated in Texas several years ago and you can purchase it from one of several different providers. Of course, the electricity to your home comes from the same grid as everyone else but the point is that you pay your provider to ensure that an equivalent amount of power that you use gets put onto the grid. I pay for a plan which is "100% wind" which costs a mere 3.3% more than the most common provider (which comes mostly from coal and natural gas plants). That's almost no difference at all (less than $10 per month for me) and yet there are very few subscribers here who use it. I would love to see the majority of the people here sign up for it. We might be able to shut down some coal plants that way. But the bottom line is that no one cares. Or they don't know enough to care.

[Xenophon]

Similar deals are available here in PA. Sadly, no-one offers an "all nuclear" option.

Xenophon

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

Actually, I was attempting what I thought would be a straight-forward economic argument. Remember the following useful and well proven concepts: time-value of money, time required to pay back investment, value of energy/pollution saved given when the savings happens.

With those concepts in mind, here's the questions that lead to the economic argument...

Pass! Yes, yes, it will cost YOU more. But it will use less power, so the PLANET will be better off! EOL

Originally Posted by Xenophon

I submit that Steve's propose Onuissance is better served through education than legislation in cases like this.

Tell that to Ralph.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Pass! Yes, yes, it will cost YOU more. But it will use less power, so the PLANET will be better off! EOL
[SNIP]

But Steve: The PLANET would benefit more if I spent the $4 difference on a more important problem.

Like a more-frequently-used light-bulb. Or a more-efficient fridge or A/C, or any of a zillion other things. And because the list of things to improve is so long that I can't do them all, this is a case involving substitution, not addition.

So, am I more responsible if I fix the trivial (but low-priority) thing first? Or am I more responsible if I fix something with faster payback first?

Note: I'm not suggesting that the lightbulb should be incandescent forever! I'm asking "where should I start?"

I presume that you agree that I should fix the high-pay-off things first. We can argue later about whether that payoff is in terms of $ or carbon or air-pollution... but when we're talking about electricity (and reducing usage thereof), KWh per month (or year, or whatever) work just fine as a proxy for any of those benefits.

I argue that the responsible choice is to upgrade that rarely used bulb only when either (a) the cost difference drops to $1 or so (raising its priority on the list), or (b) I've already made as many of the higher-priority changes as possible.
And no sooner.

The issue here isn't whether or not to reduce usage. It's "how to decide where to deploy time/effort/money etc., given that we don't have enough time/effort/money to fix all the problems right now." And that sort of question is routinely answered by businessmen, economists, engineers, etc. And it's best approached in much the fashion I laid out above.

Are we on the same page in terms of this message?

Xenophon

P.S. I realize that I dumped a screenful of text at you. It's written at that length to expose all the reasoning. But BotE-wise, that's a 30-second calculation.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Tell that to Ralph.

I rather expect that Ralph Sir Edward will look at my analysis and say:

There's a bunch of low-hanging fruit that are "no-regrets"-style changes. Of course we should all make those, it's just common sense.

For example, if your refrigerator is more than 10 years old, it's probably* financially sensible to buy a newer, more efficient model -- even if you need to take out a loan to do so!

Xenophon

*A very few of the most efficient models from 10 years ago might not make sense to replace. Replacing any other refrigerator of that vintage pays off in 4 years or less. That's a "no regrets" change. You win, whether global warming is a problem or not. There're plenty more items like that out there. Spread the word!