Comments on: Is it Really Green? http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/2858 Physics, tech and humor. Because science and learning are cool, and life's too short not to laugh. Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:45:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: BlackGriffen http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/2858/comment-page-1#comment-18149 BlackGriffen Tue, 23 Jun 2009 03:32:04 +0000 http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/?p=2858#comment-18149 Ah, I later realized that you were adressing the logic of what the consumer would choose to do, and I was addressing the logic of the gym owner. There is, however, one compelling reason that gym-goers might want to give the presence of power generating equipment weight in their choice of gym that grants the presence of power producing equipment a weight somewhat in excess of the power savings they produce. And that reason is that it increases the incentives for other gym owners to choose power generating equipment. So that, even if there is some increase in emissions in the short to medium term, in the long term all of the gym owners are using power generating equipment and then we really are better off... Again, it's only somewhat better off, but it's still better than nothing. Ah, I later realized that you were adressing the logic of what the consumer would choose to do, and I was addressing the logic of the gym owner. There is, however, one compelling reason that gym-goers might want to give the presence of power generating equipment weight in their choice of gym that grants the presence of power producing equipment a weight somewhat in excess of the power savings they produce. And that reason is that it increases the incentives for other gym owners to choose power generating equipment. So that, even if there is some increase in emissions in the short to medium term, in the long term all of the gym owners are using power generating equipment and then we really are better off… Again, it’s only somewhat better off, but it’s still better than nothing.

]]> By: BlackGriffen http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/2858/comment-page-1#comment-18140 BlackGriffen Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:24:50 +0000 http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/?p=2858#comment-18140 Yes, the scenario is quite contrived because you're making a big deal out of something that's pretty marginal. Someone who doesn't have the motivation to work out isn't going to suddenly become motivated by the gym attaching generators to their equipment. So the real comparison would be between the energy budget of the entire gym versus our hypothetical extra couple of people. Depending on the size of the gym and how many more people you think will really make a long term commitment to work out just because it's "green," and the comparison can be startlingly different. Say the gym has only 200 such patrons a week (a small gym), and two more sign up and stick with it due to "greenness." We'll be more realistic and say that the patrons go a couple of times a week (factor of five to both the car energy and the patron energy), and throw a factor of 10 at the energy produced by the workout (reductions in efficiency, etc), with an additional factor of 2 for a more realistic hour. Then you're talking about .25 kWhr per patron generated and 3 kWhr of fossil fuel energy. The comparison is this: 200 patrons at 3 kWhr/patron = 600 kWhr for business as usual 202 patrons at (3 kWhr/patron - .25 kWhr/patron) ~ 560 kWhr for the improved scenario This excludes the energy used to operate the building plus any reduction in emissions due to reduced strain on the medical system from the (slightly) increase in health from have the 2 people work out. I have also omitted the real meat of the marketing target which is getting people to switch gyms - causing some to increase commute, and others to decrease (not everyone goes with the closest gym). So maybe it's a small gain in efficiency, and it would be bad for gym owners to toss perfectly good equipment to replace it with new ones, but I would think it should be large enough to warrant switching to purchasing the generating equipment when given a choice (assuming comparable manufacturing complexity). Yes, the scenario is quite contrived because you’re making a big deal out of something that’s pretty marginal. Someone who doesn’t have the motivation to work out isn’t going to suddenly become motivated by the gym attaching generators to their equipment. So the real comparison would be between the energy budget of the entire gym versus our hypothetical extra couple of people. Depending on the size of the gym and how many more people you think will really make a long term commitment to work out just because it’s “green,” and the comparison can be startlingly different. Say the gym has only 200 such patrons a week (a small gym), and two more sign up and stick with it due to “greenness.” We’ll be more realistic and say that the patrons go a couple of times a week (factor of five to both the car energy and the patron energy), and throw a factor of 10 at the energy produced by the workout (reductions in efficiency, etc), with an additional factor of 2 for a more realistic hour. Then you’re talking about .25 kWhr per patron generated and 3 kWhr of fossil fuel energy. The comparison is this:
200 patrons at 3 kWhr/patron = 600 kWhr for business as usual
202 patrons at (3 kWhr/patron – .25 kWhr/patron) ~ 560 kWhr for the improved scenario
This excludes the energy used to operate the building plus any reduction in emissions due to reduced strain on the medical system from the (slightly) increase in health from have the 2 people work out. I have also omitted the real meat of the marketing target which is getting people to switch gyms – causing some to increase commute, and others to decrease (not everyone goes with the closest gym).

So maybe it’s a small gain in efficiency, and it would be bad for gym owners to toss perfectly good equipment to replace it with new ones, but I would think it should be large enough to warrant switching to purchasing the generating equipment when given a choice (assuming comparable manufacturing complexity).

]]> By: Jennifer Ouellette http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/2858/comment-page-1#comment-18134 Jennifer Ouellette Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:05:15 +0000 http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/?p=2858#comment-18134 Ditto on BlackGriffen's comment above: the concept is that people are going to be exercising in gyms anyway, and why not try to put some of that to good use? Is it the most efficient? No. Is it really cost effective? Certainly not at the outset. And most people who are NOT scientists tend to use "green" in the "better than standard practice" usage. That was certainly the point of my post: this sort of thing isn't likely to save the planet, but it could save one gym owner a few bucks. It builds a sense of community among gym members -- which is excellent from a sociological standpoint. And my main point? It raises awareness of just what energy is, and how much it actually takes to run the simplest item we take for granted, i.e., a 60-watt light bulb. This makes it an excellent teaching moment. Energy, and thermodynamics in general, is one of the most counter-intuitive areas of physics, and hence commonly misunderstood. Baby steps... :) As for the unit police, I was tired when I wrote the post and had not intended the "per" to denote an actual unit. It's since been corrected with verbiage that more accurately communicates my intent. Stupid unit police. :) Ditto on BlackGriffen’s comment above: the concept is that people are going to be exercising in gyms anyway, and why not try to put some of that to good use? Is it the most efficient? No. Is it really cost effective? Certainly not at the outset. And most people who are NOT scientists tend to use “green” in the “better than standard practice” usage. That was certainly the point of my post: this sort of thing isn’t likely to save the planet, but it could save one gym owner a few bucks. It builds a sense of community among gym members — which is excellent from a sociological standpoint. And my main point? It raises awareness of just what energy is, and how much it actually takes to run the simplest item we take for granted, i.e., a 60-watt light bulb. This makes it an excellent teaching moment. Energy, and thermodynamics in general, is one of the most counter-intuitive areas of physics, and hence commonly misunderstood. Baby steps… :)

As for the unit police, I was tired when I wrote the post and had not intended the “per” to denote an actual unit. It’s since been corrected with verbiage that more accurately communicates my intent. Stupid unit police. :)

]]> By: BlackGriffen http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/2858/comment-page-1#comment-18123 BlackGriffen Mon, 22 Jun 2009 08:38:01 +0000 http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/?p=2858#comment-18123 I agree on the road plates, disagree on the exercisers. With them the idea is that they're going to be expending that much energy anyway, so you might as well put it some of it to work. Kind of like the difference between just burning a fuel for heat (a good and necessary thing) and using that fuel to power a heat pump (a more efficient way to achieve one's goal). I guess it depends on whether or not you consider "green" to be a binary concept or synonymous with "better than standard practice." I agree on the road plates, disagree on the exercisers. With them the idea is that they’re going to be expending that much energy anyway, so you might as well put it some of it to work. Kind of like the difference between just burning a fuel for heat (a good and necessary thing) and using that fuel to power a heat pump (a more efficient way to achieve one’s goal).

I guess it depends on whether or not you consider “green” to be a binary concept or synonymous with “better than standard practice.”

]]>