Re: [Paddlewise] CO2 output

It has been my observation that the total resource consumed is generally 
based on the total life cycle cost.  The lower the purchase and 
ownership costs, the less the resources consumed.  This should also 
correspond to a lower carbon "foot print".

For example if the total life cycle cost of a hybrid car, (purchase 
price, total fuel used over its life, total maintain cost, etc.) as 
compared to an equivalent model thoroughbred (non-hybrid) car, then the 
one with the lower total life-cycle cost is the one that consumes less 
resources.  It takes labor, energy and raw materials to make the car, 
and it takes labor, energy, and materials to run and maintain the car 
over its useful life.  You trade one off for the other with a hybrid, 
but as far as I can see it appears the total life-cycle cost for the 
hybrid would be higher, therefore you might be wasting resources with a 
hybrid.  If you do not recover the extra costs over its useful life. 
This should roughly correspond to the carbon foot print as well.  Of 
course the life-cycle costs of the hybrid has not established a good 
track record so far since it appears replacing the battery pack every 5 
years or so would make for a very high operating cost.  We will have to 
see as we get more experience with them.  This would also be true of 
nuke power plants, most cost more to operate than other types of fuels 
(mostly because of the extra safety requirements), so they consume more 
total resources.  Not a good choice if there are other lower cost fuels 
available.

I build my skin-on-frame kayaks with salvaged lumber and sealant (that 
would be burned or sent to a land fill), and I only need to buy the 
fabric, glue and a few other minor items, for a total cost of about $40 
to $50 each kayak (I have built seven so far).  Since I used salvaged 
materials, I have actually saved impacts since the raw materials did not 
end up in a land fill.  "Tupperware" kayaks cost about $300 to $800, 
fiberglass $1200-$2500+, Carbon/kevlar $3000+++.  You have to weigh this 
off against durability, if it cost twice as much but lasts three times 
longer than you saved resources.  You could compare the weight of the 
petrochemicals in each type as purely a carbon "foot print" yet some 
materials take less energy to form so the total picture would not be 
clear (again total manufacturing costs would still be relevant).  My 
skin-on-frames only use about 2-3 pounds of polyurethane sealant each, 
but it was salvaged from left-overs, so it actually reduced the impacts 
on the environment.  Though I think the total cost of each type, 
compared to its life span, is a better measure of environmental impacts, 
as imperfect as that may be.

Good luck.
***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************