I balked at transporting each item back to the manufacturer
I think part of our problem here is that we are not thinking about a System costing viewpoint - the costs and energy use for the entire cycle of useful life of the materials involved - and the effect of a change in energy policy.
If Raw-Materials/manufacture/distribute/customer/disposal is of the old type, then each step of energy and materials use is of the 'bad' kind: intense use of raw-materials and loss to the system of the materials at disposal. We also have the energy use consideration: old energy and transportation use (eg oil-based transport and manufacturing fuel). And the cycle for costing is based on the old nature-to-grave model.
A new System recycles the materials indefinitely, in a transport-fuel, energy-generation paradigm that has already been improved by the take back requirement, and by a shift to renewable energy. And the cycle is now cradle-to-cradle: raw materials extraction cost and disposal costs are avoided over many cycles of use (and we don't toss junk when we can't recycle for original use - we down-cycle: (for example)old plastics that can no longer be used for auto bodies get recycled as park benches or place mats or door stops).
I believe when we look at it from a system point of view the economics will show that we have a much more cost-efficient,energy-efficient system - even under the old model of calculating cost/benefit. The difference is that the old system represents a Planet 'winding down' and being used up and heading for extinction; the new system represents one that is sustainable and restorative: where we are not borrowing nearly so heavily from the future. As planetary population increases such 'sustainable manufacture and use' is going to be critical.
A Systems Costing, life-cycle View is important.
Amory lovins points out the fallacy of looking at parts in Nat Cap when building a standard "Energy Efficient" building:
Plans drawn up based on costing of each component according to standard ideas of diminishing returns. So we have R16 walls, R30 roof,double-glazed windows, standard-sized HVAC/Ducting system (high efficiency,of course), etc
But if we look at the home as a system energy use, then the old laws of diminishing return are misleading. For example: R16/R30 envelope might be optimum - if we are only looking at the costing of the envelope. But if we realize that additional insulation may allow us to put in a much smaller HVAC system - smaller units and ducts, then we can "tunnel thru the cost barrier" (as Mr. Lovins says) and now we are on a new optimization curve. Now we have the savings in buying a smaller, less expensive, lower-energy-use HVAC system - and it is the cost savings here that change the standard computations, and allow more energy-saving options to be installed - which again "tunnels thru' another set of Cost-benefit curves....
You get the idea. |
