(I've moved this to offtopic for obvious reasons) Rohit wrote:
> The Lcd process has to use more energy to produce then blowing of a > glass tube. It would also produce much more toxic waste in its > manufacture. That is almost certainly true, but I always like to consider the lifetime costs of an item, not just its manufacturing cost. Lifetime includes the energy we save using it, the lower volume/weight/packaging for shipping, storage and eventually disposal, the lesser footprint on retail shelves and in the office, and so on. Plus any apparent health benefits from greater clarity, lower radiation, less chance of back injury shifting it, etc. And just as importantly: > As for teh going green by installing mini fluros... the biggest crock > of all. The same thing applies (it was actually researched for a UK > magazine by some one there, cant find it right now). I haven't read the article in question. However, if the mini flouros use more energy to make than the other bulbs, then implicitly that should be reflected in their price. And presumably it us - when special subsidies aren't in effect, we pay a lot more for a fluoro than a filament bulb. When the energy difference is accurately reflected in their price, it's an easy decision for each of us to make as to whether the increased price per unit is justified by the savings in electricity for us down the track. And at present, it certainly looks that way. Same goes for LCDs - we pay more for them at present than we do for monitors, and reap savings or benefits longer term. If and when monitors cost more than LCDs, that would likely be because the cost of production has indeed lowered - whether through improved technology or a reduction in other resources used. The real issue (and the one you are stabbing at) is if there are costs which are not properly reflected in prices. I think we can pretty much trust the energy equations, because it's such a direct cost in production of the items concerned. But toxicity is a good example of something that often isn't (what price is X level of toxicity in today's market?) as is carbon contribution -- that is, if you accept that at present there's not much distinction between energy production which has different carbon outputs associated with it. Adding a cap-and-trade system to carbon here will help to give a price signal in that area, and it will be reflected through to all consumers of products affected by the system. [That's why it's not such a big deal that the proposed system doesn't directly involve every single business or producer - if we consume stuff, we WILL pay for the major outputs that are covered by the system]. It irks me that the rest of the world isn't (yet) as ready to do the same thing because, ultimately, it's probably the most efficient way to change our behaviour and choices. Because then I wouldn't have to try and square circles like this one: "is it worth me saving xx units of mainly-hydro electricity at the cost of yy units of coal-fired electricity back when this item was manufactured?" cheers, peter _______________________________________________ NZ Borland Developers Group Offtopic mailing list Post: Offtopic@delphi.org.nz Admin: http://delphi.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/offtopic Unsubscribe: send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with Subject: unsubscribe
