Why would you ever buy Scotch?

       Many of you will rage-quit reading this blog after this.  Read the whole thing first though, you might learn something.  I was reminded today of the necessity of writing a post on the relative virtues of Bourbon, and scotch.  (Irish Whiskey is another matter entirely)

       A warning, this might be a long read.  I am well read on the production of scotch, because I wanted, like hell for some time, to like it.  There are some that are OK for me, but I will always reach for Bourbon first.  Now, I will not go into any great detail the likes of which Alton Brown would, but this is a favorite topic of mine, so I apologize upfront for any boring detail.

       Whiskey, or Whisky, which is the correct usage for scotch, derives from the Gaelic usquebaugh, meaning water of life.  As we all know too much will kill you, and you should never drink and derive, so it is a bit of a misnomer.  This derivation is repeated with Akvavit (from the Latin "Aqua Vitae") from Scandinavia, which is also how scotch was first recorded.  The assumption being that the "life" or essence was distilled from grains as something like water.

       Picture scotch.  You can't even think of it without calling to mind images of rugged wooded highlands.  Congratulations, you've swallowed the marketing.  In contrast Bourbon calls to mind redneck culture and deprivation, but guess what; the people who settled the areas that produce bourbon are the same Scots that (ahem) left Scotland for greener pastures.  They settled areas that reminded them of home, and more importantly, had the same kind of water for making Whisky.  Priorities man.  I am myself distilled from those displaced Scots.  Though, I guess I am no "true Scotsman."

       If you have never met me, let me explain something that should quickly become painfully obvious.  I ride for the brand.  That is to say, I would tell you that Bourbon was better than scotch even if I thought it wasn't, just because it is made here in the USA, and scotch is, by law, made in Scotland.  Thankfully the truth is on my side.

       So since they share a history, and similar base materials, and since both are aged in oak, what makes one better than the other?  Well, the water is substantially the same, the source grain and barrels are not.  Scotch is made from barley, and cooked over a peat fire (in many cases), and Bourbon is made from at least 51% corn.  Also Bourbon is aged in new charred oak barrels, scotch is aged in the used barrels from  Bourbon or Sherry production.  (paragraph 7).  So if the flavor of Sherry or Bourbon is what you are after, I can think of a much better way of getting it.  Just sayin'.

       Bourbon is generally considered sweeter, as such things go, so there is some degree of personal preference involved, but overall the difference is not like a sweet vs. dry wine, or a Pedro Ximénez vs. Fino Sherry.  it is a very small difference.  But the flavor of each really is not even close to the other.

       So which is better?  Obviously I prefer Bourbon.  The flavor is smokier and woodier (Johnnie Walker red excepting), the body a touch thicker (although that might be in my head), the taste superior, and until recently, it was vastly less pretentious.  (now it is only greatly less pretentious)  In times past scotch was an adjective meaning "Cheap".  Given the relative cost of this drink vs. others, it fails, often horribly, in that regard.

       Some of you are thinking that clearly, I have only tasted inferior, blended, cheap scotch.  That is part true.  I have tasted those as well as the "superior", single-malt, regionally coded, highly (over) priced labels.  Like I said, I wanted to like it.  I wanted to be a "gentleman who prefers scotch".  I tried the good and the bad, the expensive and the cheap.  I am still a Bourbon man.  (or rye, or moonshine, but again, that is another post)

       The one thing I think scotch has going for it is mystique.  It is expensive and harder to procure, and therefore, the thinking goes, must be better.  As stated in Ayala's Angel:

"It may be said that nothing in the world is charming unless it be achieved at some trouble. If it rained ‘64 Leoville’ — which I regard as the most divine of nectars — I feel sure that I should never raise it to my lips." -Anthony Trollope-

If that is the measure of quality, it is flawed.  Haggis is far less common than steak, even in Scotland, but that doesn't make it better.

(written "Dry")

       

Why would you buy a tankless water heater.

       You can't turn on a "handyman" show without some bearded, flannel-wearing, guy telling you that; "Of course, you should always install a tankless water heater".  This is because they are so efficient, that for each one installed, 50 trees spontaneously sprout.  The efficiency of these device is not in question, as they are around 24% more efficient than their larger tank-having cousins, but are they worth it?

       While apparently you could devote over a year and many pages to researching this, like the Minnesota Office of Energy Security did, you don't need to.  (http://www.mncee.org/getattachment/7b8982e9-4d95-4bc9-8e64-f89033617f37/)  I have read their report, corroborated their findings, (didn't need to, they were quite thorough) and will tell you.  In short, no.  Not worth it. and not as good as you think.

       One reason is, like hybrid cars, they take a claim that is good, and pad it until it becomes untrue.  See the testing for tankless heaters is supposed to be for a 77 degree rise in temperature, matched to a volume of output.  Many decided the numbers sure looked better with a 45 or even a 35 degree rise.  So they base their numbers on that.  What is 35 more than 40?  Not "hot" water.  Fine for Florida, not so for the rest of the country.  So check the numbers.

       Another item of concern is that what you save in gas, you might waste in water.  There is a significant "time to temperature" lag.  Since it only heats on demand, if you aren't running water, it isn't trying to heat.  There is also the fact that a slow trickle of water, such as used for shaving, usually isn't enough to activate the heater.  So full flow for shaving.

       Now to be fair the cost of wasted water will not exceed the savings in gas or electricity, but it does cut in to it.  In a new construction scenario you avoid one of the main issues, and that is the cost to install.  Substantial re-piping, re-venting, and an electric line to run the fan.  (High-efficiency water heaters and furnaces exhaust sideways through PVC instead of up.  This is due to relatively cool exhaust temperatures)

       Other things being equal though the main question is: over the 20 year life of either product, will you save the difference in purchase cost?  That answer is a firm "No".  They do not pay for themselves.  This is not counting the other issues mentioned above.  Dollar for dollar you lose money with a tankless heater.

       Now if your goal is saving the earth, and you don't mind paying more to do so, by all means, buy one.  But until these things come down to a price equal to their tanked cousins, they are not an economically viable option.  I guess when all of your tools are provided free by a sponsor, and someone else is paying for the appliances, like on those shows, you lose sight of the value of a dollar.