Vanagon EuroVan
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (June 2010, week 2)Back to main VANAGON pageJoin or leave VANAGON (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:   Thu, 10 Jun 2010 12:29:40 -0400
Reply-To:   David Beierl <dbeierl@ATTGLOBAL.NET>
Sender:   Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:   David Beierl <dbeierl@ATTGLOBAL.NET>
Subject:   Re: What is camping anyway?
Comments:   To: mcneely4@cox.net
In-Reply-To:   <20100610115831.Q6ERI.687253.imail@eastrmwml37>
Content-Type:   text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 11:58 AM 6/10/2010, mcneely4@cox.net wrote: >David, thanks for catching and owning up to your own error ;-).

That's the engineering version of "he has to be right." I have awful trouble getting shrinks to understand the difference since that's psycho-jargon as well in the sense "he has to be perceived to be right."

> Of course, for the comparisons to be complete and properly > related to the point in question, one would need to calculate total > life cycle energy use, not just energy use by the unit itself.

This is of course true, and there are more highly machined parts in an A/C than in your average heater.

> Consider transportation energy use for the propane, and > transmission loss for the electricity for example.

I counted that as a wash, although I strongly suspect that the numbers favor electricity. Once you start moving things in trucks the costs go up pretty quick. Average line losses in the US power grid were about 6.5% in '07.

> Efficiency of the power plant itself would need to be taken into account.

I allowed for 30% plant efficiency. That's deliberately ignoring co-generation schemes which use the turbine exhaust heat in lower-grade applications, so I think that's at least fair.

> It is a complicated matter. DMc

Agreed. But I think it merits serious thought about uncritically accepting statements about relative eco-footprints of all sorts of things. People making those statements often have an ax to grind, and I increasingly believe that there's a moral subtext involved -- until it's considered equally immoral to heat your house/car/whatever higher than say 50F in the winter, I view with suspicion moral claims against cooling the same house. I also think there's a certain amount of posturing going on. I read with some astonishment a couple years ago the results of a poll in which an extraordinary number -- well over half -- of Prius owners agreed with the statement that a primary reason for buying the vehicle was to give the ^appearance* of being "green (not suggesting that you're one of them). I find this distressing in many ways.

Yours, David


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main VANAGON page

Please note - During the past 17 years of operation, several gigabytes of Vanagon mail messages have been archived. Searching the entire collection will take up to five minutes to complete. Please be patient!


Return to the archives @ gerry.vanagon.com


The vanagon mailing list archives are copyright (c) 1994-2011, and may not be reproduced without the express written permission of the list administrators. Posting messages to this mailing list grants a license to the mailing list administrators to reproduce the message in a compilation, either printed or electronic. All compilations will be not-for-profit, with any excess proceeds going to the Vanagon mailing list.

Any profits from list compilations go exclusively towards the management and operation of the Vanagon mailing list and vanagon mailing list web site.