Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Step1 who wrote (7426)	8/19/2001 10:58:16 PM
From: Cogito Ergo Sum	Respond to of 74559

not wanting to make it into a debate Why not ? We debate everything else here LOL. and eventually recycling/disposal costs at the end of the life cycle of the Good point. Aside from that we figured out it saves us money, and greatly improves our quality of life. We actually just bought it a couple of months ago. Just the water savings alone is huge. The appliance should last 10 years + (buy quality always as it's cheaper in the long run). Hopefully by then metal and plastic recycling will be even better for appliance disposal. (Assuming you mean environmental cost of disposal ?) We already cut our garbage down by at least 60% by recycling and composting. And now for something pertinent to the thread header unless it's been posted ? Message 16231127 regards Kastel

To: Step1 who wrote (7426)	8/19/2001 11:12:12 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

<You have to consider the total cost, and that includes the cost of getting the raw materials, manufacturing, transportation, installation, and eventually recycling/disposal costs at the end of the life cycle of the appliance to really be able to tell if the dishwasher actually saves energy and is therefore environmentally friendly... On an operational basis, yes it may be more efficient, all things considered, maybe not. > Excellent point Step1. I didn't want to make it complex but the factories and inputs required to produce extra water, electricity, detergent, food, fuel and the array of other requirements to operate the extravagant, inefficient, 'wash by hand' system are enormous. Imagine the energy input to produce just the detergent - chemical factories are huge and have huge energy and material inputs. Then look at the extra resources required to keep CB operating while she goofs around handwashing dishes [food, fuel, water, electricity, car depreciation, house depreciation] ... humans are very expensive to maintain. That's why they are being replaced by more efficient, cheaper, less energy-demanding machines [and have been since the industrial revolution]. Unfortunately, energy balances, which were fashionable in the early 1980s to measure 'energy inputs' are absurdly complex and in fact can't be done. The most realistic way to measure the value is to use the traditional unit of economic activity 'dollars'. So, CB should simply do what she finds most suitable to herself. She should not second guess the upstream and downstream effects because that is impossible. If there are pollution costs, then it's up to governments to identify those and penalize by taxation or other controls the detergent, dishwasher, or other suppliers of the pollutant. That might be by water or waste water charges. Impulsive shoppers are not economically useful unless their purchases have some value to them. Simply buying and then throwing it away is a total waste of economic resources and is similar to CB's 'save the world by military spending and war'. Mindless people do think war [and mindless shopping] is economically productive. With luck, they will be the first killed. Mqurice PS: Technically, I suppose mindless shopping and mindless working is economically productive, [in GNP], but the demand for Prozac will go up! It's not a way of creating true wealth.