Next EU Meddling Target: Vacuum Cleaners
Discussion
Derek Smith said:
JensenA said:
In that case I guess you'd agree with a ban on all cars over 2 litres? Why on earth would anyone need a car with. 4 litre engine?
Why should you think that? There's nothing in my post to suggest that. Why do posters try to prove a point by trying to change what others say?In this case I would expect the difference to be along the lines of: a 4L car is "fun", even if it is inefficient, and since fun can't be quantified, nor can an acceptable fun/£ ratio be defined. The dodgy thing there is the implicit assumption no one derives "fun" from a 2kW vacumn cleaner either.
Krikkit said:
currybum said:
Maybe the engineers will need to start making the things more efficient at turning motor power in to suction rather than just chucking in a bigger motor.
Some fag paper calculations, say there are 375 million (one for each house hold and 0.5 again for each business) vacuum cleaners in the EU. With 20% being above 2KW so you have a total of 75million cleaners using at least 400w less.
Assume each cleaner is used for an average of 2 hours a week so 104 hours a year, each affected hover saves 42kwh of electricity a year, a total of 3.15 billion kwh or energy saved. Or about the same to replace this 1600acre solar power plant
When you have populations in the hundreds of millions small changes really do make a decent sized impact.
2 hours a week? 20 minutes a month. Some fag paper calculations, say there are 375 million (one for each house hold and 0.5 again for each business) vacuum cleaners in the EU. With 20% being above 2KW so you have a total of 75million cleaners using at least 400w less.
Assume each cleaner is used for an average of 2 hours a week so 104 hours a year, each affected hover saves 42kwh of electricity a year, a total of 3.15 billion kwh or energy saved. Or about the same to replace this 1600acre solar power plant
When you have populations in the hundreds of millions small changes really do make a decent sized impact.
Funkycoldribena said:
Couldn't give a s
t about co2,global warming or carbon neutral,cant say I know anyone else who does either,I must move in different circles.
Me neither, however we aren't on the climate runaway man made up gobbledygook gravy train and possibly remember the fablet about co2,global warming or carbon neutral,cant say I know anyone else who does either,I must move in different circles.About of the emperors new clothes.
Considering electricity is generated and not stored.
I suggest we all keep our current vacuums because obviously some seem more brand loyal to their carpet sweepers than to their cars.
I suggest we just limit carpet sweeping to odd and even days according to number of your house.
For those without a house number, just make up some sort of sched with the maid
I suggest we all keep our current vacuums because obviously some seem more brand loyal to their carpet sweepers than to their cars.
I suggest we just limit carpet sweeping to odd and even days according to number of your house.
For those without a house number, just make up some sort of sched with the maid
I'm surprised they started with vacuum cleaners, once-weekly use devices, when things like hair straighteners and hair dryers are used almost daily (with many models using up to 3KW).
The other thing that seems to be overlooked here is the actual power usage of the motors--a very efficient motor, to generate 2KW worth of suction, could be using just over 2KW with little being wasted to heat and noise, whereas there could be vacuum whose motor produces 1KW of suction while using 2KW in total because of inefficiencies of the energy being lost to heat and noise.
What makes me say that is something that occurs in hifi: different types of amplification. A class A amplifier can produce just 30W of sound, but consume 2KW doing it (losing the rest to heat) whereas a 2KW class D amplifier loses pretty much nothing to heat.
I suppose it comes down to how the manufacturers are expected to report the energy usage, because I don't expect the figures quoted now are the overall usage, rather the amount that is used specifically for suction. Back to hifi, cheaper stuff is reported with a peak figure rather than an average figure to suggest it is more powerful that it really is: the same thing could apply to vacuum cleaners. In other words, I expect manufacturers will be able to fiddle the test (maybe by including a 'boost' button or something) so they can meet what will probably be poorly thought-out criteria and still sell the best vacuum cleaner.
As a side note for the future, if the same limits are applied to heaters, well--a 900W heater won't be worth using! I don't see how they can get any more efficient at producing heat, so it seems odd to effectively neuter them as devices, particularly when many new-build flats have been fitted with them as standard. When replacement time comes, there will be some cold flats out there!
The other thing that seems to be overlooked here is the actual power usage of the motors--a very efficient motor, to generate 2KW worth of suction, could be using just over 2KW with little being wasted to heat and noise, whereas there could be vacuum whose motor produces 1KW of suction while using 2KW in total because of inefficiencies of the energy being lost to heat and noise.
What makes me say that is something that occurs in hifi: different types of amplification. A class A amplifier can produce just 30W of sound, but consume 2KW doing it (losing the rest to heat) whereas a 2KW class D amplifier loses pretty much nothing to heat.
I suppose it comes down to how the manufacturers are expected to report the energy usage, because I don't expect the figures quoted now are the overall usage, rather the amount that is used specifically for suction. Back to hifi, cheaper stuff is reported with a peak figure rather than an average figure to suggest it is more powerful that it really is: the same thing could apply to vacuum cleaners. In other words, I expect manufacturers will be able to fiddle the test (maybe by including a 'boost' button or something) so they can meet what will probably be poorly thought-out criteria and still sell the best vacuum cleaner.
As a side note for the future, if the same limits are applied to heaters, well--a 900W heater won't be worth using! I don't see how they can get any more efficient at producing heat, so it seems odd to effectively neuter them as devices, particularly when many new-build flats have been fitted with them as standard. When replacement time comes, there will be some cold flats out there!
The Yanks seem to manage perfectly well and they're effectively limited to about this much power out of their wall sockets. "Henry"s appear to be 1200W. Given this my guess is that vacuum cleaners are like cheap speakers and the power rating has more to do with marketing than how useful they are.
If legislation was pushing the power below the point where it's possible to make a decent machine then that would be an issue. As it is, I struggle to give a st.
If legislation was pushing the power below the point where it's possible to make a decent machine then that would be an issue. As it is, I struggle to give a s
t.
Funkycoldribena said:
Couldn't give a st about co2,global warming or carbon neutral,cant say I know anyone else who does either,I must move in different circles.
Couldn't give a st about co2,global warming or carbon neutral,cant say I know anyone else who does either,I must move in different circles.t what you think either.In fact that's sort of not true: I actively dislike someone who thinks their opinion is so important that they don't even need to supply any reasoning, evidence, etc, just their opinion. So I'll vote for measures like these just for the satisfaction of knowing you're pissed off by them.
Edited by paranoid airbag on Saturday 23 August 11:28
paranoid airbag said:
Funkycoldribena said:
Couldn't give a st about co2,global warming or carbon neutral,cant say I know anyone else who does either,I must move in different circles.
Couldn't give a st about co2,global warming or carbon neutral,cant say I know anyone else who does either,I must move in different circles.t what you think either.In fact that's sort of not true: I actively dislike someone who thinks their opinion is so important that they don't even need to supply any reasoning, evidence, etc, just their opinion. So I'll vote for measures like these just for the satisfaction of knowing you're pissed off by them.
Funkycoldribena has a point either way when you look at the claimed reasoning behind the hoover regs. The unelected EU drones emitting these directives have either been taken in by the fairytales or they're using public gullibility over climate myths for political purposes, as often happens. If any s
t is to be given it ought to be about how intelligent fools can get away with foisting this nonsense on everyone else.paranoid airbag said:
Funkycoldribena said:
Couldn't give a st about co2,global warming or carbon neutral,cant say I know anyone else who does either,I must move in different circles.
Couldn't give a st about co2,global warming or carbon neutral,cant say I know anyone else who does either,I must move in different circles.t what you think either.In fact that's sort of not true: I actively dislike someone who thinks their opinion is so important that they don't even need to supply any reasoning, evidence, etc, just their opinion. So I'll vote for measures like these just for the satisfaction of knowing you're pissed off by them.
Edited by paranoid airbag on Saturday 23 August 11:28
You can be for it all you like but it'll catch you out in the end when it takes 5 hours to cook a pie in your EU regulated cooker,you have to wait 2 hours for the Mrs to dry her hair and your beer is limited to 3% Max,don't think its coming?It will,because people like you roll over far too easy.
Octoposse said:
On the plus side thanks to crappy 'energy efficient' light bulbs you won't be able to see the dirt accumulating anyway . . .
Thank fook we've got a cupboard full of old fashioned working light bulbs to see by, those new ones are s
t & just give you a headache trying to read in the dark.Nowt wrong with pushing for such appliances to be made more efficient.
However, dictating the input power is a cretinous approach.
Surely the only sensible measure of efficiency is, well, efficiency! That is, ratio of useful power output to power input.
As for limiting the power of heating appliances... That's so retarded I struggle to believe even the EU morons could come up with it. Half the output power of your room heater and it has to stay on twice as long to reach the required room temperature. Actually that's very much simplified and it would take more than twice as long due to the ratio of heat losses to heat input.
IMHO the wise thing to do would be to specify a minimum efficiency figure for vacuum cleaners with an empty bag/filter/cyclonic dust collection chamber/whatever, a minimum when half full, and a minimum when 90% full. And also require that manufacturers show standardised figures for filtration performance and overall running costs inclusive of consumables (bags, filters etc) to facilitate comparison between models.
However, dictating the input power is a cretinous approach.
Surely the only sensible measure of efficiency is, well, efficiency! That is, ratio of useful power output to power input.
As for limiting the power of heating appliances... That's so retarded I struggle to believe even the EU morons could come up with it. Half the output power of your room heater and it has to stay on twice as long to reach the required room temperature. Actually that's very much simplified and it would take more than twice as long due to the ratio of heat losses to heat input.
IMHO the wise thing to do would be to specify a minimum efficiency figure for vacuum cleaners with an empty bag/filter/cyclonic dust collection chamber/whatever, a minimum when half full, and a minimum when 90% full. And also require that manufacturers show standardised figures for filtration performance and overall running costs inclusive of consumables (bags, filters etc) to facilitate comparison between models.
Bjorn Lomborg has some very good points about this.
Bjorn Lomborg said:
The EU has now decided that only vacuum cleaners on 1600W or below are allowed -- allegedly to help deal with global warming. Yet, it will not reduce *one* single ton of CO₂ -- because the EU already has a CO₂ cap. If we emit slightly less with vacuum cleaners, the cap will simply be filled with slightly more coal fired power.
Moreover, electricity for consumers is already heavily taxed across the EU. In Denmark, we pay 1671 kroner or almost $300 per ton CO₂. That is 60 times the damage cost of CO₂. So, if we use our vacuum cleaner, the EU has already admonished us 60 times too much. And now they're telling us: you can't be trusted to decide yourself. For the sake of the climate, we have to deny you to keep your home clean enough.
Actually, the BBC finds that in one recent study, five of the top seven cleaners had motors of more than 1600 watts.
And in three years, on September 1, 2017, all vacuum cleaners will have to be less than 900W.
So it is likely to get ever more dirty. The EU trust you ever less to make sensible decisions. And all of this will reduce CO₂ emissions by zero.
But the EU commission will undoubtedly feel very good and green about itself.
Embarrassing.
Moreover, electricity for consumers is already heavily taxed across the EU. In Denmark, we pay 1671 kroner or almost $300 per ton CO₂. That is 60 times the damage cost of CO₂. So, if we use our vacuum cleaner, the EU has already admonished us 60 times too much. And now they're telling us: you can't be trusted to decide yourself. For the sake of the climate, we have to deny you to keep your home clean enough.
Actually, the BBC finds that in one recent study, five of the top seven cleaners had motors of more than 1600 watts.
And in three years, on September 1, 2017, all vacuum cleaners will have to be less than 900W.
So it is likely to get ever more dirty. The EU trust you ever less to make sensible decisions. And all of this will reduce CO₂ emissions by zero.
But the EU commission will undoubtedly feel very good and green about itself.
Embarrassing.
paranoid airbag said:
Derek Smith said:
JensenA said:
In that case I guess you'd agree with a ban on all cars over 2 litres? Why on earth would anyone need a car with. 4 litre engine?
Why should you think that? There's nothing in my post to suggest that. Why do posters try to prove a point by trying to change what others say?In this case I would expect the difference to be along the lines of: a 4L car is "fun", even if it is inefficient, and since fun can't be quantified, nor can an acceptable fun/£ ratio be defined. The dodgy thing there is the implicit assumption no one derives "fun" from a 2kW vacumn cleaner either.
The key thing to point out is that for fleet purchasers they have effectively outlawed large engined cars. Plus the fleet average regulations will make all manufacturers significantly cut their average fuel economy.
Given the barriers to entry to the car market and that every car manufactured is tested and registered it is possible to write regulations for cars of different sizes and purposes. The fleet average regulations that take into account the size of the company and the average weight of the cars sold which govern what co2 limit for each manufacturer.
For vacuum cleaners it really isn't worth something as complicated hence a simple wattage cap.
exactly, just how much CO2 has been emitted to come up with this bullst to start with?
out of interest, Dyson is challenging this in the courts, and before you go off on one, they don't actually make a 1600+W cleaner.
his point is that this does nothing to move clean tech on, and creates just another burden on the industry that will effectively achieve nothing.
As a side, I keep reading wild figure for how much electricity is used per household cleaner, and it;s just total fiction, unless you live in Buck palace or the like, I struggle to see anybody actually has their cleaner running for more than ~1 hour a week, (I mean actually running, not out of the cupboard).
ours is a DC39 has a 1,300W motor, so that's 52x1.3Kw = 67.6Kwh per year ie, some £9 worth of electric (and about 10Kg's of CO2 if you believe the figures)
t to start with?out of interest, Dyson is challenging this in the courts, and before you go off on one, they don't actually make a 1600+W cleaner.
his point is that this does nothing to move clean tech on, and creates just another burden on the industry that will effectively achieve nothing.
As a side, I keep reading wild figure for how much electricity is used per household cleaner, and it;s just total fiction, unless you live in Buck palace or the like, I struggle to see anybody actually has their cleaner running for more than ~1 hour a week, (I mean actually running, not out of the cupboard).
ours is a DC39 has a 1,300W motor, so that's 52x1.3Kw = 67.6Kwh per year ie, some £9 worth of electric (and about 10Kg's of CO2 if you believe the figures)
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff