 Check out the bookstore at IRBS.com |
|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
Subject: Re: [worldcruising] Re: Watermaker
From: Tom O'Meara (LLL@XXX.XXX)
Date: Tue Sep 19 2000 - 18:08:15 EDT
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9068/8/_/508787/_/969401300/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
At 04:51 PM 9/18/00 -0700, Lew takes pen in hand and writes:
>Again, regardless of the replacement energy system chosen, "There ain't
>no free lunch".
Wow...Seems I've heard that somewhere before... let's see...
>More years ago than I will admit, took a class in fluid mechanics as an
>undergraduate engineering student.
>
>We were given a project. Design a water delivery system to deliver water
>to a city.
Great... I loved those exercises too...
>The challenge was to design the lowest cost water delivery system over a
>about a 30 year period.
>
>Pretty basic engineering problem.
Absolutly. Very basic. Can easily be calculated to the nearest one dollar
bill BUT, your problem spanned 30 years, quite a long time relatively
speaking, as most of these hypothetical problems do.
You also, as students are wont to do in these exercises, merrily skip over
the part about the source of the money to pay for the technology. What if
the city does not have the revenue to buy the very best RIGHT NOW but DOES
need the water RIGHT NOW?
Carrying on over this small speedbump though... the problem with applying
any of the remainder of the exercise (which I mostly snipped out) is that...
Ta Da! You are not going to be here 30 years from now to worry about it.
Hate to break the news Lew, but there ain't many 80 year olds out there
crossing oceans. When outfitting for a voyage, a more reasonable equipment
life/usage ratio must be employed than the hypothetical "30 years".
So, if you are cosseting cruising dollars, try another fun "college days"
exercise. Except this time, use the one taught in Economics 101. It
involves the determination of a products "util" value and goes something
like this...
A hamburger is extremely valuable to a starving man. The hamburger is said
to possess a high "util" value. OK, the guy buys a few and is now not so
hungry any more. Offer him another Big Mac. Now, the thing has a much
lower "util" value and is worth less.
Now offer him another.. and another... etc. In our "college days" example,
the util value can actually turn negative and you end up stuffing those Big
Macs down his throat by force. Bloody minded lot, those Economices
majors...:)
Still the same hamburger, just not worth nearly as much to the consumer.
Same with always buying at the pointy end of the technology spectrum,
always insisting upon the "most efficient" device in its field regardless
of cost, regardless of its util value.
Your advice is a wonderful tenant to hold dear if you are a city buying a
new water system. I also would personally advise all city Fathers to cling
to it with all their political little hearts.
However, the "util" value of those devices only become a factor after a
long time passes, sometimes a surprisingly long time. Ergo, your "30 year"
example above. :)
Now, Mom & Pop cruiser aren't going to be around worrying about their
watermaker 30 years from now. If initial outlay is a factor (and it almost
ALWAYS is), then they would be better off with a lower tech, cheaper
device. Something one or two removes from the 'pointy end' of the
technology spear.
Given the state of technology and fuel/solar cost RIGHT NOW, I will repeat...
"Got a decent battery bank and charging system? Save the bucks and go with
the Village Marine.
Got limited amps and no way to replace'em? Spend the extra money and get a
Spectra."
>The only way for low cost inefficient devices to win is to never turn
>them on.
Sorry, this is an incorrect oversimplification.
It only works if two factors converge exactly:
1. The life span of the more expensive technology is great enough to
offset the higher costs (see your own water pipe example)
AND
2. The life span of the user is long enough to see a reasonable benefit.
Why isn't every home in the good 'ol USA solar powered, eh?
Fair Winds,
Tom
=====================================
To Unsubscribe, send an email to: worldcruising-unsubscribe@onelist.com
Take this month's Worldcruising survey: http://www.onelist.com/surveycenter/worldcruising
WORLDCRUISING ARCHIVES:
http://www.onelist.com/viewarchive.cgi?listname=worldcruising
=====================================
|