Engineering with Economics

[shakeydude]

Hey,
I have been working now for the last 4 years after graduating in 2003 and I want to go back to college part time. I am looking at a course in Applied Environmental Economics at the Imperial College London. Has anyone done a similar course or have a similar qualification? I think that there will are hugh opportunites with this course and I think that it would complement my original degree.

I have also been looking at an MSc in Renewable Energy but I think that this is just an extension of my original qualifications and if I am going to further myself I should add a string to my bow, not extend the one I have ;-);-)

 

[BJC]

Not an answer to your question but I heard an interesting program on the radio yesterday. It was on NPR and dealt with the environmental economics of automobiles.
The guest said that a lot of people buy cars like the Toyoto Prius and assume that they are doing a good deed for the world.
A more through analysis took into account the enviromental impact at the worlds biggest Nickle mine ( Sudburry, Onterio). The fuel used to ship the nickle and other materials to China, where the batteries are made. The cost of shipping the batteries to JApan where they are installed in the cars and then the cost of shipping the cars to the US.
His point was that buying a Pirus may have more impact on the environment and global warming than just buying a compact car.
I think we'll ne better economic and environment analysis in the future. The economics of pure capitolism are not going to work. I'll see if I can find a link to the NPR show and post it. Most of the programs are on the web.

 

[moltenmetal]

BJC: while it's important to look carefully at the lifecycle costs of assembled systems like cars, such calculations are also somewhat subjective and hence easy to manipulate.

The basic economics tell much about the various costs involved in producing these vehicles. Of course, such a comparison is only valid for vehicles which actually exist in production and for which fuels are available at retail, i.e. unlike PEM fuelcell vehicles etc.

Let's compare the Prius hybrid 5 seater to the Toyota Yaris, a 4 seater subcompact. Prices are $US, but with Canadian current fuels cost ~$1CDN/L.

The Yaris MRSP is about $12,000.00. Fuel economy is 34/40 mpg highway/city. Over a lifetime of 300,000 km (186,000 miles), the Yaris will consume about 5,000 gallons of fuel costing, say, $16,500.00. It produces about 156 pounds of smog-producing emissions during that life per USEPA.

The Prius, a somewhat larger vehicle (96.2 cu ft vs 84.6 cu ft), MRSP is about $22,000.00 (nearly double the Yaris). The price is apparently subsidized somewhat by Toyota, but we don't know exactly how much. It consumes about 3,400 gallons or $11,000.00 worth of fuel over the same lifetime, and produces less than half as much smog-producing emissions (72 pounds).

The difference in purchase price (~$10,000) is roughly double the difference in fuel cost (~$5,000), and won't pay back without significant subsidy, or unless fuel prices rise dramatically. It is conceivable that the Prius's purchase price may actually contain some embodied energy difference which may explain part of this fact- but I'm also sure that some of the purchase price difference is labour, not embodied energy.

Compare the Prius with a somewhat larger compact, the Matrix- probably a fairer comparison. $16,000.00 MRSP, 5,900 gallons or ~ $19,000 in fuel cost. Now the difference in fuel cost pays back the entirety of the difference in purchase price, forgetting about the time value of money- or the fluctuation in fuels pricing.

Unless the subsidy on the Prius is very significant, there's no way there's more DIFFERENCE in energy content (to make and transport the hybrid system's batteries etc.) between the Prius and the Matrix to make the Prius significantly worse in energy consumption LIFECYCLE terms than the Matrix. The money's not there to justify such a supposition at current pricing.

Note also that most of the materials in both vehicles can be recycled, including the Prius's batteries. Unlike the gasoline these vehicles consume, most of the nickel doesn't go anywhere- and it takes a fair bit less energy to recover nickel from a Ni-MH battery than from nickel laterite or sulphide ore. So going to the Sudbury mine, one that's been in production for over a century and is over a mile deep, is a bit disingenuous.

 

[rb1957]

as Don Henley said ... "get a job"

 

[dcasto]

Least us not forget that the Prius' milage has been overstated because the standardized test never aticipated such a vehicle. Because of this, the USA implimented a new protocal and the Prius' milage dropped 30%, the Yaris 8% and other convential cars stayed about the same.

Next, if the Prius is not driven on hilly terrain or in stop and go traffic, you will get less MPG than the Yaris or Matrix.

 

[BJC]

moltenmetal.
I was just relaying what I heard. I think the people were more right than wrong and whatever they are going to have more and more say in how things are done.
How do you figure the monitary cost of the environmenal damage around Sudburry into the picture. The cost of environmental damage in China where the batteries are made in an unrequlated inudtrial setting. etc. There are cost not considered in the life cycle analysis. Who pays for the miners with silicrosis? Who pays for the Chinese workers with heavy metal in their bloor. Who pays to clean up the river downstream from the battery factory. Like I stated I not arguing just saying here it comes.

 

[dcasto]

Until the whole world has the exact same standards for things like pollution control, worker safety, waste recovery, there is now way to get the life cycle cost. If China allows nickel in the water, then its free. If another cutry allows wokers to die prematurely because it increases the countrys productivity overall, thats their business. In some countries you can put a dollar fiquire on a life. In the US, how could you think of such a creul thing.

Just a set of moral questions or statements, I don't have a answer to every isue raised here.

 

[GregLocock]

Point of order. A friend of mine works in mining over here (Australia). When he went on an inspection tour in the uSA he took his safety gear with him.

He was putting it on in the locker room when the super called him aside and asked him not to wear his Australian safety gear, as the American miners did not have anything that good, and they would resent it.

The USA is perfectly willing to subscribe to substandard safety practices when it suits it.

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[dcasto]

GregLocock, I'm not saying the US rules are any better than where you are from. What I'm saying is, the 100% complete economic impact of a product is built into the price. In the US we have to add lots of money to a product in the form of insurance. Insurance is just an accounting trick to normalize the cost of unknowns in the future into present values. As countries mature, they too will add this cost.

Every safety standard you may have down under we have here, but in the world of contract law and unions, the latest (not always greatest) standard is up for negotiations. Management will adopt the standard in exchange fo a break in overtime minimums.

 

[VoyageofDiscovery]

Good for you shakeydude,

We need this sort of social economic leadership fostered in the engineering profession, you are a potential policy maker in the works. Good luck, it will be a hard road.

Regards

VOD

 

[csd72]

The only reason I see for doing the additional degree is if you are not happy with your current career.

The additional degree will not further your career at all (in fact it will probably just put it behind the couple of years.)

You should look into just doing some postgrad courses in this area if you really want to move towards it.

Also if it is an emerging profession then they will be more flexible on who they employ to do it so you will not really need a formal degree in it.