The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Rob wrote:
Derek Geldard wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:48:03 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:03:07 GMT someone who may be "woodglass"
wrote this:-

Does anybody here really believe that it's cost effective to
install solar panels in the uk ?
Water heating panels? Yes in the right circumstances. The figures
speak for themselves. However, in terms of simple payback period the
financial investment will be a long term one. The idea that anything
should have a simple payback period of five minutes (to exaggerate
for effect) is not clever.

Run it past us again without the exaggeration.

However, simple payback period is not the only reason for doing
something.

IOW Dave doesn't do numbers.


For some* things it's impossible to drill down and produce figures to
inform an accurate cost/benefit analysis. Solar energy is one example.


On the contrary, solar energy is one thing is VERY easy to do a cost
benefit excercise on.


Ah, OK!

The economic costs should be easy to calculate if you can get hold of
the data.

How do you estimate the environmental and social costs of production
(inc raw and manufactured materials), distribution, sale, marketing,
installation, maintenance and disposal? That's relatively
straightforward up to a point. It's the benefits I really have trouble
with. Obviously, electricity/gas saving is a relatively trivial
calculation. The benefits to human existence/experience and the 'planet'
in the longer term would be tricky to calculate, I think. Also, it's not
known whether costs are recouped on sale (a future and discounted
benefit). Some sales bluster seems to suggest 'yes, and some', but no
reviewed research has been carried out to my knowledge.

There is also the political aspect of costs and benefits, and the notion
that nobody will know until these products have been through at least
one life cycle.

Perhaps you can do/accommodate all of this. Is this your professional
field? I have done some work on 'whole impact', but nothing like enough
to come close to what you feel to be a trivial exercise.


A fitted kitchen is not really, since its hard to see what the
alterntives are to having a kitchen, fitted or otherwise. Always eating
out? say at £100 a day for tow of you? tat makes the £10,000 'fitted
kitchen' pay for itself in about 3 years if it saves you ALL that, maybe
5 years if you still have to buy food. Harder to quantify, but still
possible.


A considerable variable to consider when choosing a new kitchen to
replace a perfectly functional old kitchen is fashion related. This is
calculated (for want of a far better word) as, variously, a form of
rationality through to system legitimacy, in my book. There may be
technical variables (drawer closers, durable hygenic surfaces
perhaps?)), although in my sad little world a drawer is a drawer :-)

Obviously, if your kitchen does not function then your calculation may
hold to the point of choice - what are the costs and benefits of a £1000
kitchen when compared to say a £10000 kitchen?

Rob