EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
General => General Technical Chat => Topic started by: Simon on August 21, 2014, 11:53:45 am
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28878432 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28878432)
I mean seriously ? what version of prick dreamed this up ? where did they get their technical background ?
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28878432 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28878432)
I mean seriously ? what version of prick dreamed this up ? where did they get their technical background ?
This bit made me wonder:
"No models made by Dyson are affected, as all the motors on their machines are below 1600w."
How did they come up with that threshold that suits our "national inventor champeen" so well?
-
And in three years it will be 900W , eventually only a broom will be legal ::).
Don't worry this will spread, so no point in leaving!.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28878432 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28878432)
Makes sense.
Because a vacuum cleaner is a device that it typically left on for many hours every day. Oh, wait... :palm:
-
OK, I'm using the vacuum cleaner for about 10 minutes every week. So I'll save about 3.5KWh over a year going from a 2KW to a 1600W. That is about one euro per year.
Totally worth it.
-
1600w is plenty, those henry hoovers are 1200w as it is, then you have all the Dysons plus their clones.
900w might be pushing things a bit though.
-
OK, I'm using the vacuum cleaner for about 10 minutes every week. So I'll save about 3.5KWh over a year going from a 2KW to a 1600W.
Not factoring in that a less powerful unit might potentially not do as good a job, and therefore require to be on for longer...
-
Lol, what's the big deal? It's a vacuum cleaner, they are barely used. Sheesh.
-
There are various designs and some are better than others. The dust filled test comment is very valid. I wash my filter on my 2KW vacuum cleaner regularly and i notice the difference as it blocks and yes it just takes longer or i waste a whole load of time and power before realizing that it needs cleaning.
This really is not a priority for the EU it's a low usage device. I'm guessing that the math around how much power/air flow is needed to clean "x" amount is pretty constant, there will be little room for manauver. At 900W it will be a waste of time using the unit or they will be so poorly made that they will fail prematurely damaging the environment even more.
The EU should legislate for quality of construction and designed lifespan if they want to cut emmissions. But no, no legislation cares about quality and the amount of stuff landing in landfill.
-
Err, the sort of prick who thinks energy efficiency in mass-market appliances is a good thing. Presumably Dyson have already put in the effort in this regard which is why their vacuums don't have such powerful motors in.
If you want to be nationalistic about it, this is a good thing because it makes Dyson more competitive.
Are you going to go crying to Nigel Farage about how you can't go and buy a new traction engine because it won't meet Euro 6 emissions regs or you can't cook toast on your bedside lamp?
-
OK, I'm using the vacuum cleaner for about 10 minutes every week. So I'll save about 3.5KWh over a year going from a 2KW to a 1600W.
Not factoring in that a less powerful unit might potentially not do as good a job, and therefore require to be on for longer...
And not to mention that the 2KW unit has a slideing potentiometer to make it "eco friendly".
-
The EU should legislate for quality of construction and designed lifespan if they want to cut emmissions. But no, no legislation cares about quality and the amount of stuff landing in landfill.
+1 to this, I'd love to see something like a minimum 3-year warranty on all consumer goods. Start getting things built to last again.
-
I mean seriously ? what version of prick dreamed this up ? where did they get their technical background ?
the actual docs:
http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/ia_carried_out/docs/ia_2013/swd_2013_0240_en.pdf (http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/ia_carried_out/docs/ia_2013/swd_2013_0240_en.pdf)
http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/ia_carried_out/docs/ia_2013/swd_2013_0241_en.pdf (http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/ia_carried_out/docs/ia_2013/swd_2013_0241_en.pdf) (summary of first document)
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013R0666 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013R0666) (actual law)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2617/contents/made (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2617/contents/made) (UK law from adoption of EU regulation)
It seems pretty reasonable and well thought-through to me. It seems intuitively wrong that hoovers across the EU use more power than the whole of Denmark, and produce more emissions than washing machines and dishwashers. This at a time when other household devices have been becoming more efficient (eg computers are drastically more efficient than 15 years ago) hoovers have been getting worse by 2.5% PA.
-
I'm certainly not a UKIP supporter, they are just headcases that are jumping on a band wagon. I don't have too much obnjection to the principle of the EU but when you stuff like this coming out of it and all of the other pointless crap then clearly it's a waste of our time and money
-
but when you stuff like this coming out of it
so you've read through all the documents linked to by ctz above then? Or is this based on a Daily Mail headline version of events?
-
We have a Kirby. It's about 15years old, still works as well as it did when it was new. The only repairs it's had are a minor gearbox repair and a lead repair (I ran over and damaged the lead). Made to last, but not cheap.
-
I don't think it is a bad idea to make manufacturers think about their products instead of throwing in some energy hungry monster and call it 'solved'.
-
I mean seriously ? what version of prick dreamed this up ? where did they get their technical background ?
the actual docs:
http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/ia_carried_out/docs/ia_2013/swd_2013_0240_en.pdf (http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/ia_carried_out/docs/ia_2013/swd_2013_0240_en.pdf)
http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/ia_carried_out/docs/ia_2013/swd_2013_0241_en.pdf (http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/ia_carried_out/docs/ia_2013/swd_2013_0241_en.pdf) (summary of first document)
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013R0666 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013R0666) (actual law)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2617/contents/made (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2617/contents/made) (UK law from adoption of EU regulation)
It seems pretty reasonable and well thought-through to me. It seems intuitively wrong that hoovers across the EU use more power than the whole of Denmark, and produce more emissions than washing machines and dishwashers. This at a time when other household devices have been becoming more efficient (eg computers are drastically more efficient than 15 years ago) hoovers have been getting worse by 2.5% PA.
From the summary:
2. PROBLEM DEFINITION
The products in scope (hereafter ‘vacuum cleaners’) are dry, domestic and non-domestic
electric vacuum cleaners of all types -- upright, cylinder, stick-- and characteristics, i.e. with
or without bag, active nozzle, etc.. This is the most important category in terms of sales and
environmental impact. Wet, wet&dry, industrial, central, robot and battery driven vacuum
cleaners represent relatively smaller segments with limited environmental impact and are
excluded.
The main ecodesign problem related to vacuum cleaners is the lack of consumer information
on energy use and cleaning performance. As a result, most consumers take the electric power
input (in W) as a proxy for cleaning performance.
Over the past decades this has led to low price, high-power but low-performance vacuum
cleaners, mainly from China, flooding the EU market and more than doubling the societal
energy consumption of this appliance. The vacuum cleaner has now become, from a position of a relatively minor energy-user, a significant contributor to household’s energy consumption
and a candidate for ecodesign measures.
In figures: The power consumption of vacuum cleaners has been rising from 1275 W in 1990
to around 1500 W in 2005 and is expected to reach 2300 W in 2020 (without measures). The
electricity consumption of an average domestic vacuum cleaner (usually operated 1
hour/week) will grow from 60 kWh/year in 1990 to 120 kWh/year in 2020, i.e. an energy
consumption level similar to washing machines and dishwashers. Non-domestic
‘professional’ vacuum cleaners are more efficient (30% less power for a better performance)
but still there is potential for saving.
Sounds like they have a valid case.
-
:clap:
-
This is like the regulations to reduce the toilet flush to 6 Ltr of water, now I guess most of us have to flush twice... well done EU.
-
Err it's based on the BBC "interpretation" i originally posted. No i have not read those doc's as if I have time. The question is, is the power consumption of vacuum cleaners just been limited ? will this limit be practical ? I'm a very ecological minded person, but i also look at the bigger picture.
-
Sounds like they have a valid case.
Indeed they do. The cleaning performance of a vacuum has little to do with the watt rating of the motor. The quality of the agitator (the rotating brush in the head, or at least just a static brush) is one of the biggest factors, as is the type and quality of filter. I like that they are trying to measure cleaning power and put that rating on the box, replacing the stupid "moar watts = better" notion. I especially like that they are measuring the amount of dust emitted too, as that varies an awful lot.
I have a robot vacuum cleaner, an LG Hombot Square. It clearly isn't drawing 1800W from it's batteries, yet it does a fantastic job of sucking up dust because it has a very good agitator that really beats it out of the carpet and separates the fibres for a deep clean. Blows older cleaners without agitators away. Almost all high end vacuums have them now, which means they could reduce their suction power considerably without any measurable loss of performance. Once dust is in the air it doesn't need masses of power to suck it up, and if anything that extra energy just makes the filters work harder. Older cleaners had to rely on air alone, but agitators fix that.
Then the rules should be about using agitators, you really think manufacturers use more power just to spend more money on motors ?
-
It seems intuitively wrong that hoovers across the EU use more power than the whole of Denmark, and produce more emissions than washing machines and dishwashers.
Denmark is a little country with a population lower than London - your intuition is failing. Heating water to wash things requires a lot of energy. The other point never considered in these bullshit justifications is for half the year heat not produced by a vacuum cleaner will be replaced by central heating systems.
It seems intuitively wrong
This at a time when other household devices have been becoming more efficient (eg computers are drastically more efficient than 15 years ago) hoovers have been getting worse by 2.5% PA.
Power consumption is not a measure of efficiency. Look at their numbers another way and vacuum cleaner usage in the EU consumes 1.27 trillion man hours which is about 256 times more than that available from the entire Danish workforce. What a terrible waste of human life the equivalent of 1.8 million 80 year lifetimes annually.
The efficiency I want from a vacuum cleaner is measured by how long I need to spend using it and an hour of my life is worth a crap load more than a unit of electricity.
Eco green tossers are happy for us to sacrifice our lives on the alter of eco green tosserness. They would prefer us to use brooms.
The EU gave an army of unelected bureaucrats and barely elected politicians the power to make it happen.
-
Being ecological (green) does not have to be such a problem. It becomes a problem when knee jerk policies are inacted in the name of being green without looking at the overall picture.
My sister bought a nice little 700W vacum cleaner, did not work very well and broke down after 3 months........ is that the EU's idea of saving the planet ? or lining manufacturers, importers and retailers pockets ? :-DD |O
-
They would prefer us to use brooms.
This is exactly what I do, ever since I ripped out all of my shitty carpet and had floating floor boards installed. Best thing I ever did in the house.
-
I'm single, what's a vacuum cleaner?
-
I'm single, what's a vacuum cleaner?
oih so am I, that is no excuse, it's why i care :) last thing i want to do is waste 3 times what I would with a 2KW machine trying to make a 900W one do the job. If vacuum cleaners had an enforced efficiency rating on them that was realistic then that would be all that is needed, the rest would take care of itself.
Is it me or has there been no warning of this ? how long ago were manufacturers informed ?
-
Personal liberty is an endangered value. Utopians run amok. Around here supermarkets are not allowed to sell plastic bags with handles.
-
I'm single, what's a vacuum cleaner?
oih so am I, that is no excuse, it's why i care :) last thing i want to do is waste 3 times what I would with a 2KW machine trying to make a 900W one do the job. If vacuum cleaners had an enforced efficiency rating on them that was realistic then that would be all that is needed, the rest would take care of itself.
Is it me or has there been no warning of this ? how long ago were manufacturers informed ?
I think the manufacturers must have known this was coming. If you look through some cleaner ranges the power goes up and up until the middle of the range, and the power of the next model up more of less halves. That's the point where an efficient motor enters the range.
I found it quite hard to get my wife to take the lower power models seriously when we bought a new cleaner recently. I think the kind of efficiency labelling you suggest would have made the efficient models an easier sell. A noise rating might help, too. The efficient models tend to be far quieter.
-
I'm a very ecological minded person, but i also look at the bigger picture.
What's in the bigger picture that takes precedence over your environment?
-
I'm a very ecological minded person, but i also look at the bigger picture.
What's in the bigger picture that takes precedence over your environment?
People.
-
My two household vacuums are both <400W.
I only see this being a problem for commercial and industrial vacuums, those of you using 2kW machines from Vax and Hoover need to experience a vacuum which doesn't overheat or make as much noise as a small jet aircraft taking off.
That said, you can pry my 1200W vac out of my cold, dead hands. But I don't need that around the house.
-
The EU should legislate for quality of construction and designed lifespan if they want to cut emmissions. But no, no legislation cares about quality and the amount of stuff landing in landfill.
+1 to this, I'd love to see something like a minimum 3-year warranty on all consumer goods. Start getting things built to last again.
In eastern Germany, before the iron curtain fell, they had a law that a light bulb had to last 5000 hours.
And it worked!
The EU mostly comes up with ultra stupid laws.
-
I'm a very ecological minded person, but i also look at the bigger picture.
What's in the bigger picture that takes precedence over your environment?
Knee jerk reactions in one small area never help the environment, they just shift the problem elsewhere or cause side effect problems. The biggest problem is companies wanting to make a quick buck and loads of profit. It's like electric cars, sounds great if your one track minded and just looking at cars and their output, but as soon as you consider the wider picture and the true environmental concerns you find that your just shifting the problem elsewhere and making it worse. the solution to electric cars is to design and implement better and less carbon dependent electricity to put in those cars before you make a statement, throw loads of our money at incentives that actually costs ridiculous amounts to the tax payer and actually make the larger scale problem worse.
If only politicians were engineers...........
I bought a 120W hedge trimmer, it was useless, took ages to get the job done as it cut so bad. Then i found a battered 200W one in my out building that was abandoned by the previous house owner. Stuck a plug on it and gave it a go. I flogged the "new" 120W trimmer that was useless and kept the beaten up old 200W one and get the job done in under 1/2 the time. Tell me which trimmer is "greener"
-
Most EU regulations make a lot of sense although presented differently at some "media". Great job, British beerdrinking company for eating that cookie.
Consumers take high watt number and big noise as signs of high vacuum power, which isn't. As the Dyson example shows, that is not necessary. Market self control (dont do acoustic design that way) didn't work out.
-
I'm a very ecological minded person, but i also look at the bigger picture.
What's in the bigger picture that takes precedence over your environment?
Knee jerk reactions in one small area never help the environment, they just shift the problem elsewhere or cause side effect problems. The biggest problem is companies wanting to make a quick buck and loads of profit. It's like electric cars, sounds great if your one track minded and just looking at cars and their output, but as soon as you consider the wider picture and the true environmental concerns you find that your just shifting the problem elsewhere and making it worse. the solution to electric cars is to design and implement better and less carbon dependent electricity to put in those cars before you make a statement, throw loads of our money at incentives that actually costs ridiculous amounts to the tax payer and actually make the larger scale problem worse.
If only politicians were engineers...........
I bought a 120W hedge trimmer, it was useless, took ages to get the job done as it cut so bad. Then i found a battered 200W one in my out building that was abandoned by the previous house owner. Stuck a plug on it and gave it a go. I flogged the "new" 120W trimmer that was useless and kept the beaten up old 200W one and get the job done in under 1/2 the time. Tell me which trimmer is "greener"
I don't think you've answered my question. If you did can you reword it and possibly make it less verbose for me?
-
I could sympatize untill you wrote
No i have not read those doc's as if I have time.
So you are waisting our time with a cheap newspaper headline while being to lazy to do some research.
I hope you,re not an engineer since engineers allways first read the documentation and then draw their conclusion :P
-
In eastern Germany, before the iron curtain fell, they had a law that a light bulb had to last 5000 hours.
And it worked!
And was equally stupid. Incandescent lamp design is a compromise between efficiency and life with some consideration of the cost of fitting the replacement. The optimum life of an incandescent lamp depends on the cost of energy which has continuously risen and 5000 hours is unlikely to have ever been optimum.
-
As the Dyson example shows, that is not necessary.
Well, Dyson is a rather bad example. Nothing but marketing claims. Comparatively less performance than other brands to begin with. So they are actually one of the reasons the directive makes sense. Bad suction/Watt.
And the claim they never loses suction is an outright lie. Unless you never fill the bin up to more than 1/4 of its capacity. And unless you always want to spend some time after each usage to cumbersomely clean the filter and the bin. Build quality of ours was also bad. Just month after the warranty ended the bin broke. A bit later plastic parts from the handle broke off. Or first Dyson was our last.
-
Most EU regulations make a lot of sense although
Just lol - you mean like the one that causes something like this
Cookies on the BBC website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on the BBC website. However, if you would like to, you can change your cookie settings at any time.
To appear on half the web sites I visit because I don't keep any cookies past sessions?
-
Err it's based on the BBC "interpretation" i originally posted. No i have not read those doc's as if I have time.
So you argue from ignorance. Thanks for clarifying that.
Do you say that he misstated the law? Do you say that his argument is invalid?
Instead of debating the topic you resort to ad hominem.
-
We have a Kirby. It's about 15years old, still works as well as it did when it was new. The only repairs it's had are a minor gearbox repair and a lead repair (I ran over and damaged the lead). Made to last, but not cheap.
Yeah i have a filterqueen all steel canister vac it has had 2-3minor repair in the 10years (total age is about 20 years 1 vac moter replacement)i have had it. But the kicker is the spinning brush has a 600watts moter all by itself, it just works. And the main vacuum part has a select-able 480 or 960watt hi/lo switch. Even on the low mode it it works very well. SO maybe the first tier is not that far off?
And you can fill it up to the hose inlet before it loses suction.
But like everyone else has said how about product quality over watts...
-
Reduce the power and it will take longer to achieve the same level of cleanliness.
I know a company that makes 120KW vacuum cleaners, their products will be useless if this is an across the board directive and runways will be unsafe.
-
Err it's based on the BBC "interpretation" i originally posted. No i have not read those doc's as if I have time.
So you argue from ignorance. Thanks for clarifying that.
Do you say that he misstated the law? Do you say that his argument is invalid?
Instead of debating the topic you resort to ad hominem.
Yes, he has misrepresented the new law. it is not just about a limit on power, it also included energy efficiency labelling and some indication of how the vacuum performs under test (not just it's rated input power) the reason being people are using rated input power as a proxy for overall performance. I'd argue, yes that makes his argument invalid.
An example of an ad hominem attack would be Simon's original post referring to the 'prick' that came up with this legislation.
Arguing that someone is speaking from a position of ignorance when they have stated "Err it's based on the BBC "interpretation" i originally posted. No i have not read those doc's as if I have time.", is a simple statement of fact.
-
I bought a 120W hedge trimmer, it was useless, took ages to get the job done as it cut so bad. Then i found a battered 200W one in my out building that was abandoned by the previous house owner. Stuck a plug on it and gave it a go. I flogged the "new" 120W trimmer that was useless and kept the beaten up old 200W one and get the job done in under 1/2 the time. Tell me which trimmer is "greener"
Your anecdote is worthless. It does not demonstrate a trend. On the other hand the EU has done significant research into the issue and demonstrated that the opposite to what you are implying is true. Motor power is not the important factor, quality and technique are.
Which was the point i made, as you say the motor is not important factor, so why legislate on it ? How about they legislate on efficiency rating
-
I'm a very ecological minded person, but i also look at the bigger picture.
What's in the bigger picture that takes precedence over your environment?
Knee jerk reactions in one small area never help the environment, they just shift the problem elsewhere or cause side effect problems. The biggest problem is companies wanting to make a quick buck and loads of profit. It's like electric cars, sounds great if your one track minded and just looking at cars and their output, but as soon as you consider the wider picture and the true environmental concerns you find that your just shifting the problem elsewhere and making it worse. the solution to electric cars is to design and implement better and less carbon dependent electricity to put in those cars before you make a statement, throw loads of our money at incentives that actually costs ridiculous amounts to the tax payer and actually make the larger scale problem worse.
If only politicians were engineers...........
I bought a 120W hedge trimmer, it was useless, took ages to get the job done as it cut so bad. Then i found a battered 200W one in my out building that was abandoned by the previous house owner. Stuck a plug on it and gave it a go. I flogged the "new" 120W trimmer that was useless and kept the beaten up old 200W one and get the job done in under 1/2 the time. Tell me which trimmer is "greener"
I don't think you've answered my question. If you did can you reword it and possibly make it less verbose for me?
I answered it perfectly but you don't want to listen! |O
-
Most EU regulations make a lot of sense although presented differently at some "media". Great job, British beerdrinking company for eating that cookie.
Consumers take high watt number and big noise as signs of high vacuum power, which isn't. As the Dyson example shows, that is not necessary. Market self control (dont do acoustic design that way) didn't work out.
Who said noise indicates effectiveness ? noise is power, so if your wasting it on making noise your not using it to suck, more noise is an indicator that you didn't design it properly. Did i suggest market self control ? No i've been suggesting realistic measures.
Do you think that when we are limited to 1.6KW or 900W those silly cheap 700W badly designed ones will go up or down in sales ? if vacuum cleaners were regulated on their effectiveness then vacuum cleaners using too much power would rate badly and end up costing more. Sometimes it is worth paying more, cheap low power vacuum cleaners are inefficient and break down quickly. My sisters 700W vacuum cleaner which is just 200W shy of the ultimate limit was so bad and so underpowered that it failed due to overheating, smart design!
-
Motor power is not the important factor, quality and technique are.
Then I look forward to a new range of < 1W vacuum cleaners.
-
providing they are designed properly, but good design costs money and companies just see profits.
-
I'm a very ecological minded person, but i also look at the bigger picture.
What's in the bigger picture that takes precedence over your environment?
Knee jerk reactions in one small area never help the environment, they just shift the problem elsewhere or cause side effect problems. The biggest problem is companies wanting to make a quick buck and loads of profit. It's like electric cars, sounds great if your one track minded and just looking at cars and their output, but as soon as you consider the wider picture and the true environmental concerns you find that your just shifting the problem elsewhere and making it worse. the solution to electric cars is to design and implement better and less carbon dependent electricity to put in those cars before you make a statement, throw loads of our money at incentives that actually costs ridiculous amounts to the tax payer and actually make the larger scale problem worse.
If only politicians were engineers...........
I bought a 120W hedge trimmer, it was useless, took ages to get the job done as it cut so bad. Then i found a battered 200W one in my out building that was abandoned by the previous house owner. Stuck a plug on it and gave it a go. I flogged the "new" 120W trimmer that was useless and kept the beaten up old 200W one and get the job done in under 1/2 the time. Tell me which trimmer is "greener"
I don't think you've answered my question. If you did can you reword it and possibly make it less verbose for me?
I answered it perfectly but you don't want to listen! |O
I'm being quite serious. Your original claims seemed to be contradictory so I asked my question. If you don't understand the question then please say so. If you can't or don't want to answer the question then that's fine.
-
Which was the point i made, as you say the motor is not important factor, so why legislate on it ? How about they legislate on efficiency rating
You didn't read the document yet? These are the requirements:
Vacuum cleaners shall comply with the following requirements (2014):
- annual energy consumption shall be less than 62,0 kWh/year,
- rated input power shall be less than 1 600 W,
- dust pick up on carpet (dpuc) shall be greater than or equal to 0,70. This limit shall not apply to hard floor vacuum cleaners,
- dust pick up on hard floor (dpuhf) shall be greater than or equal to 0,95. This limit shall not apply to carpet vacuum cleaners.
These do not apply to industrial vacuum cleaners.
Look at the last two requirements. They say how efficient vacuuming is. Not how efficient motor is. This is the important stuff.
Iin 2017 manufacturers will have tighter standards:
- annual energy consumption shall be less than 43,0 kWh/year,
- rated input power shall be less than 900W,
- dust pick up on carpet (dpuc ) shall be greater than or equal to 0,75. This limit shall not apply to hard floor vacuum cleaners,
- dust pick up on hard floor (dpuhf ) shall be greater than or equal to 0,98. This limit shall not apply to carpet vacuum cleaners,
- dust re-emission shall be no more than 1,00 %,
- sound power level shall be less than or equal to 80 dB(A),
- the hose, if any, shall be durable so that it is still useable after 40 000 oscillations under strain,
- operational motor lifetime shall be greater than or equal to 500 hours.
-
I'm a very ecological minded person, but i also look at the bigger picture.
What's in the bigger picture that takes precedence over your environment?
Knee jerk reactions in one small area never help the environment, they just shift the problem elsewhere or cause side effect problems. The biggest problem is companies wanting to make a quick buck and loads of profit. It's like electric cars, sounds great if your one track minded and just looking at cars and their output, but as soon as you consider the wider picture and the true environmental concerns you find that your just shifting the problem elsewhere and making it worse. the solution to electric cars is to design and implement better and less carbon dependent electricity to put in those cars before you make a statement, throw loads of our money at incentives that actually costs ridiculous amounts to the tax payer and actually make the larger scale problem worse.
If only politicians were engineers...........
I bought a 120W hedge trimmer, it was useless, took ages to get the job done as it cut so bad. Then i found a battered 200W one in my out building that was abandoned by the previous house owner. Stuck a plug on it and gave it a go. I flogged the "new" 120W trimmer that was useless and kept the beaten up old 200W one and get the job done in under 1/2 the time. Tell me which trimmer is "greener"
I don't think you've answered my question. If you did can you reword it and possibly make it less verbose for me?
I answered it perfectly but you don't want to listen! |O
I'm being quite serious. Your original claims seemed to be contradictory so I asked my question. If you don't understand the question then please say so. If you can't or don't want to answer the question then that's fine.
The environment is the bigger picture but often a small part of the problem is tackled so the direct result of that is that it "looks" better but the overall result is that it's no better or worse and costs us a fortune usually to the tax payer in subsidies like electric cars, my example was clear and VERY pertinent.
-
Which was the point i made, as you say the motor is not important factor, so why legislate on it ? How about they legislate on efficiency rating
You didn't read the document yet? These are the requirements:
Vacuum cleaners shall comply with the following requirements (2014):
- annual energy consumption shall be less than 62,0 kWh/year,
- rated input power shall be less than 1 600 W,
- dust pick up on carpet (dpuc) shall be greater than or equal to 0,70. This limit shall not apply to hard floor vacuum cleaners,
- dust pick up on hard floor (dpuhf) shall be greater than or equal to 0,95. This limit shall not apply to carpet vacuum cleaners.
These do not apply to industrial vacuum cleaners.
Look at the last two requirements. They say how efficient vacuuming is. Not how efficient motor is. This is the important stuff.
Iin 2017 manufacturers will have tighter standards:
- annual energy consumption shall be less than 43,0 kWh/year,
- rated input power shall be less than 900W,
- dust pick up on carpet (dpuc ) shall be greater than or equal to 0,75. This limit shall not apply to hard floor vacuum cleaners,
- dust pick up on hard floor (dpuhf ) shall be greater than or equal to 0,98. This limit shall not apply to carpet vacuum cleaners,
- dust re-emission shall be no more than 1,00 %,
- sound power level shall be less than or equal to 80 dB(A),
- the hose, if any, shall be durable so that it is still useable after 40 000 oscillations under strain,
- operational motor lifetime shall be greater than or equal to 500 hours.
Only 500 hours? Wow, it should be 5000 hours.
-
I'm a very ecological minded person, but i also look at the bigger picture.
What's in the bigger picture that takes precedence over your environment?
Knee jerk reactions in one small area never help the environment, they just shift the problem elsewhere or cause side effect problems. The biggest problem is companies wanting to make a quick buck and loads of profit. It's like electric cars, sounds great if your one track minded and just looking at cars and their output, but as soon as you consider the wider picture and the true environmental concerns you find that your just shifting the problem elsewhere and making it worse. the solution to electric cars is to design and implement better and less carbon dependent electricity to put in those cars before you make a statement, throw loads of our money at incentives that actually costs ridiculous amounts to the tax payer and actually make the larger scale problem worse.
If only politicians were engineers...........
I bought a 120W hedge trimmer, it was useless, took ages to get the job done as it cut so bad. Then i found a battered 200W one in my out building that was abandoned by the previous house owner. Stuck a plug on it and gave it a go. I flogged the "new" 120W trimmer that was useless and kept the beaten up old 200W one and get the job done in under 1/2 the time. Tell me which trimmer is "greener"
I don't think you've answered my question. If you did can you reword it and possibly make it less verbose for me?
I answered it perfectly but you don't want to listen! |O
I'm being quite serious. Your original claims seemed to be contradictory so I asked my question. If you don't understand the question then please say so. If you can't or don't want to answer the question then that's fine.
The environment is the bigger picture
So the answer is "nothing"?
but often a small part of the problem is tackled so the direct result of that is that it "looks" better but the overall result is that it's no better or worse and costs us a fortune usually to the tax payer in subsidies like electric cars, my example was clear and VERY pertinent.
To be brutally honest I think you need to work on your reading comprehension because what you wrote there has nothing to do with my question. I wasn't asking about problems or how to tackle them so I don't see the relevance. I merely asked what in your "bigger picture" was taking precedence over your environment.
-
Only 500 hours? Wow, it should be 5000 hours.
If they are thinking 62kWh/year at 1600W then they are modelling approx 40 hours of use per year which seems reasonable in a domestic setting. So 500 hours means a motor life of >10 years at that duty cycle.
-
Vacuum cleaners shall comply with the following requirements (2014):
What kind of vacuum cleaner I buy should be up to me not some unelected bureaucrat sitting in Brussels.
I would be happy with legislation requiring manufacturers to provide more performance and efficiency information which would help me exercise my right to choose. But no, I am not trusted to make (in their view) the right choices so the legislation removes from the market some of the worse (in their view) choices and my right to choose has gone.
Regardless of technical arguments that alone is enough reason to agree with the OP that the EU should f**k off and die.
-
I use 2 vacuum cleaners at home, a pretty beat up old Hoover upright and a newer one. The beat up old one is better at cleaning floors and gets dust and dirt out great, while the newer one is not as good, but has a flexible hose attachment so I can clean other things like furniture. Both were picked up free and thrown out, just needed some bags ( aftermarket generic Hoover bags at $1 each) and a clean and minor repairs.
At work I have a Electrolux 650W cylinder vacuum ( the car vac, known as the "soon to die" one) and a Columbus cylinder, known as the "Dirty Vac", as I use it to clean grease, muck, gunge and assorted horrid stuff out of machinery. Has had a new motor ( 500W) and new hoses over the years, along with lots of new washable filter elements. Looks like cr@p, but works well. I wash it after every job so it stays relatively dust free.
-
The bigger picture is the environment, but often policy claims aren't actually looking at the environment but a small part of the problem, it's not my bigger picture but that of policy makers. which often goes as far as a knee jerk reaction and a result that is a result if your ignoring the environment,
AGAIN CLASSIC EXAMPLE electric cars, great idea, cars that have zero emissions WHILE THEY ARE GOING DOWN THE ROAD so policy makers claim victory and ignore the power station emissions to charge them later when they ARE NO LONGER GOING ALONG THE ROAD
All clear now or do i need to use baby talk ????????!!!!!
-
Please could I add another vote for wooden floors and no carpets? We re-floored our entire apartment when we moved in and apart from making the cleaning easier it's cut the amount of dust down to almost zero.
Our vacuum cleaner may have a 2Kw motor but it sounds like a fighter jet and it only gets used once a month.
-
The bigger picture is the environment, but often policy claims aren't actually looking at the environment but a small part of the problem, it's not my bigger picture but that of policy makers. which often goes as far as a knee jerk reaction and a result that is a result if your ignoring the environment,
AGAIN CLASSIC EXAMPLE electric cars, great idea, cars that have zero emissions WHILE THEY ARE GOING DOWN THE ROAD so policy makers claim victory and ignore the power station emissions to charge them later when they ARE NO LONGER GOING ALONG THE ROAD
All clear now or do i need to use baby talk ????????!!!!!
Again, lots of text not related to the question.
Simon, this isn't an attack on you please understand this. I think you need to see that there's a pattern that's become obvious to some of us (me at least): you got into a mess not reading the exam question on your BTEC paper, you got yourself into a mess not reading the EU rules the BBC story was about, and now you're in a mess answering the question you think I asked, not the question I actually asked. You need to work on your reading comprehension and not jump to conclusions. I just know you're going to take this the wrong way but I had to write it. I'm genuinely sorry if you're offended.
-
The bigger picture is the environment, but often policy claims aren't actually looking at the environment but a small part of the problem, it's not my bigger picture but that of policy makers. which often goes as far as a knee jerk reaction and a result that is a result if your ignoring the environment,
AGAIN CLASSIC EXAMPLE electric cars, great idea, cars that have zero emissions WHILE THEY ARE GOING DOWN THE ROAD so policy makers claim victory and ignore the power station emissions to charge them later when they ARE NO LONGER GOING ALONG THE ROAD
All clear now or do i need to use baby talk ????????!!!!!
Again, lots of text not related to the question.
Simon, this isn't an attack on you please understand this. I think you need to see that there's a pattern that's become obvious to some of us (me at least): you got into a mess not reading the exam question on your BTEC paper, you got yourself into a mess not reading the EU rules the BBC story was about, and now you're in a mess answering the question you think I asked, not the question I actually asked. You need to work on your reading comprehension and not jump to conclusions. I just know you're going to take this the wrong way but I had to write it. I'm genuinely sorry if you're offended.
You just don't want to hear the argument.
-
Oh and why no moan to the BBC for not making all of the facts available ? seriously if you have time to trawl through every paper the EU releases then good luck.
-
What kind of vacuum cleaner I buy should be up to me not some unelected bureaucrat sitting in Brussels.
No. As a society we limit some of the thing that we can do so that the society can benefit. This is called a law. Otherwise it would be every man for himself. Now vacuum cleaners are part of this law because people were doing stupid things.
I would be happy with legislation requiring manufacturers to provide more performance and efficiency information which would help me exercise my right to choose. But no, I am not trusted to make (in their view) the right choices so the legislation removes from the market some of the worse (in their view) choices and my right to choose has gone.
You had a choice for a long time. Manufacturers could have given you the information. They chose not to do it because they decided people will ignore the facts and just buy the most powerful vacuum. This did not work and therefore action was taken by EU. If the market had self regulated itself into right direction EU would't need to pass any law. IMO this is the right way.
-
It still won't stop cheap bad performing units being sold that will break down prematurely and go to landfill, so much more wasted in metal and plastic and most likely non of it will get recycled.
Yes you can and i stress CAN make a good vacuum cleaner with a lower power motor but who will make you ? the market is already full of sub 1KW vacuum cleaners that should never have been made because they are useless and just made to be cheap and if you use them you will use up 10x+ materials and energy in their manufacture. - Like i said - bigger picture.
-
The bigger picture is the environment, but often policy claims aren't actually looking at the environment but a small part of the problem, it's not my bigger picture but that of policy makers. which often goes as far as a knee jerk reaction and a result that is a result if your ignoring the environment,
AGAIN CLASSIC EXAMPLE electric cars, great idea, cars that have zero emissions WHILE THEY ARE GOING DOWN THE ROAD so policy makers claim victory and ignore the power station emissions to charge them later when they ARE NO LONGER GOING ALONG THE ROAD
All clear now or do i need to use baby talk ????????!!!!!
Again, lots of text not related to the question.
Simon, this isn't an attack on you please understand this. I think you need to see that there's a pattern that's become obvious to some of us (me at least): you got into a mess not reading the exam question on your BTEC paper, you got yourself into a mess not reading the EU rules the BBC story was about, and now you're in a mess answering the question you think I asked, not the question I actually asked. You need to work on your reading comprehension and not jump to conclusions. I just know you're going to take this the wrong way but I had to write it. I'm genuinely sorry if you're offended.
You just don't want to hear the argument.
I don't care about your argument; I only care about your answer. The question was:
What's in the bigger picture that takes precedence over your environment?
Some suitable answers:
- nothing.
- my free time.
- my money.
- ...
See zapta's answer to the very same question. He seemed to be able to provide an answer.
Oh and why no moan to the BBC for not making all of the facts available ? seriously if you have time to trawl through every paper the EU releases then good luck.
But it's important to get the right information when it comes to decision making. As the Nobel prize and Turing award winner H. Simon wrote:
Any rational decision may be viewed as a conclusion reached from certain premises.... The behaviour of a rational person can be controlled, therefore, if the value and factual premises upon which he bases his decisions are specified for him.
You just let the BBC specify your "factual premises" and look what happened - you were controlled. It's your responsibility to get the correct "value and factual premises".
-
So basically you have made your mind up as to what is right and wrong and if people or more specifically me get the answer "wrong" in your eyes you treat them like idiots and pretend their missing something instead of debate the actual arguments. You have done more judging in this thread than actually putting your own point, or don't you have one other than to target people ?
I say again i don't have hours a day to read every law passed, I albeit indirectly employ politicians and the media to in the first case look after my interests and second to keep me informed. Obviously they are not perfect and I'd rather do without both. Sadly i actually have to work for a living most of the day instead of read every new law and policy wish list. Instead of pretending other people have problems sort out your own problems.
-
So basically you have made your mind up as to what is right and wrong and if people or more specifically me get the answer "wrong" in your eyes
It really wasn't a pass/fail question.
you treat them like idiots and pretend their missing something instead of debate the actual arguments. You have done more judging in this thread than actually putting your own point, or don't you have one other than to target people ?
I'm trying to tell you that you seem to be exhibiting a pattern of behaviour that can be quite limiting. What you do with that is up to you.
I say again i don't have hours a day to read every law passed
You should at least read the ones you publicly decry.
-
...Yes you can and i stress CAN make a good vacuum cleaner with a lower power motor but who will make you ? the market is already full of sub 1KW vacuum cleaners that should never have been made because they are useless and just made to be cheap and if you use them you will use up 10x+ materials and energy in their manufacture. - Like i said - bigger picture.
It's just one more aspect of big-government, bureaucrats and and utopians run amok and the laws and regulations keep piling in an attempt to regulate the perfect world. It's the new form of collectivism.
-
What kind of vacuum cleaner I buy should be up to me not some unelected bureaucrat sitting in Brussels.
No. As a society we limit some of the thing that we can do so that the society can benefit. This is called a law. Otherwise it would be every man for himself. Now vacuum cleaners are part of this law because people were doing stupid things.
As a society we can choose to do those things, and politicians do and and voters have at least a little control over them. This is called democracy.
Do you work in the EU bureaucracy? Your assertion that 'people' were doing stupid things (buying vacuum cleaners ffs?) and that you know better and people should be forced to do what you think they should indicates you would fit right in.
We have no control over EU bureaucrats almost no control over EU politicians, local politicians shrug off criticism of EU policy blaming the EU and offer little prospect of change. The EU is an enormous thoroughly undemocratic political machine mostly serving itself. Thankfully fringe political parties offering the prospect of change like UKIP in the UK are rapidly gaining popularity.
I am reminded of a quote by C.S. Lewis
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
-
Hmm, maybe I should make a vacuum cleaner with one of those 1/2hp motors I have :P
-
Unfortunately most individuals only care for themselves so the wider picture of the environment we live in is of no interest to them. some people will genuinely not be able to spend much money so will buy the cheapest, the nastiest and most pointless goods. It's an argument i keep having with my dad who wants everything so cheap yet expects it to be perfect and work for years and years.
Who is going to test and rate the vacuum cleaners ? What the EU should do is institute that any appliance is designed to work efficiently and last a reasonable amount of time. that way the cheap rubbish that is expensive in the long run will be removed from the market. Once upon a time a vacuum cleaner was so well made and so expensive that you bought it on finance from a man that can to your door the same day you got paid and demonstrated it and took your deposit. These days we pick vacuum cleaners up with our food shopping.
I bought my 2KW vax in lidl, it is powerful, it works very well on a clean filter but due to the actual volume available for dust being so small the filter clogs quickly and it starts to become innefective eventually. In order to maintain efficiency and therefore reduce the time i spend using it and make every watt count i wash the filter regularly.
-
Being ecological (green) does not have to be such a problem. It becomes a problem when knee jerk policies are inacted in the name of being green without looking at the overall picture.
My sister bought a nice little 700W vacum cleaner, did not work very well and broke down after 3 months........ is that the EU's idea of saving the planet ? or lining manufacturers, importers and retailers pockets ? :-DD |O
My vacuum cleaner I bought last year got 2200W but I run it at about 450-500W without any problems. My observation about the increasing power ratings over the years is that it might be related to additional filters, profit and customers. Most people think that more power is better, so they choose the vac with the higher power rating. The higher power rating also compensates the loss of suction caused by additional filters and allows to keep the design simple and cheap. A more efficient vac would require more effort in R&D, and could be less profitable. I think that the idea of limiting the power rating is to force the vendors to increase the efficiency of the vacs. Hence the performance requirements. Otherwise vendors would simply put larger motors into the vacs to meet the required performance. I'm not happy with everything the EU does but this seems to be a quite reasonable idea.
-
I just fear that we will end up with more premature failures from vacuum cleaners with motors that struggle and pass the "tests" but fail after some use, again who is testing these things ? We've all heard of controls, regulations, quango's.
-
I just fear that we will end up with more premature failures from vacuum cleaners with motors that struggle and pass the "tests" but fail after some use, again who is testing these things ? We've all heard of controls, regulations, quango's.
That's a possible outcome, but it isn't necessarily the only outcome. You can't regulate a perfect product, but the EU seems to be doing what they can in a reasonable way:
They want a ceiling on the total power input, as it is trending upward and getting out of hand. The market and the public failed to resolve this, so the EU stepped in and called time-out. Fair enough. People had freedom, people failed to police themselves, people's freedom got taken away. That's kinda how it works. Any parent or pet owner has put that exact same system into effect.
They want a certain level of efficiency, so the net effect of the law is not just a reduction in power, but a reduction in wasted power. Seems like a wise move, and contrary to some of the key complaints in the first couple pages of this thread.
To curb premature failure, they require a reasonable expected lifetime of the system under these constraints.
To recap: They are requiring less waste, better efficiency, and durability. If consumers had done that themselves, the gov't would've have stepped in.
Will it totally prevent lemons and underpowered vacuums? Nope. But there will be appliances that fit the guidelines and are built well. Ultimately, consumers will decide the fate of the products on the market at that time. There. You still have freedom, so use it wisely.
As to who tests these things, probably the same people who test large appliance efficiency, or EMC, or electrical safety. There will be requirements for compliance, and testing centers certified to test for that compliance. This isn't a ground-breaking idea, so I'm sure it can be modeled after some existing pattern that has proven more or less successful.
Disclosure: This law doesn't (won't) apply to me, so my only involvement is as an interested bystander. If it did apply to me, I would have no problem with it.
-
I'm afraid the consumer has no control, good quality machines generally have more powerful motors and some have speed control like mine. We can only buy what is offered.
the only control the consumer has is to try and choose the best one but how many people understand the in's and outs, many genuinely can't afford much so buy cheap rubbish that costs more in the ling run.
if what they are limiting is the motor power rather than power consumption that is not the best idea and one of those little knee jerk reactions. Regulating power consumption makes more sense, the motors can be made for more power and de-rated, that would automatically extend their life and is directly reflected in the documentation i have read much of when trying to find a motor to use in a hand drier, 48V 1KW motors are available but the datasheet heavily recommended 36V and stated life time at 36V despite the motor being rated for 48V. I expect that a 2KW motor designed for 300V may well run at 1.6KW at 240V, providing the EU are happy with that we may be ok.
Unless clear rules are made about the design we won't necessarily get good products. My vacuum cleaner could do with more dust storage space, do we need a law for that ?
If they are genuinely going to take an all round approach then I don't have a problem and have a problem with reactionary media.
-
Yeah these appliances go through a tonne of CE directives as it is, would be pretty trivial and useful to add one for efficiency. Power cap is a good first step though.
-
Plenty of directives, but often enforcement is complaint driven rather than something actively sought by the importers.
-
Yeah these appliances go through a tonne of CE directives as it is, would be pretty trivial and useful to add one for efficiency. Power cap is a good first step though.
Are you joking ? how hard is it to print a CE mark ? that is all it takes, you the manufacturer write out a peice of paper to say that your product complies and put a label on the product, congrats, you just passed CE. There is nothing to pass with CE you just have to hope that you read the directives and work out which ones apply and do the testing yourself. Some of it is stringent and makes you go to certain test houses.
i think we all know that CE marking of goods from china is a poor joke!
-
Lol, what's the big deal? It's a vacuum cleaner, they are barely used. Sheesh.
...so that's why nobody accepts my dinner invitations.
-
Vacuum cleaners shall comply with the following requirements (2014):
- annual energy consumption shall be less than 62,0 kWh/year,
- rated input power shall be less than 1 600 W,
- dust pick up on carpet (dpuc) shall be greater than or equal to 0,70. This limit shall not apply to hard floor vacuum cleaners,
- dust pick up on hard floor (dpuhf) shall be greater than or equal to 0,95. This limit shall not apply to carpet vacuum cleaners.
I must say, then after all, there is some brain in their heads. When I was buying it the last time, I went for something small, bag-less with decent quality. In fact, it would be useful to specify the efficient rating of it like with fridges and washing machines.
Even though my argument is still valid. This is a less frequently used appliance, so reducing the consumption is not that useful. I dont know where they got the 4x KWh/year number. Probably some old english lady living in a castle with 40 cats.
-
Sure, CE markings are forged with regularity. The likelihood of that depends on whether your brand has credibility. Hoover and Dyson aren't going to forge CE. SucksAll will, and when it dies within 15 hours of use, hopefully the consumer learns that was not money well spent. If not... well... regulation can only help so much. At some point, you have to stop being careless with your money.
-
If you leave the EU, don't go to the USA or Canada. ;)
Our 120V 15A outlets severely limits the power available. |O
>1600W vacuum cleaners would be impossible here. :-//
Unless maybe for a central vacuum cleaner wired to a 240V circuit.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28878432 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28878432)
I mean seriously ? what version of prick dreamed this up ? where did they get their technical background ?
Well if you want to keep using outdated, energy inefficient equipment, stay locked into one vendor, etc, etc then by all means leave the EU. You don't need a lot of power to make a good vacuum cleaner. It's just about using more clever techniques. The high power ones are mostly the cheap ones that don't turn that extra power (and increasingly more money!) into a better result. How do the English say that? 'Good riddance' IIRC!
-
There is surely a point of diminishing returns which lies well below 1600W.
I have a (cheap) robot vacuum cleaner which consumes around 20W. While it's not a total replacement for a conventional machine it does a surprisingly effective job on both hard floors and carpet, and it has a HEPA filter.
I wouldn't pretend to be an expert, but my suspicion is that a domestic user needs a 2000W+ vacuum about as much as they need a 20+ megapixel phone camera with a miniscule lens and sensor, a five-blade razor, or any other triumph of marketing hype over engineering reason.
-
i just dont get it why arent they brothered to incrase the suction power and effectiveness of the whole vacuum turbine in them, seriously all you can get looking at some publshed specs on rated suction power and rated power input, seriously 3-400 watts suction for 2kw consumed power? thats pretty shitty effiency, they should enforce this not limiting this. im in no way educated enough to be easly think for solution to incrase the effectiveness but how hard could it be? ban all the cheap chinese inefficient shit even entering the continent etc then you can get a living from improving things. i would gladly pay a fair price for a vacuum cleaner that has enugh suction no to leave anthing on the floor or carpet. a good test would be cement, fire brick dust etc which sticks to everything and loves to stay there if that gets sucked up from a carpet without trace then im in the market for one ohh and the second 80dB max noise? make it 65 and we can talk.
-
They want a ceiling on the total power input, as it is trending upward and getting out of hand.The market and the public failed to resolve this, so the EU stepped in and called time-out. Fair enough. People had freedom, people failed to police themselves, people's freedom got taken away.
People had the freedom to choose but they didn't make the choice we thought they should so we are going to take away their choice because we are right and they are wrong. And you call that fair enough? I don't think you understand the meaning of the word.
In a democracy what people choose is right by definition. The EU can get away with shit like this because it is completely devoid of any democratic accountability.
-
In a democracy what people choose is right by definition.
Nonsense. Just because the majority want something doesn't make it right.
This is one reason why most of us live in a representative democracy rather than a direct one.
The EU can get away with shit like this because it is completely devoid of any democratic accountability.
Not nonsense. But not as true as they probably wish.
-
I mean seriously ? what version of prick dreamed this up ? where did they get their technical background ?
the actual docs:
http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/ia_carried_out/docs/ia_2013/swd_2013_0240_en.pdf (http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/ia_carried_out/docs/ia_2013/swd_2013_0240_en.pdf)
http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/ia_carried_out/docs/ia_2013/swd_2013_0241_en.pdf (http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/ia_carried_out/docs/ia_2013/swd_2013_0241_en.pdf) (summary of first document)
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013R0666 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013R0666) (actual law)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2617/contents/made (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2617/contents/made) (UK law from adoption of EU regulation)
It seems pretty reasonable and well thought-through to me. It seems intuitively wrong that hoovers across the EU use more power than the whole of Denmark, and produce more emissions than washing machines and dishwashers. This at a time when other household devices have been becoming more efficient (eg computers are drastically more efficient than 15 years ago) hoovers have been getting worse by 2.5% PA.
Those Danes already get under the current regulations and have neatly classified one of their most popular cleaners as both a consumer and industrial product (with different model codes):
https://www.nilfisk.com/en/products/Pages/product.aspx?fid=14950&Name=GM%2080P%20220-240V%20EU (https://www.nilfisk.com/en/products/Pages/product.aspx?fid=14950&Name=GM%2080P%20220-240V%20EU)
Everyone wants a Nozzle on their cleaner!
-
And you call that fair enough? I don't think you understand the meaning of the word. ... In a democracy what people choose is right by definition.
You might be right -- maybe it's not fair. On the other hand, maybe one of the most important roles of government is the ability to enforce regulation upon people who are too self-absorbed to consider anything beyond their immediate desires.
Ironically, the people have the same responsibility regarding their government.
It boils down to this: Mankind are merely animals, with all the same tendencies. (And believe me, I am not pointing fingers here. I understand I am one evolutionary step away from chasing my own tail.) Everyone needs someone to call them on their BS. And a 2kW home vacuum cleaner is a perfect example of BS. It might not be the most pressing issue facing the union; it might just be low-hanging fruit that happened to get plucked this time.
-
Everyone needs someone to call them on their BS. And a 2kW home vacuum cleaner is a perfect example of BS.
Except it isn't bullshit or only bullshit because they declare it to be and remember every point they make is from the eco green tosser perspective, for example this comment
Certainly there are silent vacuum cleaners at reportedly 66 dBA instead of the louder 80 dBA that one might expect from the average vacuum cleaner. But still, the power consumption is around 2200 W. Combinations of noise at those levels and a low power consumption can currently not be found. Note that, because of this negative correlation between noise and energy, stakeholders are not in favour of overly stringent noise requirements.
In other words my choice to buy a quiet vacuum cleaner and pay for the extra power consumption should be removed.
The following paragraph is just as bad, legislation will not require very high performance dust filters because they require more power, but, it will limit power anyway meaning people requiring high performance filters because of respiratory problems will just have to lump it and vacuum slowly.
So your claimed perfect example of bullshit is err bullshit.
-
I expect a low power vacuum cleaner should be possible. I have an 1800W vacuum cleaner and I normally run it at a power of considerably less than that.
Its a shame that I don't have a Ewbank carpet sweeper. I've used those before and really like them. If I had one here, I would probably use the vacuum cleaner a lot less.
-
So an electric car that needs to get power from a coal fired power station with all of the associated transmission losses is more efficient overall and better for the environment than just burning the fossil fuel directly in the car with no transmission losses and infrastructure costs ? Seriously ? until we have carbon neutral electricity generation this will never happen, as it is we can;t use renewables to generate enough electricity for household use never mind transportation......... No I haven't read your link, i did the basic math in my head!
If we are going to get sensible vacuum cleaner regulations then I accept them, as others have mentioned for something that is used occasionally the environmental argument is negligible, but quality of product would be nice to have, speaking of which why aren't ALL of our domestic appliances regulated for built quality and sensible efficiency ?
-
While I'm here I might as well debunk your nonsense about electric cars too: http://www.nextgreencar.com/electric-cars/environmental-benefits.php (http://www.nextgreencar.com/electric-cars/environmental-benefits.php)
This is still a very debatable subject since you should calculate the fabrication carbon footprint as well.
An electric car with 0 miles (so off factory) has the same carbon footprint of a conventional car with 80000 miles on it. :o
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324128504578346913994914472 (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324128504578346913994914472)
-
So an electric car that needs to get power from a coal fired power station with all of the associated transmission losses is more efficient overall and better for the environment than just burning the fossil fuel directly in the car with no transmission losses and infrastructure costs ? Seriously ?
If you only concentrate on that part it could be true. Don't forget that most power stations have to run 24/7 and only during daytime there is a great demand of the energy. So charging in the night or using energy in the night can be very interesting from this point of view.
-
Whilst the aim seems laudable the propositions seems cart before the horse.
Enforce power cap then introduce self regulatory performance-testing.
Should start with enforced independent performance-testing, then see how little power can be used effectively.
-
Can't say it any clearer than this. A direct quote from Simon:
"What the EU should do is institute that any appliance is designed to work efficiently and last a reasonable amount of time. that way the cheap rubbish that is expensive in the long run will be removed from the market."
"If they are genuinely going to take an all round approach then I don't have a problem and have a problem with reactionary media"
Then courtesy of owiecc:
"Vacuum cleaners shall comply with the following requirements (2014):
- annual energy consumption shall be less than 62,0 kWh/year,
- rated input power shall be less than 1 600 W,
- dust pick up on carpet (dpuc) shall be greater than or equal to 0,70. This limit shall not apply to hard floor vacuum cleaners,
- dust pick up on hard floor (dpuhf) shall be greater than or equal to 0,95. This limit shall not apply to carpet vacuum cleaners.
These do not apply to industrial vacuum cleaners.
Look at the last two requirements. They say how efficient vacuuming is. Not how efficient motor is. This is the important stuff.
Iin 2017 manufacturers will have tighter standards:
- annual energy consumption shall be less than 43,0 kWh/year,
- rated input power shall be less than 900W,
- dust pick up on carpet (dpuc ) shall be greater than or equal to 0,75. This limit shall not apply to hard floor vacuum cleaners,
- dust pick up on hard floor (dpuhf ) shall be greater than or equal to 0,98. This limit shall not apply to carpet vacuum cleaners,
- dust re-emission shall be no more than 1,00 %,
- sound power level shall be less than or equal to 80 dB(A),
- the hose, if any, shall be durable so that it is still useable after 40 000 oscillations under strain,
- operational motor lifetime shall be greater than or equal to 500 hours."
...which meets the definition of "institute that any appliance is designed to work efficiently and last a reasonable amount of time."
I think we can put this to bed now and move on.
-
Does this unwanted rule also affect industrial cleaners?
I have no problem using that in my house.
-
|O
These do not apply to industrial vacuum cleaners.
-
So an electric car that needs to get power from a coal fired power station with all of the associated transmission losses is more efficient overall and better for the environment than just burning the fossil fuel directly in the car with no transmission losses and infrastructure costs ? Seriously ? until we have carbon neutral electricity generation this will never happen, as it is we can;t use renewables to generate enough electricity for household use never mind transportation......... No I haven't read your link, i did the basic math in my head!
The UK electrical transmission loss is under 5%. For the US, a huge country, it's only 6%. High voltage transmission and 99.9% efficiency transformers do help.
I posted this previously:
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=105&t=3 (http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=105&t=3)
About the same amount of fuel is consumed transporting petrol than is lost in the US grid system. 40,000 litres per tanker approx. Truck does about 5mpg. If it has to travel from port city to central distribution (it will change over in places of course, but this is an approximation) let's say ~1000mi distance then it will consume 200 gallons fuel or about 1000 litres, which is 2.5%, plus return journey, totaling 5% losses for transportation.
It's worse for the UK, because we have to import all oil to refine in the country (do we import petrol too? maybe?), and that has to come in via ship or train.
Also refining oil into petrol uses approx 5kWh per gallon - that's enough to go 18 miles in a Tesla P85 alone...
-
Has the EU bothered to regulate LED lighting yet ? I was speaking to the technical director of a UK PCB manufacturer today and he told me that 60% ok UK consumption is on lights and 60% of their work is in lighting. Has the EU legislated yet on new LED's ? The guy was telling me that many installers and designers have move away from chinese stuff because it fails early and is not very efficient, are there regulations ? not as far as i'm aware, halogens are almost as bad as the now banned incandescent and naturally there are plenty of crap CFL's out there that are not as efficient as they claim to be, produce poor lighting and fail early, has the EU legislated on CFL quality ? No but it's worried about a vacuum cleaner that is used a whole lot less................
-
So an electric car that needs to get power from a coal fired power station with all of the associated transmission losses is more efficient overall and better for the environment than just burning the fossil fuel directly in the car with no transmission losses and infrastructure costs ? Seriously ? until we have carbon neutral electricity generation this will never happen, as it is we can;t use renewables to generate enough electricity for household use never mind transportation......... No I haven't read your link, i did the basic math in my head!
You don't seem to understand how an internal combustion engine works. They are not nearly as efficient as electricity generation using oil, although of course most electricity is not generated with oil anyway. Much of our oil comes from rather unsavoury countries, so you have to
Unfortunately the math speaks against you: Even in a country like the NL with relatively clean electricity an EV produces 105grams of CO2 per km using the EPA driving cycle test. In a few years the EU will implement a better driving cycle test AND requires cars to produce less than 90grams of CO2 per km. Given that the fuels sold in the EU already consist of at least 5% bio fuel an EV has to produce less than 90*0.95=85.5 grams of CO2 per km in order to be more efficient than en ICE based car. I'd like to see where the electricity (less than 380grams CO2 per kWh) is coming from... And the electricity in the NL isn't really that 'clean'. In the NL the power companies buy CO2 emission rights from Sweden so on paper the Swedish people emit the CO2 produced in the NL :palm:
Also the emissions from power plants are not zero. The new euro6 emission standard for cars (which is already in effect) is very tight. It could be more strict than the emission limits for coal/gas based power plants. Unfortunately the numbers are hard to compare.
To make things worse: several countries (Belgium and Germany) in the EU have decided to get rid of their nuclear power stations. Their only fallback is gas or coal. In Belgium they are already counting on an electricity shortage (=blackouts) due to that decission. Some of the Belgian nuclear power plants are down for unscheduled maintenance and because they never build new nuclear power stations they have no backup. Needing more electricity for EVs just makes matters worse. Like Simon already stated: EVs are only an option if electricity production no longer relies on gas or coal
-
Has the EU bothered to regulate LED lighting yet ?
Erm, yes.
http://www.osram.co.uk/osram_uk/news-and-knowledge/eu-directive-on-eco-design-erp/index.jsp (http://www.osram.co.uk/osram_uk/news-and-knowledge/eu-directive-on-eco-design-erp/index.jsp)
http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/energyefficiency/residential-lighting/european-led-quality-charter (http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/energyefficiency/residential-lighting/european-led-quality-charter)
-
It's a lot harder to buy incandescents now; pearl 100W bulbs have been banned, and clear 100W should be gone soon. I have a stockpile - not for lighting, but as load testes and series fuse replacements for PSU repair. Very handy if imprecise 100W resistors.
-
Also refining oil into petrol uses approx 5kWh per gallon - that's enough to go 18 miles in a Tesla P85 alone...
Coal, gas, Uranium, etc don't get into power plants by themselves either.
-
Energy from iceland (geisers) and norway ( water from high lakes over turbines) is pretty clean. Unfortunately not enough for the whole of europe.
-
I have an AstroVac central vacuum cleaner. According to the web site it is rated as "725 max air watts". It works great, and no lugging / pulling a noisy wheeled motor around the house.
-
People had the freedom to choose but they didn't make the choice we thought they should so we are going to take away their choice because we are right and they are wrong. And you call that fair enough? I don't think you understand the meaning of the word.
In a democracy what people choose is right by definition. The EU can get away with shit like this because it is completely devoid of any democratic accountability.
Bingo!
The utopians and the bureaucrats could not care less about personal freedom. For them it's about collectivism, 'efficiency' and 'common good' as they see it and freedom fall by the wayside.
-
So an electric car that needs to get power from a coal fired power station with all of the associated transmission losses is more efficient overall and better for the environment than just burning the fossil fuel directly in the car with no transmission losses and infrastructure costs ? Seriously ?
I don't know where you live, but over here, there are no magic gasoline-springs that open up just where a car is parked. Over here, gasoline still has to be made from crude oil. That is, the oil has to be brought up from the ground, transported to a refinery, processed, then transported to the gas stations. All steps that have their own share of losses and waste production.
And look up "carnot cycle" to see what the therotical maximum of achievable efficiency is for an internal combustion engine. Which, in the real world, are rather impossible to reach anyways.
Last but not least, an ICE has a _very_ narrow window of operation in which it is most efficient. That usually means a fixed RPM and load. Anything outside that will greatly reduce efficiency. Compare that to a regular power plant that is, by design, usually working in the most efficient band by default.
Greetings,
Chris
-
People had the freedom to choose but they didn't make the choice we thought they should so we are going to take away their choice because we are right and they are wrong. And you call that fair enough? I don't think you understand the meaning of the word.
In a democracy what people choose is right by definition. The EU can get away with shit like this because it is completely devoid of any democratic accountability.
The utopians and the bureaucrats could not care less about personal freedom. For them it's about collectivism, 'efficiency' and 'common good' as they see it and freedom fall by the wayside.
The altenative is getting a fist from a big corporation up your a*s forcing you to buy overpriced crap without any warranty. For example Apple had to pay several big fines for not adhering to European warranty rules. The EU legislation really is about getting better products on the shelves.
I really don't see how 'taking away the freedom to buy crappy products without warranty' is going to have a negative impact on my life.
-
The altenative is getting a fist from a big corporation up your a*s forcing you to buy overpriced crap without any warranty. For example Apple had to pay several big fines for not adhering to European warranty rules.
No one forced me to buy Apple products. The additional cost of the extended warranty will be passed on to the customer as will the cost of the fines they got for not providing it. The EU didn't 'stick it to the man' Apple don't give a shit it cost them nothing and all their competitors are equally burdened by EU regulation. All the EU did is remove my choice to pay less for a worse warranty.
It is an example of what the EU is about, the price free trade between member states is all states must be equally burdened by regulation. The slightest competitive advantage between states must be stamped out, be it buying cheaper Apple products, or cheap vacuum cleaners, or burying their garbage in the ground rather than expensively recycling it or shipping it to third world countries.
The EU legislation really is about getting better products on the shelves.
In this case every aspect has been considered from a reduced energy consumption perspective, it is about only placing products on the shelf which use less energy regardless of them being noisier, dirtier, or less efficient in terms of how long you have to spend using them. If they thought people would accept it it would be about only placing brooms on the shelf.
-
Apple has profit margins in the range of 40-80% and a 30-50% market share in these countries. A half million euros a year in extra service costs aren't even going to register on their profit sheets. Any cost "passed along to you" is just a middle finger.
-
In other words my choice to buy a quiet vacuum cleaner and pay for the extra power consumption should be removed.
The utopians and the bureaucrats could not care less about personal freedom. For them it's about collectivism, 'efficiency' and 'common good' as they see it and freedom fall by the wayside.
Guys, I sincerely apologize. I totally underestimated your intense desire to buy crappy, over-powered, under-performing vacuum cleaners.
Nothing can compare to the emotional distress of not being able to buy a diesel-powered dust buster. Not the (apparently endangered) utility companies, not the environmental impact of having to purchase new vacs every three years because you only want to pay 50 pounds for a machine with 25% higher current draw than my table saw, not the ignorance of thousands of consumers buying "the one with biggest number"...
I've been so short-sighted. I'll mail you each a hand-written note, sealed with a genuine tear-stain.
And, to The Government, aka, The Man: STOP MAKING OUR LIVES BETTER.
-
In other words my choice to buy a quiet vacuum cleaner and pay for the extra power consumption should be removed.
Guys, I sincerely apologize. I totally underestimated your intense desire to buy crappy, over-powered, under-performing vacuum cleaners.
Maybe you didn't quite comprehend the bit about quiet vacuum cleaners requiring more power to force the same air flow through silencing baffles and filters.
Also where does the assumption that any high powered vacuum cleaner is also crappy and under-performing come from? The linked BBC article states 5 of the 7 most highly rated cleaners exceed the new 1600W limit.
Do you seriously believe all the manufactures in the world are making crap vacuum cleaners only because EU hasn't made them illegal yet?
I suppose I should not complain, the BBC article is still in the top 5 most popular shared, the anti-EU stink this legislation has generated is another welcome nail in its coffin.
-
Maybe you didn't quite comprehend the bit about quiet vacuum cleaners requiring more power to force the same air flow through silencing baffles and filters.
I comprehend, but I don't care. I own two vacuum cleaners -- one for the home, and a Shop-Vac. Both are loud enough to be obnoxious, while the Shop-Vac takes it a step further to "irritating". I consider that collateral damage for its ability to suck up saw dust, pine needles, small rocks, and probably my cat.
Would they both meet EU regulations? Yes on power, dunno about the rest.
Also where does the assumption that any high powered vacuum cleaner is also crappy and under-performing come from?
Probably the same place as the assumption that a cleaner <1600W would not be adequate. (Hint: Check between the two back pockets of someone's pants.) FWIW, I don't actually believe any and all 2kW vacuums are crappy. I do believe they are probably overkill for their given application, and we won't be missing much if they were suddenly unavailable. In exchange, maybe the available options in a more sensible power class will be improved, as they will now be required to compete on a more level playing field.
Do you seriously believe all the manufactures in the world are making crap vacuum cleaners only because EU hasn't made them illegal yet?
Of course not! That would be silly. ^-^ The EU is just going to make it slightly more difficult to continue doing so, if said manufacturer wants to continue peddling their crap in that region of the world. But don't worry, anything's legal in China. As such, there will be plenty of loving homes with clean carpets. Or carpets with tufts missing. Score one for freedom!
-
Instead we got together and did it collectively through our employees, the government, and told manufacturers that if they want access to our market then these are the rules we require them to play by.
So, it's kind of like being represented by a labor... union... Wait a sec... flicker.. flicker... buzzzz... lightbulb!
-
The utopians and the bureaucrats could not care less about personal freedom. For them it's about collectivism, 'efficiency' and 'common good' as they see it and freedom fall by the wayside.
The problem with this libertarian view is that it requires everyone to be an expert in everything, or to employ an independent expert to advise them.
Not at all. Free people can make purchasing decisions that you deem bad. This is part of being free.
-
I really don't see how 'taking away the freedom to buy crappy products without warranty' is going to have a negative impact on my life.
That's a very ego centric view. If I don't want to do X than I don't mind that the government will punish people that do X.
I often buy cheap, crappy no-warrantee Chinese stuff from ebay. It's my choice.
Freedom is an endangered value. It's not a surprise since most educational systems are control by unionized big-government supporters that live of tax money.
-
This kind of thing is one of many reasons I'm glad I don't have to run a business in the EU.
-
Of course I switched to a clean energy supplier that only buys from wind, solar, hydro, wave and nuclear sources so if/when I get an EV my own emissions will be far lower.
You will have to show us the mains filter you installed that passes those green electrons and rejects the others.
-
Unfortunately the math speaks against you: Even in a country like the NL with relatively clean electricity an EV produces 105grams of CO2 per km using the EPA driving cycle test.
Even in the dirty UK it's not nearly that bad: http://d3u3pjcknor73l.cloudfront.net/assets/media/pdf/electric_car_emits_75_gCO2_per_km.pdf (http://d3u3pjcknor73l.cloudfront.net/assets/media/pdf/electric_car_emits_75_gCO2_per_km.pdf)
Of course I switched to a clean energy supplier that only buys from wind, solar, hydro, wave and nuclear sources so if/when I get an EV my own emissions will be far lower.
That PDF is wrong from A to Z. They just pull numbers out of their magic hat and at the end the author states that the numbers are based on assumptions! They probably used NEDC numbers for range. It is well known that the NEDC test is very outdated and easy to manipulate (which is why the NEDC is about to be replaced). The NEDC range for the Tesla Model-S is even larger than Tesla's own number which is already highly optimistic! According to the range/mileage test of the EPA an average EV needs 225Wh/km. If I look at my electricity bill it says that the electricity I buy produces 475gr of CO2 per kWh. So an average EV produces 106 gr. of CO2 per km in the NL. These are hard factual numbers you can look up and verify yourself.
BTW: according to the independant consumer magazine I'm subscribed to most 'green electricity' is just a scam by buying emission rights. From the 20 companies offering green electricity only 1 or 2 sell 100% wind and solar power and they are slightly more expensive than the rest.
-
I really don't see how 'taking away the freedom to buy crappy products without warranty' is going to have a negative impact on my life.
That's a very ego centric view. If I don't want to do X than I don't mind that the government will punish people that do X.
I often buy cheap, crappy no-warrantee Chinese stuff from ebay. It's my choice.
That's a very egocentric view. "I want crappy Chinese stuff and I don't mind that kids occasionally get electrocuted by fake chargers, because I disapprove of regulation."
-
Not at all. Free people can make purchasing decisions that you deem bad. This is part of being free.
So only people who can afford to make the choice are free. Everyone else just has to buy unsafe or rip-off products. Doesn't sound very free to me.
I agree.
For example: the whole financial crisis is due to the lack of regulation on financial markets and products. Combined mortgage/insurance products got so complicated that a university grade education in economics isn't even enough to fully understand the product. How are common people going to make a distinction between a mortgage scam or a product which actually allows them to pay for their home? Even the specialists got confused and started selling buying packages of trash mortgages. In the NL complex mortgage products essentially got banned.
Big companies are much like little kids with a loaded gun. No sense of ethics or ideas about the consequences of their actions. Therefore a free market cannot work (without killing a lot of people). I'd like to point to this documentary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OazUh0Ym8rc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OazUh0Ym8rc)
-
You will have to show us the mains filter you installed that passes those green electrons and rejects the others.
Of course that's not how it works.
No, it doesn't work at all other than to line the pockets of some shysters with the small premium you pay and to allow you to try to bullshit anyone (including yourself) stupid enough to believe otherwise.
-
You will have to show us the mains filter you installed that passes those green electrons and rejects the others.
Of course that's not how it works.
No, it doesn't work at all other than to line the pockets of some shysters with the small premium you pay and to allow you to try to bullshit anyone (including yourself) stupid enough to believe otherwise.
One is connected to the same wires whether or not one pays the "extra green power fee." You aren't really buying "green" power, you are buying the same power. They just charge more and claim they spend the extra money in a way that does the environment some good. Why pay more for the same electrons to assuage one's guilt? If one feels the need to contribute to the green movement, I'd think a suitable donation would be more effective.
-
This legislation is nothing to do with ecology and gut-wrenching concern for our environment and 'climate change'; it is everything to do with authoritarianism, control and power.
Fuck the stupid legislation and the bureaucratic wankers who decreed it was somehow beneficial for mankind. I'm buying one of these and leaving it on 24/7: https://www.machinemart.co.uk/shop/product/details/nvd752-wood-vac?da=1&TC=SRC-wood%20vac (https://www.machinemart.co.uk/shop/product/details/nvd752-wood-vac?da=1&TC=SRC-wood%20vac)
-
I really don't see how 'taking away the freedom to buy crappy products without warranty' is going to have a negative impact on my life.
That's a very ego centric view. If I don't want to do X than I don't mind that the government will punish people that do X.
I often buy cheap, crappy no-warrantee Chinese stuff from ebay. It's my choice.
Oh, the irony. You're complaining that your freedoms are being stolen because you don't have the option to buy appliances that are inefficient and/or prone to failure. (Equipment that is not at least one of the above won't be affected.) Meanwhile, there are leagues of people being snowed by manufacturers who prey on the ignorance of the common consumer. If that's not ego-centric, then I must confess my own ignorance -- because I apparently don't understand the meaning of that phrase. (I'm going to be sorely disappointed if someone doesn't use this opening for a personal attack. C'moonnnn.... you want to...)
In all honesty, I have an anti-authority streak as well. So I get that people don't like being told they can't do something, even if they had no intention to do it anyway. I felt the same way when my neighborhood was selected for mandatory recycling. That pissed me off... until I realized I was upset about having to do something I believed in doing anyway. Then I had a stern talk with myself, and learned what it means to "pick your battles."
For example: the whole financial crisis is due to the lack of regulation on financial markets and products.
This is such a perfect example of why this kind of legislation is necessary, I'm disappointed I didn't think of it first.
No, it doesn't work at all other than to line the pockets of some shysters with the small premium you pay and to allow you to try to bullshit anyone (including yourself) stupid enough to believe otherwise.
Brother... you seem to have misplaced anger flowing from deep down within your butt chakra. You need to find Jesus, a six-pack of beer, and/or the rental room at the back of the bookstore down by the highway.
This legislation is nothing to do with ecology and gut-wrenching concern for our environment and 'climate change'; it is everything to do with authoritarianism, control and power.
Fuck the stupid legislation and the bureaucratic wankers who decreed it was somehow beneficial for mankind. I'm buying one of these and leaving it on 24/7:
I recently saw a video of people who intentionally modify their trucks to burn excess fuel in order to produce clouds of thick, black smoke. Up until your comment, that was the dumbest form of protest I've ever heard of. Congrats man! You are one clever bloke. High-five! :-+
-
it is everything to do with authoritarianism, control and power.
And they deem that they know better than we do what is good for us. We are simply the ignorant piece of dirt, the stupid, the governed and the lesser human than the political elites.
-
I guess, if you have an inferiority complex.
Or, you could see them as the governing body that (ideally) looks out for your broader interests. Course corrections are and always will be necessary. This is the job of the informed populace. However, whining and moaning is not very effective -- especially if it occurs in response to every decision made by your governing body.
People (on both sides of this relationship) seem to forget that the government works for the people. Don't like their choices? Get involved in changing them then.
-
... the government works for the people.
No, it does not. The government industry works for itself.
Don't like their choices? Get involved in changing them then.
Not easy when we are outgun.
-
In all honesty, I have an anti-authority streak as well. So I get that people don't like being told they can't do something, even if they had no intention to do it anyway.
You keep saying it all the time. It's a false argument, people buy cheap stuff from ebay and other sources all the time. I understand that this specific law does not affect you personally but I suggest that you will read Martin Niemöller's eternal poem "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist. ... "
Think freedom!
-
Well, it's that or lie down and let it happen.
There are a lot of truly awful decisions being made these days. The wattage rating on vacuum cleaners doesn't strike me as the top of that heap, however, maybe for some it's the straw that breaks the camel's back. So be it.
In that case, I suggest this: Dave made a pretty compelling point with his Solar Roadways video. As such, it has shown up as a related video in the oddest of places. If this is your line in the sand, research the proposals, gather the data, and post a video of your own. Get the word out. Can't guarantee that'll change anything, especially because I doubt that many folks are passionate about their canister vacs. But hey. Net-neutrality stirred a few pots, so can Hoover-gate.
There are a lot more of us than there are of them. We're not out-gunned. We're out-motivated.
-
people buy cheap stuff from ebay and other sources all the time.
I don't. I often look for the cheapest of otherwise comparable items, sure, but I'm not the guy that buys ICs and such on eBay. (With one exception -- for a just-to-see-if-I-can project, where the original IC was NLA, and would probably be under NDA if it weren't.) Typically, I vote with my money. I could get a cheap TV for $200, I spent considerably more than that for something with a better pedigree. I don't buy cheap tools. I don't buy cheap socks. I have my PCBs made somewhere between the cheapest and most expensive houses, where the quality is. I don't eat fast food. I don't go out of my way to waste money either, but there's certainly middle ground.
I understand that this specific law does not affect you personally but I suggest that you will read Martin Niemöller's eternal poem "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist. ... "
I have, and that one resonates with me. I do actually support putting your foot down. I think fighting this particular cause is ridiculous, if not counter-productive, and so I argue on behalf of (what I consider) reason. I have taken some cheap shots, for fun, but if someone was really truly fed up with giving up ground, I would respect their position. I would not likely join them, because I disagree, but I would respect it for what very little that's worth.
-
I have, and that one resonates with me. I do actually support putting your foot down. I think fighting this particular cause is ridiculous, if not counter-productive, and so I argue on behalf of (what I consider) reason. I have taken some cheap shots, for fun, but if someone was really truly fed up with giving up ground, I would respect their position. I would not likely join them, because I disagree, but I would respect it for what very little that's worth.
The thing is, before standing their ground they should really make sure they're standing somewhere solid.
The whole premise of this thread was build on some very shaky ground indeed...
-
Or, you could see them as the governing body that (ideally) looks out for your broader interests. Course corrections are and always will be necessary. This is the job of the informed populace.
A job which the EU intentionally makes as difficult as possible.
The anti-referendum sentiment captures the key problem with the EU – that it is in essence a project designed to insulate national elites and political classes from the rough views of their electorates. Too often, right-wing commentators depict the EU as a conspiratorial enterprise dreamt up by power-crazed Germans and Frenchmen who long to tell all Europeans how curvy their bananas may be. In truth, the EU emanates from the crisis of legitimacy of all national governments in Europe, the powerful sense of disconnection from the public experienced by political classes everywhere from Britain to Italy to Poland, who bit by bit have sought refuge from their publics and from their crisis of authority in the new, far-removed institutions of Brussels. It is a clubbing together, not of the peoples of Europe, but of the elites of Europe seeking to escape their peoples. This is why all talk of granting national publics greater democratic authority over Brussels so freaks out those who back the EU project – because the EU project grew precisely out of the political elites’ sense of alienation from these national publics and their feeling of exhaustion with having to engage with or talk to us.
The full article is here http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/care_about_democracy_then_smash_the_eu/14525 (http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/care_about_democracy_then_smash_the_eu/14525)
-
[quote author
Of course that's not how it works. The fact is that I am willing to pay a little extra to buy electricity from clean sources to contribute back what I take out of the grid.
[/quote]
That's all very well but here in the UK you would be paying twice for the privilege of having "green electricity" as there is already a surcharge and tax on any electricity in the UK in order to subsidize green, eco or alternative power generation so then going and buying from a so called green power supplier means that they get paid twice for that electricity.
If the government really meant what they say green power would cost the user less as it already carries the subsidy.
-
You will have to show us the mains filter you installed that passes those green electrons and rejects the others.
Of course that's not how it works. The fact is that I am willing to pay a little extra to buy electricity from clean sources to contribute back what I take out of the grid.
Problem is that your propagandists have no clue about energy, only look at corporate social image, eyes closed for the enormous poison side effects of what is called "green enregy", selling good-life to naive noobs.
-
Not at all. Free people can make purchasing decisions that you deem bad. This is part of being free.
So only people who can afford to make the choice are free. Everyone else just has to buy unsafe or rip-off products. Doesn't sound very free to me.
That's it. The ones who do effort can choose what they want if they have the luck to live in a developed country.
Unfortunately, there are many people in Afrika without elektricity. they have less problems with electrically unsafe products.
-
... The EU is getting us the information we need to make an informed decision,...
I do not need unelected bureaucrats, lawyers and bankers to breanwash me an off-the-shelf solution about energy. I went to school to get that information from scientists.
So please limit your indoctrination to yourself. You need them, you want them, and you repeat what they say.
-
I bought a 120W hedge trimmer, it was useless, took ages to get the job done as it cut so bad. Then i found a battered 200W one in my out building that was abandoned by the previous house owner. Stuck a plug on it and gave it a go. I flogged the "new" 120W trimmer that was useless and kept the beaten up old 200W one and get the job done in under 1/2 the time. Tell me which trimmer is "greener"
Your anecdote is worthless. It does not demonstrate a trend. On the other hand the EU has done significant research into the issue and demonstrated that the opposite to what you are implying is true. Motor power is not the important factor, quality and technique are.
I am sure you never trimmed the hedge with that 120W trimmer.
-
While I'm here I might as well debunk your nonsense about electric cars too: http://www.nextgreencar.com/electric-cars/environmental-benefits.php (http://www.nextgreencar.com/electric-cars/environmental-benefits.php)
That's a good one, trying to change someone's view with fundamentalist propaganda.
- Even compared to the most fuel efficient ICE cars an EV in the UK is about 25% better on CO2
No it's not. Time for you to turn off your PC screen, and take a walk into a company that uses electric vehicles for 30 years.
And first turn off your overactive dream machine.
Like indoor load lifting machines. And then you look at the batteries, and look how the liquid smells, and what it does to the driving chassis. Then you ask how often they have to be replaced and why, then you measure how much energy they need to charge, how long they can drive. Then you look at the minimum temperature they need, and ask someone how long it will remain charged, when nobody drives it. and so on.
I'm sure you won't. You are too much a breanwashed dreamer about futuristic batteries that never will exist, with colored promotion campaigns that lie about more than half the specs, showing "optimized" results that never will occur.
-
... the government works for the people.
No, it does not. The government industry works for itself.
In the US: definitely yes because it is a pseudo democracy. Having a choice between only two parties can never be a democracy. The political system in the US dates back from the 1700's.
Also many people don't care to vote for their local authorities as well. A local authority also has a voice higher up towards the central government. I've read some background information about the riots in Ferguson. It turns out the people who are on the streets yelling for more influence belong to the group that votes the least :palm:
-
[Let Mr explain how the grid works. Generators put energy in, consumers take it out. Consumers pay energy companies to manage the supply to them and to pay the generators. I have a contract that says the money I pay will only ever be allocated to clean generators, even if that costs about 1% more. The money I pay is proportional to the amount I consume.
Can you explain how this is a shyster scam please?
It's not a scam. If some people are willing to pay extra to deal with their global warming phobias it's their prerogative, as long as they don't force it on others.
-
You went to school for information... Provided by the government you hate so much, using textbooks and a syllabus selected for you by those people. Worst of all, it didn't work and you don't seem to understand the science at work here.
It's not about science or engineering, it's about personal liberty. The fact that X is electrically more efficient than Y doesn't give the government the right to punish people that do Y.
-
I see it as a positive thing. Engineers thrive on limitations. It will only fuel innovation.
-
I asked this earlier in the thread, but my question was obscured by another argument.
Why pay the electric company more for the same power in the name of "Green energy" when you can simply donate that money to a "green cause" instead? Would a focused donation to an environmental group, or even a political campaign for a politician that will enact "green" policies be a better use of that money than simply paying the electric company more for the same energy that the people who aren't paying the "Green fee" are getting?
Because everyone is connected to the same wires, the "green power fee" is essentially a donation to green causes. I suppose I'm asking if paying extra to the electric utility is as effective as other ways to spend money to further environmental causes.
I realize this may vary by country. In the US, most power is generated by private companies who sell it to a hodge podge of private utility companies, non-profit cooperatives, and public utilities which serve the customers. Some of them I'd trust with extra "green money", many of whom I would not.
-
I see it as a positive thing. Engineers thrive on limitations. It will only fuel innovation.
Very true. Honestly, if the US EPA had not decided that off-road equipment must meet the same emission standards as on-road equipment, I would most likely be out of work. Most of the engineering time spent at Excavatoree-co has been to implement the new engines, with all of their ancillary equipment.
My co-worker and I speculate that the jobs preserved or created by the sudden workload increase was one goal of the US government. Without that, our economy would be even worse than it is.
EDIT - sorry, I realize that wasn't quite the point Rasz was making, but it is close.
-
Why pay the electric company more for the same power in the name of "Green energy" when you can simply donate that money to a "green cause" instead?
For the people who already donate to the green causes, no.
For the people who don't donate to the green causes, taxing via electricity consumption is infinitely more efficient in funding such green causes, and for the politicians who mandate such funding - that is actually why they are called "green" causes: it is green for the politicians and interest groups, not necessarily for the environment.
-
That's all very well but here in the UK you would be paying twice for the privilege of having "green electricity" as there is already a surcharge and tax on any electricity in the UK in order to subsidize green, eco or alternative power generation so then going and buying from a so called green power supplier means that they get paid twice for that electricity.
If the government really meant what they say green power would cost the user less as it already carries the subsidy.
I regularly check comparison sites and being 100% green costs me about 1-2% more a year compared to a similar standard tariff.
Yes 1% on top of the tax and levies that are on all energy bill in the UK. So you pay someone extra for what the government has already taxed and levied and passed at least some on to the green energy generators. Buy green energy and pay twice as the tax and levy is on all bills and not just the non green power suppliers.
-
Very true. Honestly, if the US EPA had not decided that off-road equipment must meet the same emission standards as on-road equipment, I would most likely be out of work. Most of the engineering time spent at Excavatoree-co has been to implement the new engines, with all of their ancillary equipment.
My co-worker and I speculate that the jobs preserved or created by the sudden workload increase was one goal of the US government. Without that, our economy would be even worse than it is.
While it obviously has a beneficial effect on you personally the notion that finding new more expensive ways of doing what is already being done somehow strengthens an economy and will lead to a new golden age of prosperity is ridiculous.
You might look up Frederic Bastiat's broken window fallacy the gist of which is a kid breaking a window leads to a glazier being employed to fix it which is a boost for the economy and prosperity. A similar fallacy is often used to make expensive green policies look more palatable.
-
Very true. Honestly, if the US EPA had not decided that off-road equipment must meet the same emission standards as on-road equipment, I would most likely be out of work. Most of the engineering time spent at Excavatoree-co has been to implement the new engines, with all of their ancillary equipment.
My co-worker and I speculate that the jobs preserved or created by the sudden workload increase was one goal of the US government. Without that, our economy would be even worse than it is.
While it obviously has a beneficial effect on you personally the notion that finding new more expensive ways of doing what is already being done somehow strengthens an economy and will lead to a new golden age of prosperity is ridiculous.
You might look up Frederic Bastiat's broken window fallacy the gist of which is a kid breaking a window leads to a glazier being employed to fix it which is a boost for the economy and prosperity. A similar fallacy is often used to make expensive green policies look more palatable.
I don't disagree with you.
I've often said given the relatively low volume of off-road engines, requiring US T4A or T4B is silly and ridiculous. T3 or even T2 depending on location would be more than adequate.
Seing how there's little "state of the art" in earthmoving equipment, after all moving dirt now is the same as moving dirt 50 years go, the only real change has been the computer controls, and that's farmed out anyway, and takes up so little room on the machine. If it weren't for having to add the new engines, and shoehorn all the extra stuff (DOC, SCR, DEF (AD BLUE) tank, etc.) the company wouldn't need all the engineers.
My personal opinion, subject to civil disagreement is the government has better things it could have been doing. Your analogy is a good one. It's essentially a government regulation requiring companies to hire or retain engineers - just what we in the US say we don't like. (Similar to being against vacuum cleaner power limits)
-
I think that more useful legislation would be to mandate vacuum cleaner air flow versus pressure data and have independent verification and policing which could help the consumer make an informed choice and encourage better design with motor power being used efficiently.
The Galileo project is hoovering up a lot of cash at the moment. If the cost is devided by the number of EU tax payers it seems expensive. Couldn't a deal have been done with the USA or Russia to share systems and spread the cost?
-
I think that more useful legislation would be to mandate vacuum cleaner air flow versus pressure data and have independent verification and policing which could help the consumer make an informed choice and encourage better design with motor power being used efficiently.
+1
Disclosure is good. Banning products is oppressive. Have the information in the open and let each free citizen to decide for himself.
-
I cannot believe this topic justifies 12 pages (so far) of comments.
-
I regularly check comparison sites and being 100% green costs me about 1-2% more a year compared to a similar standard tariff.
Green energy is considerably more than 1 or 2% more expensive than conventional energy so you are not buying green electrons any more than I am on a standard tariff. You are not 100% green.
You are just putting money into the pocket of the clever middle men who realized there are people out there who will to do it.
Perhaps you think being able to flaunt your green credentials here and elsewhere is worth a 1 or 2% premium on your electricity bills in which case you are dishonest. Perhaps you think you really are being green in which case you are stupid.
-
I think that more useful legislation would be to mandate vacuum cleaner air flow versus pressure data and have independent verification and policing which could help the consumer make an informed choice and encourage better design with motor power being used efficiently.
Disclosure is good. Banning products is oppressive. Have the information in the open and let each free citizen to decide for himself.
The modern free citizen is unable to do that because manufacturers obscure product information so it is impossible to make a meaningful product comparison. Manufacturers think you are stupid so they try to make you choose based on beads and mirrors and impressive meaningless numbers. We in EU don't allow manufacturers to think we are stupid (who wouldn't?) so we put a halt to obfustigated product descriptions.
-
Also refining oil into petrol uses approx 5kWh per gallon
Have you a source for that? Certainly oil refineries have energy costs, but that number seems very high for a single gallon of petrol (refineries produce millions and millions of gallons of the stuff).
-
I think that the most effective policy would be as a slimmed down bureaucracy. 8)
-
It's not about science or engineering, it's about personal liberty. The fact that X is electrically more efficient than Y doesn't give the government the right to punish people that do Y.
If Y harms people's health or the environment we live in then the government has right to regulate it.
Oppression always comes with an excuse.
http://www.aestheticrealism.net/poetry/Wolf-Lamb-LaFontaine.htm (http://www.aestheticrealism.net/poetry/Wolf-Lamb-LaFontaine.htm)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wolf_and_the_Lamb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wolf_and_the_Lamb)
-
There may be lots of things happening in the EU, but not oppression.
-
There may be lots of things happening in the EU, but not oppression.
Well, you will get punished if you will sell a vacuum with more than 1600w. That's not freedom.
-
The only proper thing to do here would have been to raise electricity prices to make people demand more efficient stuff across the board. Not ban the sale of a particular item.
-
There may be lots of things happening in the EU, but not oppression.
Well, you will get punished if you will sell a vacuum with more than 1600w. That's not freedom.
I admit defeat. We are oppressed ;)
-
It's not about science or engineering, it's about personal liberty. The fact that X is electrically more efficient than Y doesn't give the government the right to punish people that do Y.
If Y harms people's health or the environment we live in then the government has right to regulate it.
Oppression always comes with an excuse.
Hallelujah, I have seen the light. It's so obvious now - all government regulation is part of an evil socialist plot. Let's smash the FAA, the FDA and all those other useless regulatory bodies.
All the people who die due to adulterated food, fake drugs and unsafe transport should do so proud in the knowledge that they are helping to uphold the noble principle of freedom without responsibility.
God Bless America!
-
Let's suppose everybody currently owns a 2200W vacuum, and immediately throws it in the bin and buys a new 1600W model. (Note that this is unrealistically optimistic... people will continue using the existing vacuums that they own with higher power ratings until they break, and they are allowed to do this.)
How often do you use a vacuum for? Let's say 1 hour per week.
The power difference is 600W, one hour per week, so each household will save 31.3 kWh per annum. (Or about $6.20 per year assuming 20c/kWh, assuming no cost to buy a new vacuum - maybe the government energy fairy just brings it to you for free.)
This also assumes, of course, that vacuuming time remains constant with the lower-powered unit.
OK, how many households are there in the EU? I'd guess maybe 100 million?
Total annual energy saved across the whole EU will be about 3.13 TWh per year (assuming immediate replacement of all vacuums, no increase in cleaning time.)
That's about the equivalent of 350MW of generation - so about 1/3 of a typical fairly large coal-fired or nuclear power plant.
In other words, if the entire EU can build just one more nuclear power plant to replace a coal-fired plant, that contribution to replacing coal use will be about 3 times greater than this entire vacuum cleaner mandate.
-
That nuclear plant will also add nuclear waste. What to do with that? Hover it up?
-
All the people who die due to adulterated food, fake drugs and unsafe transport should do so proud in the knowledge that they are helping to uphold the noble principle of freedom without responsibility.
"Freedom without responsibility"? Now you are making things up.
God Bless America!
Thanks.
-
I admit defeat. We are oppressed ;)
That's a start. Don't trade your freedom for connivence.
-
The only proper thing to do here would have been to raise electricity prices to make people demand more efficient stuff across the board. Not ban the sale of a particular item.
Most people aren't engineers. Any government that does that will be voted out next year. There's no easy way to compare vacuum cleaners, etc. like you can compare cars for mpg. Hopefully, this new legislation will change it, maybe they should not have limited what could be produced, but I don't really see why we need 2000W to clean carpets. It's awfully inefficient.
That being said, I can't stand how the EU basically killed off plasma HDTV in these markets by requiring ridiculously low energy consumption that only LED-LCD TV could achieve. It doesn't matter how low-power LED-LCD TVs are, if the picture quality is no good, it may as well be junk to me. I only watch my plasma TV 10 hours a week. My computer and fridge use more power on their own.
-
Fuck EU. They banned old Edison's bulbs. But you can still buy them and there is a notice: Only for industrial use. Not suitable for household use.
I expect the same thing to happen with vacuum cleaners.
In 10 years I will buy an industrial 2000W vacuum cleaner. LOL. :box: :rant:
-
"I'll give you my 2KW vacuum when you pry it from my cold, dead hands" Moses
-
"I'll give you my 2KW vacuum when you pry it from my cold, dead hands" Moses
and my 72 watt solder iron ;)
-
All the people who die due to adulterated food, fake drugs and unsafe transport should do so proud in the knowledge that they are helping to uphold the noble principle of freedom without responsibility.
"Freedom without responsibility"? Now you are making things up.
No. You say you want to be free to buy whatever you want. In order to do that there have to be no rules/legislation on what manufacturers put on the market. History has proven over and over again that manufacturers will put products on the market which are at least unsafe and possibly lethal. In the US it has taken until the late 70's to ban lead although the negative effects of lead have been known for centuries. And banning lead is the work of a few persistant individuals who didn't accept a big check to shut up.
In your 'free world' you would have to check everything yourself:
In order to buy safe food you you'll need to bring a chemistry set to your supermarket to test all your food & drinks for bacteria and toxic contents.
In order to get a financial product which doesn't drive you into bankcrupty you'll need an economics degree from Harvard to figure it out.
In order to buy a safe and reliable car you'll need to buy 5. 3 for crash tests, one for an endurance test/teardown and one to finally drive in (given the other 4 passed the tests).
In order to buy any electronic/electrical appliance you'll need to take it apart first and check for wiring& isolation faults. Maybe buy 2 as well to test it for endurance first.
Do I need to continue?
-
Most people aren't engineers.
Thank god for that, :)
-
All the people who die due to adulterated food, fake drugs and unsafe transport should do so proud in the knowledge that they are helping to uphold the noble principle of freedom without responsibility.
"Freedom without responsibility"? Now you are making things up.
No. You say you want to be free to buy whatever you want. In order to do that there have to be no rules/legislation on what manufacturers put on the market. History has proven over and over again that manufacturers will put products on the market which are at least unsafe and possibly lethal.
In your 'free world' you would have to check everything yourself:
In order to buy safe food you you'll need to bring a chemistry set to your supermarket to test all your food & drinks for bacteria and toxic contents.
In order to get a financial product which doesn't drive you into bankcrupty you'll need an economics degree from Harvard to figure it out.
In order to buy a safe and reliable car you'll need to buy 5. 3 for crash tests, one for an endurance test/teardown and one to finally drive in (given the other 4 passed the tests).
In order to buy any electronic/electrical appliance you'll need to take it apart first and check for wiring& isolation faults. Maybe buy 2 as well to test it for endurance first.
Do I need to continue?
Legislation requiring product to be tested and clearly marked as 'likely to kill you', 'will poison you', 'likely to cause bankruptcy' would result in a level of sales so low that no one would manufacture such products. Legislation banning such products would be superfluous.
There is no need to continue your straw man argument because vacuum cleaners are not going to kill, poison, or bankrupt you because they are fitted with a 1.7kW motor.
-
In order to buy a safe and reliable car you'll need to buy 5. 3 for crash tests, one for an endurance test/teardown and one to finally drive in (given the other 4 passed the tests).
Why do I need to buy 5 cars? I can read reviews, recommendation, consumer reports, etc and pick whatever fits my needs. Same when I buy solder station or bikes. It's that simple.
Europe has mandatory CE mark and it's useless (just check Chinese products on eBay). US has private UL mark and it's trustworthy.
Don't confuse government with parents.
-
Only problem on electricity point of view i see is that when we use less power, prioce of electricity goes up since power company will not accept less profits... In my country that happens all time... Use of power goes down, price goes up...
-
Has the EU regulated hand driers yet ? they surely get more use than vacum cleaners and i've seen some pitiful ones that range from a hot draft to reasonably high speed driers with heaters that were a total waste of time, a 800W heater with a 700W motor. There are 2-3KW hand driers
I designed and had built as part of a complete system a hand drier using a 1.1KW motor for a customer that wanted to compete with dyson's air blade. The comment when he saw it was "can it be turned down" the motor makes that much heat that additional heating is not required. So i'm sure a 900W motor would do the job fine. So why do we have public bathrooms with 3KW machines that are well over powered, I'm sure they get way more use than your average vacuum cleaner.
To be noted I did an earlier prototype with a cheap chinese copycat motor that was 1KW, it was good but not as good as the genuine ametek 1.1KW motor.
-
So the next step in this topic is: why do EU regulate product X why we clever engineers found other products Y and Z that they do not regulate?
Answer: a question of time and focus then they will probably also be regulated and absolutely a zero argument for this topic.
The whole question is: why does the government regulate a powered apparatus?
The answers have already be given numerous times but some people just do not want to hear them.
The same discussion why V12 motors running 5km on a litre petrol are forbidden. All multimiljonair dinosaurs were protesting.
Change is difficult but absolutely neccesary to go forward, you have to adapt.
-
Let's take another example of regulation from the EU, one which in the beginning I was personnally very pissed about: RoHs the removal of lead from solder.
It was esp. in the beginning a disaster since there were no good substitutes. We all know the crap that came out beginning 2000 where parts fell of the pcb due to the poor solder.
No more then a decade later there are no big problems anymore with the massproduction of leadfree products, a lot of good alternatives have been produced.
If the EU would not have made this mandatory we still would have only leadbased solder in our products, because if a company/industry has no good reason to change why would it change?
So making legislation mandatory can also be a very strong catalyst to come to better technical products or a solution to a technical challenge.
And to come back on topic if you can buy a vacuum of 900W with the same suckingpower of a 1500W machine what is your problem? You are just debating that this can never happen, the same arguments the lead solder lobby did 15 years ago (which I was one of them :D )
-
RoHS not causing problems? Nope! There are still many BGA failures due to cracked solder joints, brittle solder and lots of heat = failures in the field.
-
Yeah well It has been far worse. Give it time they find a perfect replacement, if you never try you will never succeed and without cause no company will try, that is the message.
-
Problem is that every car manufacturer will want to be reviewed by Consumer Reports and other big testers. Testing cars is rather expensive and the magazine subscriptions are not going to cover it, so... Manufacturers will end up paying for testing, and we know what the result of that will be.
I don't need every car from every car manufacturer, just one car that had good reputation and review.
You keep coming with absurd arguments to push the weird agenda that free people are helpless without the government dictating every decision they make. You are a free man, start taking responsibility for you life and stop dictating to others what vacuums or soldering stations to use. Nobody owe you a thing.
-
If the EU would not have made this mandatory we still would have only leadbased solder in our products, because if a company/industry has no good reason to change why would it change?
I am not sure. If the risk posed by lead is so significant, it wouldn't be difficult to imagine lead poisoning among people working with it, or people become reluctant working in a place that uses lead-based solder, etc.
Those things will likely raise the costs for companies using lead-based solder and in their self-interests, they would likely to have moved away from lead-based solder.
So in the scenario where lead does pose real risks, the EU mandate simply accelerates the switch -> whether it is helpful will depend on individual risk assessment.
In the scenario where lead does not pose real risks, the EU mandate simply imposes an incremental cost while achieving nothing.
Sounds like a no-win situation to me.
As to the V12 example: you simply need to realize that the mogul driving around in his V12 engined car is paying disproportionately the fuel tax, helping every other motorist in the process.
So it is pareto efficient to allow V12 engines on the market.
-
It is not about paying more but preserving fuel which isn't a infinite resource :palm:
-
A company will not do that on its own, even when their employees have a risk. I see examples dayly in the newspaper from asbestos to last weeks cancer inducing camouflage paint by the military with reports that it was toxic. Look at India how kids dismantle asbestos on shipyards and we continue the discussion or look at the Ford Pinto case in the 70s where Ford calculated the cost of compensation for the people to die from that deathtrap fueltank cardesign versus the costs of changing the design to make it safer. Every student that has an ethics class will see that example and know how rotten companies can become when the decisionmakers think that they are invulnerable themselves since they are a company without personal risk.
-
Every student that has an ethics class will see that example and know how rotten companies can become when the decisionmakers think that they are invulnerable themselves since they are a company without personal risk.
The fallacy of anecdotes.
Let me see.. hmm.. who killed more people in the 20th century, corporations or governments? Hmm, ...
You got it wrong, it's the governments and bureaucracy that don't need to be accountable. Bank Of America for example just paid 17B fine, I am yet to see our government taking responsibility for it's financial shenanigans.
“Government is not a solution to our problem government is the problem.” RWR.
Stay out of my vacuum purchase decisions.
-
I have this hanging up above my desk:
(http://i.imgur.com/5oPgbRX.jpg)
-
A company will not do that on its own,
There are plenty examples suggesting otherwise. Corporations are just like people - they are multivated by self-interests. The job of a policy maker is to mold the policies so that corporations find it in their self-interests to move in a direction desired by the public.
it was toxic.
Everyone day we use things that are toxic. As a matter of fact, we cannot live without things that are toxic - oxygen, for example, can be deadly. So are vitamines, and water, and food, and 100% of medicine.
Just because something is toxic doesn't mean we should avoid it.
we continue the discussion or look at the Ford Pinto case in the 70s where Ford calculated the cost of compensation for the people to die from that deathtrap fueltank cardesign versus the costs of changing the design to make it safer.
I don't know the India case, but each of us makes a calculated decision everyone on what risks to take - whether we will make ourselves safer. For example, when you walk outside, you get exposed to skin cancer risks. Some of us walk around covered in cloth, under an umbrella, or with hats, or sunscreen.
Many of us decided that the cost of action is not worth the benefits and do nothing to make it safer for ourselves.
Ford's decisioning may be inhumane, unwise, or even unethical. But that's no different from decisions we make every day.
Every student that has an ethics class will see that example and know how rotten companies can become when the decisionmakers think that they are invulnerable themselves since they are a company without personal risk.
It is OK to teach kids that in schools. But once you are faced with real life situations, it is far more complicated than that. and the line between right and wrong is not clear at all.
A policy maker's job is to device a framework that get people to move in the right direction with minimal distortion to the free market. Unfortunately, many of them does that poorly.
-
@marshallh: And you are still sitting on your a*s and doing nothing but complaining... How long does it take for the people of the US to revolt and start the 'democratic republic of the united states'?
-
@marshallh: And you are still sitting on your a*s and doing nothing but complaining... How long does it take for the people of the US to revolt and start the 'democratic republic of the united states'?
Oh boy,
Our system is not perfect but it does work. Maybe you can point us to a system that fits utopia, I'm not sure I've seen one yet.
-
@marshallh: And you are still sitting on your a*s and doing nothing but complaining... How long does it take for the people of the US to revolt and start the 'democratic republic of the united states'?
We are working on it. It will be a democratic change via elections not a violent revolution. The main effort now is to stop the slippery slope the nanny state, though freedom is threaten not only by the socialists, the right, environmentalists, theocrats, and bureaucrats are just as dangerous. They can't just mind their own business.
Here is one positive example http://freestateproject.org/ (http://freestateproject.org/)
-
See the greatest brainwash ever in effect: J. Edgar Hoover has been dead for more than 40 years and the words 'communism' and 'socialism' still fill the people in the US with more fear than anything else. :clap:
Note that creating artificial enemies is one of the instruments used by dictators.
-
See the greatest brainwash ever in effect: J. Edgar Hoover has been dead for more than 40 years and the words 'communism' and 'socialism' still fill the people in the US with more fear than anything else. :clap:
Note that creating artificial enemies is one of the instruments used by dictators.
That might be your perception from the outside, from the inside no one cares other than the politicians and national agencies so that they can have things to do and a budget to do such things :)
-
... the words 'communism' and 'socialism' still fill the people in the US with more fear than anything else. :clap:
You are making things up. Read my past again. Socialism is just one of the forms of oppression.
-
... the words 'communism' and 'socialism' still fill the people in the US with more fear than anything else. :clap:
[...] Socialism is just one of the forms of oppression.
When taken to excess and practiced by a totalitarian administration, sure. But it often looks like any form of regulation by the society (ok, government if you must) is dumped into the same basket and labeled "communism". And that is just not the case. Some things are the better for a bit of control to keep the playing field level and prevent unscrupulous exploitation - whatever the nature of those might be. I know the "rugged outdoor types from Montana" consider any attempt at regulation to be pinko communism if nothing worse. The alternative just tends to be a society stratified into the haves and have-nots, with a side order of environment disasters.
Like it or not, every country is full of regulation. Personally, i could do with less taxes and cheaper gas but i am prepared to pay both to maintain law&order and equal opportunities, not to mention a world where the next generations can live without hazmat suits.
I know the US is supposed to be the land of opportunity where every man pursues his dream on his own. How that makes the Government a public enemy slightly escapes me. Sure, it is a pain in the ass but someone has to handle the common affairs.
A quick comment to the original topic: while regulating vacuum cleaner power might appear ridiculous at first sight, i did read the synopsis of the Directive and considered it to be quite rational reasoning. I mean we have strict pollution laws regulating car manufacture. How is this different in principle? When put to effect it will impact design, resulting in more efficient devices. Tis always happens but not if there is no incentive.
-
Some things are the better for a bit of control to keep the playing field level and prevent unscrupulous exploitation - whatever the nature of those might be.
Socialism is not about keeping the playing field level, it's about keeping the outcome level. If me and my neighbor opened restaurants and his succeeded and I failed, the government take money from him and passes to me. In other words, it punishes success and incentivise failure.
A quick comment to the original topic: while regulating vacuum cleaner power might appear ridiculous at first sight, i did read the synopsis of the Directive and considered it to be quite rational reasoning. I mean we have strict pollution laws regulating car manufacture. How is this different in principle?
Yes, when on a slippery slop, every inch looks just like the one before it.
It's sad that these days when public policies are discussed, the aspect of personal freedom is often ignored. People got conditioned with collectivism and the 'greater common good' ideology and every infringement on our freedom, like that EU regulation, looks a natural extension of the previous ones. Don't fall for it, it's just another form of oppression.
-
Some things are the better for a bit of control to keep the playing field level and prevent unscrupulous exploitation - whatever the nature of those might be.
Socialism is not about keeping the playing field level, it's about keeping the outcome level. If me and my neighbor opened restaurants and his succeeded and I failed, the government take money from him and passes to me. In other words, it punishes success and incentivise failure.
By your definition of socialism. And recall that i did not call the desirable state of government socialism - you do. (Or you suggest that i make that claim, maybe. Which i do not).
Also, your example of "socialism" is a fabrication to support you argument. The "government" has well established legislation regarding e.g. taxation and if you run a business, sure; you are expected to pay taxes according to the law. If you fail to run a business otoh, then there won't be any taxes either. If you expect the "government" to hand over money, you need to come up with a better reason than a failure to do successful business.
At the same time there are aspects of leveling the outcome in the form of progressive taxation. I can see how that is poison to all socialism-haters and i admit i am personally not that fond of the concept either.
A quick comment to the original topic: while regulating vacuum cleaner power might appear ridiculous at first sight, i did read the synopsis of the Directive and considered it to be quite rational reasoning. I mean we have strict pollution laws regulating car manufacture. How is this different in principle?
Yes, when on a slippery slop, every inch looks just like the one before it.
This is a fallacious argument and you should know better. If there is an issue then there needs to be a solution as well. The world moves on; new issues, new solutions. That you don't acknowledge there is an issue doesn't mean there isn't one. We can and should discuss whether issues exist and whether they merit action. This should happen on a suitable forum / level. I leave it an exercise to you to suggest a suitable forum.
It's sad that these days when public policies are discussed, the aspect of personal freedom is often ignored. People got conditioned with collectivism and the 'greater common good' ideology and every infringement on our freedom, like that EU regulation, looks a natural extension of the previous ones. Don't fall for it, it's just another form of oppression.
You do have a point. You don't know me but if you did you would know that i am probably equally staunch supporter of the rights of an individual as any flag waving 'merkin. I just can't be bothered to feel that oppressed about regulation that, while appearing faintly ridiculous, do have a solid rationale behind it and don't really tread on the rights of an individual. In this particular case sure, the world would keep on turning never mind how powerful domestic appliances we had. But if we can lose a few coal firing plants here and there just by making our frigging vacuums a bit more efficient then by all means have a go at it.
For my part i am prepared to sacrifice _some_ "rights" to promote the common good. What i have in mind have mostly to do with regulating consumption of non-renewable resources and preserving the environment and an equal opportunity society. Mostly such regulation would not infringe with the rights of the individual, except indirectly which i can live with.
Let me take an example where i also am strictly opposed to regulation and intend to take action in case it comes to pass: Recently the Finnish government came up with the brilliant idea that technology could be used to support taxation of car usage. For your information, the car is the #1 milking cow for taxes here. We pay ridiculous prices compared to almost anyone else. So, the gov't set up a study group led by Jorma Ollila, the ex-chairman of Nokia to investigate usage of GPS technology in monitoring car mileage and levying yet another tax on that. So everyone would be required to install a GPS logger at their own expense and have it regularly report the car movements to some central authority. Now this does qualify as oppressive socialism in my book, and did so for nearly every "ordinary" citizen as well. It really is not anyone's business where i drive my car and when. Those involved tried to assure that the info would only be used to collect mileage info but it is obvious what will happen. There is no promise the gov't can make that would be credible in assuring the privacy of people's movements. That would really be the starting point of a slippery slope towards total control. So if the law is passed my receiver will be permanently temporarily out of order. And so will most others' i gather. So hopefully that brainfart is quietly buried in the archives and never heard of again.
-
Let me see.. hmm.. who killed more people in the 20th century, corporations or governments? Hmm, ...
Who thought of created and build all the apparatus that did the actual killing?
You got it wrong, it's the governments and bureaucracy that don't need to be accountable.
They are accountable, each election and if someone really blunders he is sent away directly , at least in our country some politicians blunder and are "fired" from office within weeks when it's politician friends distance themselves.
Bank Of America for example just paid 17B fine
Finally after how long and how much rotten and dirty "business" practices, how many devistated lives?
The government should sue and sentence the responsible CEO's and not a money fine since that means nothing for those people, no directly to jail.
There should be a clear definition of what is allowed and not.
In our country the government bailed out the banks by buying them, they should have let them go bankrupt because that is the way business works, if you screw up you go bankrupt and it is game over. Now they are again starting their bonus (bogus) culture.
One good thing happened, we see a differentiation between customer savings banks and business banks, only the latter may take investment risks.
Concerning you anti trust to your government, I would also not trust a government that let's the difference between incomes and the have and have not's grow so huge as in the USA. That american dream is only for a few % of the people and the rest are paying for it while never ever getting a glimpse of it. Sounds to socialist to you? Wait till you need something (medical care or loose your job) and see it from the other side. Here in Holland it is not perfect either we pay a lot of taxes and own risks for medicare but you can see it as together we stand as one, we all pay for eachother and be happy if you are so lucky that you do not need it. That is how I now look at it and gladly pay my 52% income tax and hundreds of $ each month on a mandatory insurance I do not use at all.
-
Hi guys, I don't have anything new to add to the topic. My advise to you is be mindful of your freedom and don't let it slip away. Cheers.
-
gladly pay my 52% income tax
Jesus fricking Christ! You do like giving your money away.
-
That american dream is only for a few % of the people
100% of those who work hard.
Here in Holland it is not perfect either we pay a lot of taxes and own risks for medicare but you can see it as together we stand as one, we all pay for eachother and be happy
That great. All people are asking is that we have the option to subject ourselves to such a system. Not that such a system being imposed onto us regardless of our free wills.
Does sound fairly basic, doesn't it?
-
I do not need unelected bureaucrats, lawyers and bankers to breanwash me an off-the-shelf solution about energy. I went to school to get that information from scientists.
This directive was passed by our elected representatives in the EU, and then passed into law by our elected national parliaments.
By your elected EU representatives, not by mine.
You went to school for information... Provided by the government you hate so much,
Indeed, there are still parts that they didn't completely destroy, contrary to their motivation to do so.
The number of sheeple like you is rising.
-
100% of those who work hard.
Sure a lot of them have worked hard for it and had the luck that is worked out.
But for instance somebody working in a fast food restaurant, waitresses, cleaners etc. etc. they also work hard, hell some of them in the US need two jobs to get around to pay the rent. Bit strange to have to work 16 hours for two jobs to make ends meet.
That great. All people are asking is that we have the option to subject ourselves to such a system. Not that such a system being imposed onto us regardless of our free wills. Does sound fairly basic, doesn't it?
You would think so unless you do the math. If half of the people do not co-operate the other half has to pay soo much that the system would not work. It only works if everybody pays a fair amount. Most people that do not want to do this (in the case of a mandatory medicare for instance) are the people:
-1 that have a lot of money so they do not need an insurance
-2 that never been ill and don't want to pay something for nothing.
The first group of people also do not have any pain in paying the low insurance fee themselves, hell they do not even notice it, so unless you want to become a Scrooge what does it matter?
The second group of people should realize that things might change to the worst some day and that it does not even have to be your own fault (car accident by someone else for instance), those people should realize that at that point without this care they are probably ending up selling everything they own to pay for the medical bills or have a very uncomfortable health the rest of their lives.
But hey, I do not need to convince anyone, you go ahead and do things as you like to do in your own country but living in a certain country with a certain government you go by the laws and rules or you choose to go to another country. As long as the system does not go out of hand (doctors operating for income instead of patient welfare) and the costs are being guarded (a real issue I admit).
-
a 2200W vacuum, ...a new 1600W model.
The power difference is 600W, one hour per week, so each household will save 31.3 kWh per annum.
Error 1:
No it is not. the maximum power has a difference of 600W. The used power is function of choosen setting and created airgap when using the cleaner, the kind of surface, the amount of dust and so on. Take your current meter out and calculate the used power with your measured results.
Error 2:
The total time the cleaner will be used is function of the maximum power, efficiency and so on. You are multiplicationg bananas with eggs here
Error 3:
A 2200W cleaner can have a better efficiency than a 1600W unit, so using less current. The inverse is also true: a 1600W unit can clean better than a 2200W unit.
-
I think that the most effective policy would be as a slimmed down bureaucracy. 8)
In our country bureacrats+foodstampers+leftwing sponsored artists ruled the last 20 years in politics.
Their efforts were mainly to get more money to their intrests, making a bigger bureaucracy.
-
RoHS not causing problems? Nope! There are still many BGA failures due to cracked solder joints, brittle solder and lots of heat = failures in the field.
Oh, well, we can't put people's health before a company's right to use sub-standard soldering.
You refuse to look at the negative side effects of RoHS. You are happy because some government spewed out a new law, something new for you to admire blindly.
Your use of "people's health" and "sub-standard" is very naive, even emotionalistic.
-
In our country bureacrats+foodstampers+leftwing sponsored artists ruled the last 20 years in politics.
Your country is totally devided into two parts refusing to work, talk let alone rule together.
I think you should be glad you have a government at all ;)
-
RoHS not causing problems? Nope! There are still many BGA failures due to cracked solder joints, brittle solder and lots of heat = failures in the field.
Oh, well, we can't put people's health before a company's right to use sub-standard soldering.
To quote page 73 of this document from NASA, "There has never been any health risk from Pb in electronics".
http://nepp.nasa.gov/whisker/reference/tech_papers/2011-kostic-Pb-free.pdf (http://nepp.nasa.gov/whisker/reference/tech_papers/2011-kostic-Pb-free.pdf)
That's an excellent document by the way, well worth a read.
-
Hehe. It's always odd to hear others talk about your country :)
-
...
To quote page 73 of this document from NASA, "There has never been any health risk from Pb in electronics".
...
Wasn't the Pb discussion about what went into the landfills afterwards more than about the immediate health risk of working with leaded solder? Wasn't it part of reducing the amount of Pb we throw away?
-
Yes I thought also, the same with Cadmium. More batteries were ending up in mother nature then in the recycling industry.
Even beer manufacturers used Cadmium in their plastick crates |O
-
Not that lead poisoning is something new:
If ingested, lead is poisonous to animals, including humans. It damages the nervous system and causes brain disorders. Excessive lead also causes blood disorders in mammals. Like the element mercury, another heavy metal, lead is a neurotoxin that accumulates both in soft tissues and the bones. Lead poisoning has been documented from ancient Rome, ancient Greece, and ancient China.
-
Greeting's All,
I have just read the entire post to date and although I am not in the EU
I felt obliged to share this hypothetical scenario with you all.
Customer: Oh sir I need to buy a vacuum cleaner, what do you recommend ?.
Salesman: Yes madam, can I interest you in our 2 for 1 deal ?.
Customer: Oh but I only need 1 vacuum cleaner.
Salesman: No madam, you will need both, along with our complimentary
" Authority Sucks " package, It's very popular you know.
Customer: And what is included in the package if you dont mind me asking ?.
Salesman: You will receive this large piece of velcro and this Y joiner to combine
both vacuum hoses in a paralell configuration so that you can obtain
the required suction, It's perfectly legal by the way.
Customer: Ok then, you are the expert I will take the " Authority Sucks 241 Deal "
Good reading my friends....Pete :-DD
-
I'm a very ecological minded person, but i also look at the bigger picture.
What's in the bigger picture that takes precedence over your environment?
Many, many things.
Convenience, time, health, money and much more. We almost all drive cars which damage the environment, but we are willing to make that tradeoff in the name of convenience and time. We use cleaning products, we buy things which must be transported by truck or airplane, we stay awake and use lights rather than go to bed earlier and wake at dawn and much more.
There are countless things we do which place the importance of the environment below our selfish desires. That's life.
I think the problem is politicians with too much time on their hands and too small brains to understand real world issues... so they sit around finding things to do rather than doing something useful.
-
If the EU was really concerned about its citizens health and the environment it would remove the subsidy on growing sugar and limit imports of fructose syrups.
That would do far more for health than any amount of filtering on vacuum cleaners.
-
If the EU was really concerned about its citizens health and the environment it would remove the subsidy on growing sugar and limit imports of fructose syrups.
Denmark has fat and sugar tax. Sugar tax will cease soon. The problem for sugar tax is that a lot of people buy stuff in Germany (because of EU :)) and Danish treasury looses the tax people leave there. Therefore I think they will push soon towards a unified tax on shitty food for the whole EU.
That would do far more for health than any amount of filtering on vacuum cleaners.
BTW. Why can't they do both? Maybe people doing the vacuum tax had easier job in making this bill and this is why is is already done.
-
If the EU was really concerned about its citizens health and the environment it would remove the subsidy on growing sugar and limit imports of fructose syrups.
That would do far more for health than any amount of filtering on vacuum cleaners.
True, seems to me they just want to regulate appliances so that they can meet demand of energy by the population to avoid heavy investment in infrastructure and high energy prices on countries that don't produce much energy.
I will buy that more than health issues :)
-
For your information, the car is the #1 milking cow for taxes here. We pay ridiculous prices compared to almost anyone else. So, the gov't set up a study group led by Jorma Ollila, the ex-chairman of Nokia to investigate usage of GPS technology in monitoring car mileage and levying yet another tax on that. So everyone would be required to install a GPS logger at their own expense and have it regularly report the car movements to some central authority. Now this does qualify as oppressive socialism in my book, and did so for nearly every "ordinary" citizen as well. It really is not anyone's business where i drive my car and when. Those involved tried to assure that the info would only be used to collect mileage info but it is obvious what will happen. There is no promise the gov't can make that would be credible in assuring the privacy of people's movements. That would really be the starting point of a slippery slope towards total control. So if the law is passed my receiver will be permanently temporarily out of order. And so will most others' i gather. So hopefully that brainfart is quietly buried in the archives and never heard of again.
Over here in the NL we heard the same brain fart coming and going. Fortunately GPS isn't accurate enough for registering use of a particular road so they never can build such a system. Let alone the privacy implications.
-
As for health... You realize the whole point of this is to improve your health, right? The stuff about limiting dust emissions in particular is very important to anyone who suffers from allergies.
You mean the bit where they specifically say they will not include stringent particle emission limits because the finer filters needed to achieve them require more power to force air through them. The power limit they have included means people with allergies can't buy a fast clean vacuum, they have to buy a slow clean vacuum if anyone bothers to make them. In other words fuck health - CO2 emissions are more important.
-
Green energy is considerably more than 1 or 2% more expensive than conventional energy so you are not buying green electrons any more than I am on a standard tariff. You are not 100% green.
1-2% on my bill, not 1-2% wholesale cost. The bill is more than just the wholesale cost + percentage. You keep making these claims but provide no evidence. Can you explain why Ecotricity is not 100% green as they claim, for example? If you can I'll submit a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority and demand a refund on my bills.
You are the one making claims about buying 100% green electricity, a claim so blindingly obviously bullshit that I would not even dignify it by asking for supporting evidence.
If you can buy 100% green electricity for a 2% premium why can't we all - 2% on bills is enough to get rid of all the nukes and fossil fuel burning power stations right?
And an appeal to the authority of the ASA - just lol. http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/burger-me-we-need-to-scrap-the-asa/15615 (http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/burger-me-we-need-to-scrap-the-asa/15615) - the latest from that pack of dishonest slimeballs.
-
For your information, the car is the #1 milking cow for taxes here. We pay ridiculous prices compared to almost anyone else. So, the gov't set up a study group led by Jorma Ollila, the ex-chairman of Nokia to investigate usage of GPS technology in monitoring car mileage and levying yet another tax on that. So everyone would be required to install a GPS logger at their own expense and have it regularly report the car movements to some central authority. Now this does qualify as oppressive socialism in my book, and did so for nearly every "ordinary" citizen as well. It really is not anyone's business where i drive my car and when. Those involved tried to assure that the info would only be used to collect mileage info but it is obvious what will happen. There is no promise the gov't can make that would be credible in assuring the privacy of people's movements. That would really be the starting point of a slippery slope towards total control. So if the law is passed my receiver will be permanently temporarily out of order. And so will most others' i gather. So hopefully that brainfart is quietly buried in the archives and never heard of again.
Over here in the NL we heard the same brain fart coming and going. Fortunately GPS isn't accurate enough for registering use of a particular road so they never can build such a system. Let alone the privacy implications.
Make sure you have your reflector vest, the warning sign, the breathalyzer and your GPS, and yeah, they are accurate enough to register what road you are on and you'll soon have to breathe on the breathalyzer to start your car like alcoholics have to. So that insurance companies can keep on reducing payouts :)
It's not because they care about you, it's just that they are happy charging you your premium that you must pay in order to drive and if they keep everyone safe, then they get to keep it all.
-
Government Advisors. :palm: :bullshit: :wtf:
Common sense cannot be bought nor taught and unfortunately our
political leaders are generally misinformed by a handful of dickheads.
We here in Australia have just had the proposed Carbon Tax repealed
(rejected) by the current government, I think because our manufacturing
industries are all going to the wall. ( or china ).
When I first heard about the proposed introduction of a Carbon Tax
a few years ago by the previous government, I immediately envisaged
some big ass HEPA filters being fitted to chimney stacks, boy was I wrong.
It was an imposed penalty on the entire country.
And who do we thank............GOVERNMENT ADVISORS.
If I was running the show my first policy would be as follows:
Politicians and their advisors are to be drowned at birth.
Pete for PM :-DD
-
We here in Australia have just had the proposed Carbon Tax repealed
(rejected) by the current government, I think because our manufacturing
industries are all going to the wall. ( or china ).
... and one environmentalist we both know tried to use exaggerations and fear to prevent this political change ;-)
2013 Australian Federal Election Rant (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO4cxVw8wfU#ws)
-
This kind of thing is one of many reasons I'm glad I don't have to run a business in the EU.
You may not like to hear this, but one of my colleagues, who has been several times to the USA, calls it "The most socialist country I have ever been to".
Makes me think the USA is much more regulated than you all let us know overseas.
Even worse, I would not be suprised, that if we were to look very closely we could find a lot of areas in which the USA is more regulated than Europe.
-
For your information, the car is the #1 milking cow for taxes here. We pay ridiculous prices compared to almost anyone else. So, the gov't set up a study group led by Jorma Ollila, the ex-chairman of Nokia to investigate usage of GPS technology in monitoring car mileage and levying yet another tax on that. So everyone would be required to install a GPS logger at their own expense and have it regularly report the car movements to some would really be the starting point of a slippery slope towards total control. So if the law is passed my receiver will be permanently temporarily out of order. And so will most others' i gather. So hopefully that brainfart is quietly buried in the archives and never heard of again.
Over here in the NL we heard the same brain fart coming and going. Fortunately GPS isn't accurate enough for registering use of a particular road so they never can build such a system. Let alone the privacy implications.
your GPS, and yeah, they are accurate enough to register what road you are on
No, GPS is by far not accurate enough to determine which road you are on. Navigation systems use complex routines to match where you are going to a spot on the map. I used to work for a research company where we would have people drive in a car amongst other data the GPS location was also recorderd. The GPS coordinates where all over the place when plotted on a map. I've registered errors up to +/-150 meters (say 450 feet). That is the difference between driving on a road parallel to a highway or the highway itself. GPS can be accurate and in most cases it is but there is absolutely no guarantee so it makes it legally useless for determining how much road tax you have to pay.
-
I have noticed the same thing with regular car navigators where when you "disobey" the active route and turn elsewhere, the navigator has a perceivable lag before the car symbol snaps to the actual road taken. And of course the navigator puts the car on the road never mind what the measured GPS position is, precisely.
But that was not the real point since this tax was not a _road_ tax. It was supposed to be a general usage tax so that the distance traveled would be the basis for taxation. Kinda makes sense from the revenue logic point of view but begs the question why would a simple tax on fuel not do as well. That definitely correlates with mileage and accounts for pollution as well, all without any extra complications. Oh sorry - forgot we already have that...
-
While I'm here I might as well debunk your nonsense about electric cars too: http://www.nextgreencar.com/electric-cars/environmental-benefits.php (http://www.nextgreencar.com/electric-cars/environmental-benefits.php)
This is still a very debatable subject since you should calculate the fabrication carbon footprint as well.
An electric car with 0 miles (so off factory) has the same carbon footprint of a conventional car with 80000 miles on it. :o
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324128504578346913994914472 (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324128504578346913994914472)
I think it's really impossible to add in the "carbon cost" of creating the EV to arrive at a "true" comparison... because you also need to include the costs of mining, refining and transporting the fuel. Plus the costs of vapors emitted to the atmosphere from petroleum stations, plus all the costs (buildings/infrastructure, manufacturing, labor) of the higher maintenance that ICE cars require. You'd really also need to include recycling and disposal costs and likelihood of recycling. Plus you'd need to add in a factor for vehicles not running correctly (in an ICE car that could include burning oil, running rich and emitting pollutants).
I think the majority (possibly the vast majority) of add-on pollution falls in the ICE category, but it's really an incalculable number that would vary so much from region to region as to be not particularly valuable, even if it were calculated.
-
This kind of thing is one of many reasons I'm glad I don't have to run a business in the EU.
I'm glad you don't run a business in the EU too.
Of course, these types of regulations makes it much harder to enter the marketplace, which means higher costs, less choice, less entrepreneurial opportunity and ultimately more power/control in the hands of the big buys.
It's just an inseparable price that must be paid for higher regulations.
-
You will have to show us the mains filter you installed that passes those green electrons and rejects the others.
Of course that's not how it works.
No, it doesn't work at all other than to line the pockets of some shysters with the small premium you pay and to allow you to try to bullshit anyone (including yourself) stupid enough to believe otherwise.
One is connected to the same wires whether or not one pays the "extra green power fee." You aren't really buying "green" power, you are buying the same power. They just charge more and claim they spend the extra money in a way that does the environment some good. Why pay more for the same electrons to assuage one's guilt? If one feels the need to contribute to the green movement, I'd think a suitable donation would be more effective.
I believe (and could be wrong) that, around here, when you choose which supplier you buy your energy from - the local energy authority purchases that amount from your chosen supplier.
So if there are A, B and C who charge $0.10, $0.15 and $0.20, respectively... and 50% of people choose A, 30% choose B and 20% choose C... then the electric company buys energy in those proportions from the suppliers.
Of course, electrons are electrons, but the point and outcome is valid...if nobody chose A, then A would cease producing power. The difficult part is probably that you can't just turn off the switch or install a (big?) resistor to limit the power coming from a given plant. They're pretty much on or off and not much in between.
-
living in a certain country with a certain government you go by the laws and rules
That's the point of "freedom" - the right to self-determine and self-govern. A real democracy is less about majority rule than about minority protection.
or you choose to go to another country.
Then this "democracy" is no different than tyrannies we see all over the world that drive away their people simply because they have the wrong believes, or they speak different languages, or they dress differently.
Those "liberals" are very tolerant to people, as long as those people don't dissend from the approved liberal view.
-
I guess, if you have an inferiority complex.
Or, you could see them as the governing body that (ideally) looks out for your broader interests. Course corrections are and always will be necessary. This is the job of the informed populace. However, whining and moaning is not very effective -- especially if it occurs in response to every decision made by your governing body.
People (on both sides of this relationship) seem to forget that the government works for the people. Don't like their choices? Get involved in changing them then.
Two problems with that are...
1) Are vacuum cleaners really such an energy sink as to require regulation? Are manufacturers really putting out shit products such that it needs regulated? I'd think there are about 10,000+ other things that the bureaucrats ought to be doing first before thinking about vacuum cleaners. I realize that problem A being a big issue doesn't obviate B being a problem, but in the grand scheme of things... a device which is infrequently used and has such a minimal effect seems to be a bit silly to be focusing on. The smart move would be looking at a pie chart of energy usage and starting from the biggest slice on to the smallest. Things like space heaters and clothes dryers are largely unregulated (in terms of efficiency) and use massively more power than vacuum cleaners.
2) "get involved in changing" is the root of democracy. Unfortunately that doesn't really work when you're talking about EU governance. Creating abstract layers between the voter and the legislator is the oldest trick in the book to eliminate all voter control but still claim they have a voice.
-
The dryer and space heater lobbies were obviously more effective than the vacuum cleaner lobbyists. Or did you not have lobbyists in the EU? Just bribes then I guess.
-
You're right, there are bigger fish to fry. However, I never in my wildest dreams imagined that so many people would have a tantrum about the lack of super-powered vacuum cleaners. Half the world can't even power them from a normal outlet, so who would miss them? And yet, here we are. Point being, it was probably a (relatively) simple matter to take this issue and put a lid on it.
Can you do that with electric heating? The only reason I can think of for someone to choose an electric heater over some other source of energy, is because they probably have no better option. So, how effectively can the EU (or any other body) remove them from the market*?
Same goes for clothes dryers. I have a gas dryer. I'm trying to talk my better half into ditching the electric stove for a gas model as well, but she is fond of the ceramic tops on modern electrics. (That's a whole other battle there.) Now, would I still have gas appliances if my home were not plumbed for them? Probably not -- the cost of tearing through walls to get to the utility room would make it tough to justify. However, if I could add that on to other work for a reasonable cost, I would jump on the opportunity to do so. Aside from being a fairly uninteresting level of personal detail, this serves as an example of what would be involved in a blanket proposal to rid the world of high energy-consuming appliances.
Even legislation forcing new home development to have gas hookups would be potentially troublesome, depending on the availability of gas at the building site. Quite a can of worms.
And then, you have two vacuum cleaners. One has specs that pass regulation, the other does not. There's no undue burden on the consumer because of this. You're given the information you need to choose based on efficiency, absolute power, size, cost, brand loyalty, etc. No modification to the home necessary. The casualty: Otherwise fine, high-performance machines that have higher potential energy consumption. In comparison, small potatoes.
(*: At every place I've ever worked, I've seen a few people operating 1000W heaters in their work area to combat the aircon that is set a few degrees below their preferred level. There have been a few times, where the building heat wasn't adequate or the aircon somehow got set so absurdly low that I have even done this myself. Once in the summer. It makes me cringe. A neat alternative would be to push toward working remote -- which would also have pleasant side effects like reducing fuel consumption and peak traffic congestion. Maybe the government should offer incentives for THAT.)
-
The dryer and space heater lobbies were obviously more effective than the vacuum cleaner lobbyists. Or did you not have lobbyists in the EU? Just bribes then I guess.
Dryers have had standardised efficiency measurement (see EN 60456) and energy labelling since about 1992.
Space heaters were also considered -- see that study's report: http://www.eup-network.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Produktgruppen/Lots/Working_Documents/BIO_EuP_Lot20_Task_8_Final_Report.pdf (http://www.eup-network.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Produktgruppen/Lots/Working_Documents/BIO_EuP_Lot20_Task_8_Final_Report.pdf)
-
You're right, there are bigger fish to fry. However, I never in my wildest dreams imagined that so many people would have a tantrum about the lack of super-powered vacuum cleaners. Half the world can't even power them from a normal outlet, so who would miss them? And yet, here we are. Point being, it was probably a (relatively) simple matter to take this issue and put a lid on it.
Can you do that with electric heating? The only reason I can think of for someone to choose an electric heater over some other source of energy, is because they probably have no better option. So, how effectively can the EU (or any other body) remove them from the market*?
Same goes for clothes dryers. I have a gas dryer. I'm trying to talk my better half into ditching the electric stove for a gas model as well, but she is fond of the ceramic tops on modern electrics. (That's a whole other battle there.) Now, would I still have gas appliances if my home were not plumbed for them? Probably not -- the cost of tearing through walls to get to the utility room would make it tough to justify. However, if I could add that on to other work for a reasonable cost, I would jump on the opportunity to do so. Aside from being a fairly uninteresting level of personal detail, this serves as an example of what would be involved in a blanket proposal to rid the world of high energy-consuming appliances.
Even legislation forcing new home development to have gas hookups would be potentially troublesome, depending on the availability of gas at the building site. Quite a can of worms.
And then, you have two vacuum cleaners. One has specs that pass regulation, the other does not. There's no undue burden on the consumer because of this. You're given the information you need to choose based on efficiency, absolute power, size, cost, brand loyalty, etc. No modification to the home necessary. The casualty: Otherwise fine, high-performance machines that have higher potential energy consumption. In comparison, small potatoes.
(*: At every place I've ever worked, I've seen a few people operating 1000W heaters in their work area to combat the aircon that is set a few degrees below their preferred level. There have been a few times, where the building heat wasn't adequate or the aircon somehow got set so absurdly low that I have even done this myself. Once in the summer. It makes me cringe. A neat alternative would be to push toward working remote -- which would also have pleasant side effects like reducing fuel consumption and peak traffic congestion. Maybe the government should offer incentives for THAT.)
I'm not sure why you feel clothes dryers or heaters would be more difficult to implement than vacuum cleaners? I don't see why either would require any sort of infrastructure modification, if the purpose is to make them more efficient. And if half the world can't even power them - then what earthly reason is there to choose them as the target of efficiency measures? And I don't think "removing them from the market" is part of the standard of the intent. Like car emissions, the idea is to apply to new purchases - which would work for dryers or heaters at least as effectively as vacuums. Perhaps more so, since people would have more heaters than vacuums, I'd imagine.
The point is that both heaters and washers/dryers are massively (orders of magnitude) larger consumers of energy... so making either one slightly more efficient would have a much greater effect than the vacuum regulations. If you look at energy consumption in a home, vacuum cleaners aren't 4th or 5th on the list... they are so far down as to be non-reportable on every chart I've seen. The government may as well implement efficiency standards on electric shavers, power drills or aquarium pumps. And ironically, the last of those - aquarium pumps - actually consume enough power as to often have their own slice of a pie chart.
I don't think most people demand to purchase "full power" vacuum cleaners. Rather, people realize the idiocy of doting over the twigs while not only missing the trees but the entire forest. Personally (and it probably applies to others here also), I am cynical enough to believe there is probably something else at play here. Someone always stands to benefit (and someone to lose) from new rules and laws, so it's likely those who stand to benefit got the ear (or wallet) of the right politicians. One could justify that as "efficiency is always a good thing", but skipping over real problems to tackle imagined ones is a net negative result... just like treating a sniffle but ignoring the broken arm.
-
You're right, there are bigger fish to fry. However, I never in my wildest dreams imagined that so many people would have a tantrum about the lack of super-powered vacuum cleaners.
First they came for the vacuum cleaners and I said nothing.
Then they came for the ....
-
It's about government control of our lives gone amok.
-
The dryer and space heater lobbies were obviously more effective than the vacuum cleaner lobbyists. Or did you not have lobbyists in the EU? Just bribes then I guess.
yes we have lobbyists unfortunately, which is the same as bribery in my opinion, what is the difference between contributing $ to the election campaign or putting it in the pocket of the person it self, both are wrong.
-
If you find electric vacuum cleaners to puny there is always this to fall back on. :-DD
http://www.lawnmowersdirect.co.uk/product/billy-goat-wheeled-vacuums/billy-goat-kv600-leaf--litter-vacuum (http://www.lawnmowersdirect.co.uk/product/billy-goat-wheeled-vacuums/billy-goat-kv600-leaf--litter-vacuum) >:D
-
If you find electric vacuum cleaners to puny there is always this to fall back on. :-DD
http://www.lawnmowersdirect.co.uk/product/billy-goat-wheeled-vacuums/billy-goat-kv600-leaf--litter-vacuum (http://www.lawnmowersdirect.co.uk/product/billy-goat-wheeled-vacuums/billy-goat-kv600-leaf--litter-vacuum) >:D
That Billy Goat petrol powered vacuum would be difficult to maneuver indoors due to it's size.
I'd rather go for this one with a more classic form factor.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/07/10/hooverman.gif)
-
First they came for the vacuum cleaners and I said nothing.
Then they came for the ....
Oh, cool, a comparison between energy efficiency requirements for appliances and the holocaust.
Are you kidding me?!! :palm:
-
First they came for the vacuum cleaners and I said nothing.
Then they came for the ....
Oh, cool, a comparison between energy efficiency requirements for appliances and the holocaust.
Are you kidding me?!! :palm:
It's actually the second time the Niemöller statement has been invoked in this thread.
It seems to have been perverted into a standard ploy used by extremists of every stripe to thwart any move towards moderation or compromise.
For example, the NRA have their own version: "First they came for the assault rifles".
-
Are you kidding me?
They may look different on the surface but the basic principles are the same.
-
It seems to have been perverted into a standard ploy used by extremists of every stripe to thwart any move towards moderation or compromise.
I have to say that I have yet to see any environmentalists or global warming advocates or climate "scientists" use that.
-
For my workshop I use a 1200W Karcher industrial vacuum cleaner that costs 60€ new.
I use it to clear KILOS of wood, concrete and plaster dust during house renovations. Sucking power is really not an issue.
The accessories are a bit crude, but they do their job.
You even can clean the filter using the vacuum cleaner, but it must be done outside. The only down side is having to use bags for the finer dust (but not for wood, metal or paint flakes).
Wife steals it to do the house, we took the 2200W jumbo jet engine at takeoff to the recycling center two years ago.
I can imagine that with a higher quality turbine, better flow and lower losses the same suction could be attained with 700/900W.
So I don't understand what the drama queens are whining about.
If we could all slowly switch over to industrial quality equipment while reducing our dependance on unsavory regime and our trade deficits (less need to get stuff, less need for energy) I really don't see any downside EVEN before looking at the environmental issues.
And, btw, if you are on this forum, you know how to solder, so switching a 900W motor and power supply for a 3000W one should be seen as an opportunity to do a fun project, not to bitch and moan about "the man".
Hardening the fuck up is sometimes seriously needed.
-
It seems to have been perverted into a standard ploy used by extremists of every stripe to thwart any move towards moderation or compromise.
I have to say that I have yet to see any environmentalists or global warming advocates or climate "scientists" use that.
A rather telling observation, that.
Perhaps it's because most environmentalists and others warning of the perils of climate change employ reason and evidence to make their arguments rather than paranoid propaganda?
And the last time I checked climatology was a science, not a "science".
-
Of course, these types of regulations makes it much harder to enter the marketplace, which means higher costs, less choice, less entrepreneurial opportunity and ultimately more power/control in the hands of the big buys.
Yeah, it's really hard NOT to fit a 2000W motor to your new vacuum cleaner. :-DD
So you even don't understand that by not putting some motor, another must be choosen, you don't understand that by choosing another, specs must be reached, you don't want to think about other changes that must be made to still keep some working device that gets customer satisfaction?
Not at all. Search for a sentence without getting the context, look in your indoctrinated agenda, then lough at it.
What's your function in life? I can't imagine ist's something useful, maximum something contemplative.
Payed by the state, more than you could get elsewhere, that's clear too.
-
Of course, these types of regulations makes it much harder to enter the marketplace, which means higher costs, less choice, less entrepreneurial opportunity and ultimately more power/control in the hands of the big buys.
Yeah, it's really hard NOT to fit a 2000W motor to your new vacuum cleaner. :-DD
So you even don't understand that by not putting some motor, another must be choosen, you don't understand that by choosing another, specs must be reached, you don't want to think about other changes that must be made to still keep some working device that gets customer satisfaction?
Not at all. Search for a sentence without getting the context, look in your indoctrinated agenda, then lough at it.
What's your function in life? I can't imagine ist's something useful, maximum something contemplative.
Payed by the state, more than you could get elsewhere, that's clear too.
Try attacking the comment, not the person.
-
Perhaps it's because most environmentalists and others warning of the perils of climate change employ reason and evidence to make their arguments rather than paranoid propaganda?
It is oxymoron to have "environmentalists" and "reason" / "evidence" in the same sentence.
And the last time I checked climatology was a science, not a "science".
It was, until the environmentalists and climate "scientists" ruined it for us all.
-
Another observation: I guess that the persons that complain the most never ever use that vacuum in the first place :-DD
They just want the liberty to buy one |O
-
Perhaps it's because most environmentalists and others warning of the perils of climate change employ reason and evidence to make their arguments rather than paranoid propaganda?
It is oxymoron to have "environmentalists" and "reason" / "evidence" in the same sentence.
Your retorts really need to be more convincing than meaningless (and ungrammatical) insults.
And the last time I checked climatology was a science, not a "science".
It was, until the environmentalists and climate "scientists" ruined it for us all.
I'm afraid you are now beginning to sound rather like a petulant child.
-
You mean the bit where they specifically say they will not include stringent particle emission limits because the finer filters needed to achieve them require more power to force air through them. The power limit they have included means people with allergies can't buy a fast clean vacuum, they have to buy a slow clean vacuum if anyone bothers to make them. In other words fuck health - CO2 emissions are more important.
From 2017 the maximum allowed dust content of exhausted air will be 1%. There is a specific, challenging limit being set.
It isn't a challenging limit. They also say
Dust re-emission is another area where it is difficult to look at the possible improvement in isolation. For sure, better filters (HEPA, etc.) will help tremendously for those suffering from respiratory diseases, but for the average consumer it is questionable if a top filter performance is really needed, whereas certainly it will increase the aerodynamic resistance and thus power consumption. However, a maximum level of 1% re-emission, equivalent to a ‘filter efficiency’ of 99%, appears unlikely to significantly increase power consumption.
So better filters "will help tremendously for those suffering from respiratory diseases", but, if they want them they will have to vacuum slower than anyone else because we put a limit on motor power.
-
You are the one making claims about buying 100% green electricity, a claim so blindingly obviously bullshit that I would not even dignify it by asking for supporting evidence.
I did provide evidence. You have nothing. You lose.
I have an IQ bigger than my shoe size - I win.
-
Your retorts really need to be more convincing than meaningless (and ungrammatical) insults.
I'm afraid you are now beginning to sound rather like a petulant child.
Looks like those extremist environmentalists / climate 'scientists' are good at attacking the messengers when they are short on "reason" and "evidence".
Nothing unexpected, however.
-
Another observation: I guess that the persons that complain the most never ever use that vacuum in the first place :-DD
They just want the liberty to buy one |O
And complain... nag nag nag nag nag nag
-
Another observation: I guess that the persons that complain the most never ever use that vacuum in the first place :-DD
They just want the liberty to buy one, because if they don't their better half starts complaining and stop fulfilling marital duties. ;)
FTFY
-
They just want the liberty to buy one
You are likely correct. But that doesn't mean this behavior is irrational.
Options are valuable not because they will be exercised. They are because they may be exercised.
Exercising an option is a liability (that one gets paid to take); The right to exercise an option is an asset (that one pays to get).
-
For my workshop I use a 1200W Karcher industrial vacuum cleaner that costs 60€ new.
I use it to clear KILOS of wood, concrete and plaster dust during house renovations. Sucking power is really not an issue.
The accessories are a bit crude, but they do their job.
You even can clean the filter using the vacuum cleaner, but it must be done outside. The only down side is having to use bags for the finer dust (but not for wood, metal or paint flakes).
Wife steals it to do the house, we took the 2200W jumbo jet engine at takeoff to the recycling center two years ago.
I can imagine that with a higher quality turbine, better flow and lower losses the same suction could be attained with 700/900W.
So I don't understand what the drama queens are whining about.
If we could all slowly switch over to industrial quality equipment while reducing our dependance on unsavory regime and our trade deficits (less need to get stuff, less need for energy) I really don't see any downside EVEN before looking at the environmental issues.
And, btw, if you are on this forum, you know how to solder, so switching a 900W motor and power supply for a 3000W one should be seen as an opportunity to do a fun project, not to bitch and moan about "the man".
Hardening the fuck up is sometimes seriously needed.
And the nice thing about the kArcher is the HEPA filter is available as a non OEM part for $10 here, and is pretty good. Fits Columbus as well, and the filter bags are washable and also $5 each. Motor is $30 as a spare part, and they are available in 500W and 1000W versions ( the 1200W is a model number, the motor actually is around 800W inside the unit) with either 1 or 2 stages of suction. I found they can do 0.8 bar suction into a mostly closed inlet, about equal to a cheap Chinese vacuum pump. Might not last as long, but the motors generally do around 5 years with me at work, being used for around 2 hours a day. They tend to fail as not much brush and no more commutator either with a shorted winding in the rotor. OEM is $200 per motor, and non OEM is $30 and is the same motor, from the same plant and only the OEM has a warranty if installed by them.
High pressure cleaners the most common failing is the switch falling apart, they are poor, but the rest is quite good even if cheap. Had a few, and had a few repaired, and quite a few went due to light fingers.
-
They just want the liberty to buy one |O
For the oppressors, liberty is a dirty word.
Its fascinating how the people that mind their own business are called 'extremists' and the ones that calls for oppression are called 'enlighten'. That's the real Newspeak.
-
The only regret with the Karcher is not getting the bag less version that can suck wet stuff and blow.
-
When doing renovation work I usually buy a second hand vacuum cleaner and dispose of it when the 'project' is done. Dust from cement/concrete kills any vacuum cleaner quickly.
-
When doing renovation work I usually buy a second hand vacuum cleaner and dispose of it when the 'project' is done. Dust from cement/concrete kills any vacuum cleaner quickly.
That is why you want to build (or buy) a cyclone :-+
This is mine and 98% of all the dust/dirt/rock/etc go in to the container and only a few % in the dustbag of the vacuum. Works like a charm.
-
They just want the liberty to buy one |O
For the oppressors, liberty is a dirty word.
It's curious how everyone who doesn't share your views is an 'oppressor'.
Liberty is a splendid word, but it is not without limits.
Incidentally, isn't it interesting how much liberty we have to indulge in political argument in this thread, when others have been shut down rather abruptly by the moderators?
-
That is why you want to build (or buy) a cyclone :-+
This is mine and 98% of all the dust/dirt/rock/etc go in to the container and only a few % in the dustbag of the vacuum. Works like a charm.
We are using a vacuum with water filtering (no bag or cyclone). When done you empty the dirty water and it's clean again, no dust in the air whatsoever. The vacuum is new but the technology is pre WWII. The company still maintain the same in house demo/pitch marketing.
Demo:
New Rainbow Vacuum - May 2011 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1pMgF8lu48#)
Teardown
Teardown of Rainbow E Series Vacuum (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjpak0bGN3I#ws)
-
It's curious how everyone who doesn't share your views is an 'oppressor'.
More like everyone who forces others to share their view is an oppressor.
Incidentally, isn't it interesting how much liberty we have to indulge in political argument in this thread, when others have been shut down rather abruptly by the moderators?
It may have something to do with the said individuals inability to constrain their personal attacks because others don't share their view?
We have had a lot of people demand tolerance out of others who at the same time insist on others' conformance to their views.
-
When doing renovation work I usually buy a second hand vacuum cleaner and dispose of it when the 'project' is done. Dust from cement/concrete kills any vacuum cleaner quickly.
That is why you want to build (or buy) a cyclone :-+
This is mine and 98% of all the dust/dirt/rock/etc go in to the container and only a few % in the dustbag of the vacuum. Works like a charm.
I tried to build something similar for my last renovation project (which involved removing lots of gravel from milling slots into cement) but it didn't work very well so I gave up on it not knowing you can buy and rent these as well. self- :palm:
-
We are using a vacuum with water filtering (no bag or cyclone). When done you empty the dirty water and it's clean again, no dust in the air whatsoever. The vacuum is new but the technology is pre WWII.
My car uses that same approach for the engine air cleaner, except instead of water, it uses a cylinder filled with oil. Very little air restriction, and performance good enough to keep the engines running longer than your average vehicle on the road today.
The point is that both heaters and washers/dryers are massively (orders of magnitude) larger consumers of energy... so making either one slightly more efficient would have a much greater effect than the vacuum regulations.
The first part is true, and I agree with your premise in theory. However, how do you make a resistive heating element more efficient? Increasing its resistance? ;) Someone pointed out patio heaters as a good example, though -- something I didn't even realize existed. That seems like an ill-fated device from the get-go.
It's curious how everyone who doesn't share your views is an 'oppressor'.
More like everyone who forces others to share their view is an oppressor.
A habit shared by both sides of this argument. The (let's call it) liberals are oppressors because we want to limit your options in portable hurricane generators. Likewise, the (for the sake of labels) conservatives are willing to consume more than their fair share of finite resources so they can say they have the right to do so.
Notice I did not invoke the sacred goddess of environmentalismists in this argument. Unless you are inclined to debate whether coal / Uranium / whatever to feed the power plants, or bananas to feed the Mr. Fusion, are infinitely available? In which case, call me a greenie. On second thought....
It may have something to do with the said individuals inability to constrain their personal attacks because others don't share their view?
'Sup, Pot. Kettle here. Say, why don't you tell me what color I am?
-
The dry cylinder vac I use at work is not rated as wet and dry, but works well to do wet work, like unclogging aircon drain lines, or to take out the sludge from the water drain pan. That was around 20kg of dust and muck that had accumulated over the years inside the one, which went out after I hit it with neutral coil cleaning solution and some biocide. Took around 5 trips to empty it though when it started to get full of water. Afterwards washed the bag ( now very clean) and washed the unit as well then left in the sun for a day to dry out. The soap cleaned the unit inside as well.
-
It's curious how everyone who doesn't share your views is an 'oppressor'.
More like everyone who forces others to share their view is an oppressor.
Precisely how is anyone on this forum supposed to be forcing anyone to do anything? In case you hadn't noticed, we are electronics engineers and hobbyists, not sinister minions of repressive government.
Incidentally, isn't it interesting how much liberty we have to indulge in political argument in this thread, when others have been shut down rather abruptly by the moderators?
It may have something to do with the said individuals inability to constrain their personal attacks because others don't share their view?
Personal attacks? Most of us on this forum know very few of the other members personally; the only 'attacks' we can make are to challenge particularly ill-founded comments.
We have had a lot of people demand tolerance out of others who at the same time insist on others' conformance to their views.
Well, fortunately we have your contributions to this thread as shining examples of a tolerant and balanced viewpoint.
-
did the policy allow this for sale in EU? its 2kw ... and bagless/cycloneless
http://www.philips.com.sg/c/vacuum-cleaners/aquaaction-bagless-water-filtration-vacuum-cleaner-with-aquaweb-technology-and-triactive-nozzle-fc8950_01/prd/ (http://www.philips.com.sg/c/vacuum-cleaners/aquaaction-bagless-water-filtration-vacuum-cleaner-with-aquaweb-technology-and-triactive-nozzle-fc8950_01/prd/)
Probably not. But they are promoting this (http://www.philips.co.uk/c-p/FC7070_01/aquatrio-3-in-1/overview) 500W triple-action machine which is supposedly far more efficient than a 2200W conventional vacuum.
-
From that webpage:
The 2000 Watt motor generates max. 220 Watt suction power for powerful cleaning performance.
11% efficiency is that normal or does that only sound terrible?
-
My car uses that same approach for the engine air cleaner, except instead of water, it uses a cylinder filled with oil. Very little air restriction, and performance good enough to keep the engines running longer than your average vehicle on the road today.
Is it stock or after market? Do yo clean and refill the cylinder or is it disposable?
K&N filters use a film of oil but not a filled cylinder as you describe.
The water vacuums cleaner has an active component called 'separator'. Not sure what it does.
How to Clean the Rainbow® Separator (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri9cMwtEjic#ws)
-
A habit shared by both sides of this argument. The (let's call it) liberals are oppressors because we want to limit your options in portable hurricane generators. Likewise, the (for the sake of labels) conservatives are willing to consume more than their fair share of finite resources so they can say they have the right to do so.
The 'fair share' thing is a subjective argument that the oppressors use to justify their actions. It's well established that oppressors usually comes with a 'justifications'. This is how the 17th century La Fontaine described it (translated to English):
The reason of those best able to have their way is always the best:
We now show how this is true.
A lamb was quenching its thirst
In the water of a pure stream.
A fasting wolf came by, looking for something;
He was attracted by hunger to this place.
—What makes you so bold as to meddle with my drinking?
Said this animal, very angry.
You will be punished for your boldness.
—Sir, answered the lamb, let Your Majesty
Not put himself into a rage;
But rather, let him consider
That I am taking a drink of water
In the stream
More than twenty steps below him;
And that, consequently, in no way,
Am I troubling his supply.
—You do trouble it, answered the cruel beast.
And I know you said bad things of me last year.
—How could I do that when I wasn't born,
Answered the lamb; I am still at my mother's breast.
—If it wasn't you, then it was your brother.
—I haven't a brother.—It was then someone close to you;
For you have no sympathy for me,
You, your shepherds and your dogs.
I have been told of this.I have to make things even.
Saying this, into the woods
The wolf carries the lamb, and then eats him
Without any other why or wherefore.
-
Is it stock or after market? Do yo clean and refill the cylinder or is it disposable?
Stock. It has a natural fiber filter (permanent) on the intake, then the oil bath, then straight to the manifold. The oil is replaced along with engine oil changes. There's also no radiator. ;)
The 'fair share' thing is a subjective argument that the oppressors use to justify their actions. It's well established that oppressors usually comes with a 'justifications'.
Crap, guys. The jig's up. I guess "Operation Vac-U-Suck" is a bust. Let's re-focus our efforts on "Operation Homeland Security". They'll never know what him 'em. >:D
Oppressors, indeed. Peeling away people's freedoms with speed limits, noise ordinances, safety regulations, and item limits in the quick checkout lane. We're bastards.
-
Now if you want a good reason to leave the EU or better reform the EU then this is a much better one IMHO:
Four temporaray euro commissioners that had to work for 4 months received €500.000 each :o . Sorry no english website found, a belgian and german one are here:
http://www.express.be/business/nl/economy/brussel-blijft-het-land-van-melk-en-honing-eu-betaalt-interim-commissarissen-500000-euro-voor-vier-maanden-werk/207389.htm (http://www.express.be/business/nl/economy/brussel-blijft-het-land-van-melk-en-honing-eu-betaalt-interim-commissarissen-500000-euro-voor-vier-maanden-werk/207389.htm)
http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/eu-kommissare-kassieren-fuer-vier-monate-arbeit-je-500-000-euro-a-987716.html (http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/eu-kommissare-kassieren-fuer-vier-monate-arbeit-je-500-000-euro-a-987716.html)
-
A habit shared by both sides of this argument. The (let's call it) liberals are oppressors because we want to limit your options in portable hurricane generators. Likewise, the (for the sake of labels) conservatives are willing to consume more than their fair share of finite resources so they can say they have the right to do so.
The 'fair share' thing is a subjective argument that the oppressors use to justify their actions. It's well established that oppressors usually comes with a 'justifications'. This is how the 17th century La Fontaine described it (translated to English):
The reason of those best able to have their way is always the best:
We now show how this is true.
[remainder of fable deleted]
Well established by Osama Bin Laden, for example.
This is Aesop's fable The Wolf and the Lamb, which Bin Laden used to justify the 9/11 attacks.
-
For the oppressors, liberty is a dirty word.
Its fascinating how the people that mind their own business are called 'extremists' and the ones that calls for oppression are called 'enlighten'. That's the real Newspeak.
+1
-
What's your function in life? I can't imagine ist's something useful, maximum something contemplative.
Payed by the state, more than you could get elsewhere, that's clear too.
Nope. I am a electrical/firmware engineer who makes industrial products, working for a private company.
Very hard to believe, but I will keep on trying. Maybe someday I will succeed.
-
Baen free library ( yes it really is free for certain works) and download Freehold and read it. Very good to give a view of both sides.
-
Sorry if this was posted before. I didn't read this thread due to a. Too busy, & b. reading more safety/green/AGW fascist rubbish makes me angry.
Anyway...
EU to ban high-energy hair dryers, smartphones and kettles
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11061538/EU-to-ban-high-energy-hair-dryers-smartphones-and-kettles.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11061538/EU-to-ban-high-energy-hair-dryers-smartphones-and-kettles.html)
Talking about banning 'high power' smartphones? Something's not smart there.
I wonder if there are exemptions in the regulations for cases where someone is generating all their electricity via solar? In which case by what right does the State have any say at all, in how much of their own electricity people use and for what purpose?
Somehow I doubt it.
Also 'lower power hair dryers' is moronic too. As people will just use the lower power dryer for longer. Same eventual total Watt-hours to dry the hair.
-
EU to ban high-energy hair dryers, smartphones and kettles
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11061538/EU-to-ban-high-energy-hair-dryers-smartphones-and-kettles.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11061538/EU-to-ban-high-energy-hair-dryers-smartphones-and-kettles.html)
Talking about banning 'high power' smartphones? Something's not smart there.
You idiot.
- It's the Torygraph, a well known source of balanced and reliable information about the EU (hint: sarcasm)
- The article says "smartphones" in the headline but not in the body of the article, and you fell for it
- The study they linked to is just that, a study to see if it is worth doing these things and not an actual plan to do them
- Much of it is about requiring reasonably efficient power supplies, like we already do with PF correction etc.
- As the study points out, phone chargers use about 20 PJ of energy per year
- You didn't read the comments explaining the limit on vacuum cleaner power, which also explain why you don't really need a 2300W hairdryer when most of the world copes with 900W just fine
I can't believe people who otherwise appear to be of at least average intelligence keep falling for this kind of thing. BTW, those Nigerian prince emails are a scam too. :palm:
In any case, even if was 100% factual, anything that promotes less energy waste THUS reducing our arse licking position to Russia and Gulf States, is very good indeed.
Is it more ecological? Debatable (if you dislike the rules of thermodynamics and evidence based science) but secondary.
-
I can't believe people who otherwise appear to be of at least average intelligence keep falling for this kind of thing.
Says the man who buys 100% green energy - lol.
-
You idiot.
- It's the Torygraph, a well known source of balanced and reliable information about the EU (hint: sarcasm)
I'm well aware of that source's characteristics. However flatly rejecting information without examination, based purely on source unreliability is never wise. That's why one should check references. Like THIS ONE http://www.ecodesign-wp3.eu/sites/default/files/Ecodesign%20WP3_Draft_Task_3_report_11072014.pdf (http://www.ecodesign-wp3.eu/sites/default/files/Ecodesign%20WP3_Draft_Task_3_report_11072014.pdf) given in the article. Well how about that - they didn't just make it all up.
- The article says "smartphones" in the headline but not in the body of the article, and you fell for it.
Actually it does mention phones in the article body. Also mentioned 278 times in the pdf.
Also, define 'fell for it'. If by that you mean ridiculing the phrase 'high power smartphones' as absurd, then yep, totally fell for it.
- The study they linked to is just that, a study to see if it is worth doing these things and not an actual plan to do them
Like tungsten light bulbs, I suppose? Do you care to place a bet on where this goes in a year or two?
- Much of it is about requiring reasonably efficient power supplies, like we already do with PF correction etc.
And the rest of it isn't. Pfft.
- As the study points out, phone chargers use about 20 PJ of energy per year
SFW. Oh and so you did already read the study mentioned, but still claim the telegraph article is just blowing smoke? Also, you missed all the mention of phones?
- You didn't read the comments explaining the limit on vacuum cleaner power, which also explain why you don't really need a 2300W hairdryer when most of the world copes with 900W just fine
Missing the point. The world copes just fine without such nitpicking intrusive egomaniacal regulation. Especially when the whole premise of such restrictions is based on the false (actually fraudulent) premise of AGW.
I can't believe people who otherwise appear to be of at least average intelligence keep falling for this kind of thing. BTW, those Nigerian prince emails are a scam too. :palm:
Your form of address, attitude and 'reasoning' are offensive and trollish.
-
The world copes just fine without such nitpicking intrusive egomaniacal regulation. Especially when the whole premise of such restrictions is based on the false (actually fraudulent) premise of AGW.
Wow, you were sounding quite rational until this point.
Rather than making ludicrous and unsubstantiated claims, could you point to a single scientific body with national or international standing which holds the phenomenon of anthropogenic global warming to be either false or fraudulent?
In case it needs to be spelt out, this excludes denialist propaganda factories such as the National Center for Public Policy Research.
-
You idiot.
-1
(not even bothering to read your arguments).
-
Missing the point. The world copes just fine without such nitpicking intrusive egomaniacal regulation. Especially when the whole premise of such restrictions is based on the false (actually fraudulent) premise of AGW.
+10^10^100
:-+
-
Missing the point. The world copes just fine without such nitpicking intrusive egomaniacal regulation.
In the sense that life goes on, yes. However -- once again -- half the world isn't even capable of powering these devices, and yet there's no shortage of dry hair and clean carpets. For the 200V+ countries, there is such a huge amount of power on tap, you don't notice when the demands of your appliances are disproportionately large. That ignorance is at least forgivable for the general populace, but you lot should know better. SOMETHING IS WRONG when you're using a hair dryer with an equivalent amount of power to a small kitchen stove. Not only is it gross overkill, but it has potential for real damage when something goes wrong -- not unlike the first time your twitch the throttle on a 1000CC motorcycle and realize you're one sneeze away from sending the bike to the nearest ocean, without its rider still attached. This stuff has no business being on the market in the first place.
Regarding phone chargers, I'm inclined to agree that efficiency is probably not a big concern. Consumers want them so small that not a lot of power can go to waste without other more immediate consequences, so that might be flogging a dead horse. Safety regulation is another matter, and long overdue -- if not so easily enforceable.
-
Missing the point. The world copes just fine without such nitpicking intrusive egomaniacal regulation. Especially when the whole premise of such restrictions is based on the false (actually fraudulent) premise of AGW.
+10^10^100
:-+
"And posting 'Me too!' like some braindead AOLer
I should do the world a favor and cap you like Ol' Yeller
You're just about as useless as JPEGs to Helen Keller..."
-
"And posting 'Me too!' like some braindead AOLer
I should do the world a favor and cap you like Ol' Yeller
You're just about as useless as JPEGs to Helen Keller..."
"SHRIEK! How can anyone agree with such abhorrent views! Death to anyone who has an opinion of their own! SHRIEK!"
-
-1
+10^10^100
What is it with people and adding and subtracting points? Are you guys saving up for a stuffed animal or pencil box or something? ;)
-
... The whole article is a troll.
This view point is expected. Socialists have hard time grasping the concept of personal liberty. For them it's just a nuisance.
-
In the sense that life goes on, yes. However -- once again -- half the world isn't even capable of powering these devices, and yet there's no shortage of dry hair and clean carpets.
No shortage of hot water either but I'm rather pleased I don't have to stand around waiting twice as long to make it.
For the 200V+ countries, there is such a huge amount of power on tap, you don't notice when the demands of your appliances are disproportionately large. That ignorance is at least forgivable for the general populace, but you lot should know better. SOMETHING IS WRONG when you're using a hair dryer with an equivalent amount of power to a small kitchen stove.
I sometimes dry my hair with a 3kW fan heater - nothing goes wrong. There is nothing to go wrong with a high powered hair dryer anymore than there is to go wrong using two half powered ones. The more power the faster it gets the job done.
If people want to spend their money on 2kW hair dryers or 1000cc motorbikes and the fuel for them then regardless of me agreeing with their choice I defend their right to choose.
BTW I happen to have a 1000cc motorbike and it is f**king awesome.....
The miserablist pricks of the world who don't have 1000cc motorbikes feel better about it when no one else is allowed to have one.
-
"And posting 'Me too!' like some braindead AOLer
I should do the world a favor and cap you like Ol' Yeller
You're just about as useless as JPEGs to Helen Keller..."
"SHRIEK! How can anyone agree with such abhorrent views! Death to anyone who has an opinion of their own! SHRIEK!"
So quoting a bit of Weird Al's humorous verse to highlight your lack of originality is shrieking death threats in ALL CAPS now?
You really need to lighten up, chum :)
-
"And posting 'Me too!' like some braindead AOLer
I should do the world a favor and cap you like Ol' Yeller
You're just about as useless as JPEGs to Helen Keller..."
"SHRIEK! How can anyone agree with such abhorrent views! Death to anyone who has an opinion of their own! SHRIEK!"
So quoting a bit of Weird Al's humorous verse to highlight your lack of originality is shrieking death threats in ALL CAPS now?
You really need to lighten up, chum :)
I was paraphrasing you, dude!
-
"And posting 'Me too!' like some braindead AOLer
I should do the world a favor and cap you like Ol' Yeller
You're just about as useless as JPEGs to Helen Keller..."
"SHRIEK! How can anyone agree with such abhorrent views! Death to anyone who has an opinion of their own! SHRIEK!"
So quoting a bit of Weird Al's humorous verse to highlight your lack of originality is shrieking death threats in ALL CAPS now?
You really need to lighten up, chum :)
Where might be the professionalism in all this? Just a bystander making some observations!
-
No shortage of hot water either but I'm rather pleased I don't have to stand around waiting twice as long to make it.
When did we start talking about heating water? Is this to do with kettles? I don't have an opinion there. At a certain point, you will ruin the container before you heat your substance any faster, but aside from that, I don't argue that (for the most part) energy in is energy used regardless. (See? Not just trying to strip freedoms away.)
I sometimes dry my hair with a 3kW fan heater - nothing goes wrong. There is nothing to go wrong with a high powered hair dryer anymore than there is to go wrong using two half powered ones. The more power the faster it gets the job done.
Fallacy. I have used ~1000-1200W hair dryers that I had to hold farther away because it generated too much heat to be useful in close proximity. My favorite was a 600W beasty with a powerful fan. The air was "warmish-hot", which was plenty, and it dried my (thick and long) hair without damaging it. It was also small enough to tuck into the corner of a suitcase. Since then, I just "decided" not to grow as much hair anymore, and haven't really needed a dryer in years.
The miserablist pricks of the world who don't have 1000cc motorbikes feel better about it when no one else is allowed to have one.
Your paranoia is showing, and you're projecting. I truly don't care what bike you have. If you want 1000CCs, well, that's still more fuel-efficient than a 6L SUV, so good onya. I rode a friend's 800CC once and thought, "if I owned this thing, I would kill myself" and went back to my lower-powered bike, which is still hot enough to pucker my tailpipe when I yank the throttle too fast. That is the beginning and end of my opinion on high-powered bikes.
-
You're just about as useless as JPEGs to Helen Keller..."
This JPEG is not useless. I am sure she would appreciate having it on the internet. ;-)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/Helen_KellerA.jpg/800px-Helen_KellerA.jpg)
-
Your form of address, attitude and 'reasoning' are offensive and trollish.
I'm normally a nice guy, ...
Must be when you are between other socialists, practicing groupthinking.
-
"And posting 'Me too!' like some braindead AOLer
I should do the world a favor and cap you like Ol' Yeller
You're just about as useless as JPEGs to Helen Keller..."
"SHRIEK! How can anyone agree with such abhorrent views! Death to anyone who has an opinion of their own! SHRIEK!"
So quoting a bit of Weird Al's humorous verse to highlight your lack of originality is shrieking death threats in ALL CAPS now?
You really need to lighten up, chum :)
Where might be the professionalism in all this? Just a bystander making some observations!
With a title like "This is why we should all leave the EU", you surely didn't expect a purely rational fact-based engineering discussion?
The thread seems to have become something of a free-for-all platform for political posturing, and the fact that it was begun by a moderator may explain why it hasn't been shut down yet.
-
You're just about as useless as JPEGs to Helen Keller..."
This JPEG is not useless. I am sure she would appreciate having it on the internet. ;-)
[large photo of Helen Keller removed]
Nice try, but I'm afraid she died before either JPEGs or the internet were invented.
-
If people want to spend their money on 2kW hair dryers or 1000cc motorbikes and the fuel for them then regardless of me agreeing with their choice I defend their right to choose.
BTW I happen to have a 1000cc motorbike and it is f**king awesome.....
The miserablist pricks of the world who don't have 1000cc motorbikes feel better about it when no one else is allowed to have one.
What the more rabidly right wing contributors to this thread seem incapable of understanding is that the world is not divided exclusively into lovers of freedom and 'miserabilists'. I too have owned powerful motorcycles and enjoyed riding them.
But where do you draw the line with this 'freedom'?
Should we reintroduce leaded fuel in the spirit of liberty and freedom of choice?
The Ethyl Corporation spent decades burying mounting evidence that tetraethyl lead was a neurotoxin. Without government intervention they would almost certainly still be poisoning us with it.
-
You didn't read the comments explaining the limit on vacuum cleaner power, which also explain why you don't really need a 2300W hairdryer when most of the world copes with 900W just fine
Missing the point. The world copes just fine without such nitpicking intrusive egomaniacal regulation. Especially when the whole premise of such restrictions is based on the false (actually fraudulent) premise of AGW.
Well governments learned from Greenpeace that preaching hell & destruction works better then trying to be sensible about not wasting energy. No matter how you look at it: we in Europe depend largely on Russia and the middle east for energy. Needing less energy makes it easier to come up with alternatives and lessen our dependancy on instable governments/regions. But hey, that would be a sensible reason.
I'm glad about the discussion on hair dryers. It appears there are more women on this forum than I expected!
-
No shortage of hot water either but I'm rather pleased I don't have to stand around waiting twice as long to make it.
When did we start talking about heating water? Is this to do with kettles?
When you started talking about + 200v countries and disproportionately large demand from appliances.
I sometimes dry my hair with a 3kW fan heater - nothing goes wrong. There is nothing to go wrong with a high powered hair dryer anymore than there is to go wrong using two half powered ones. The more power the faster it gets the job done.
Fallacy. I have used ~1000-1200W hair dryers that I had to hold farther away because it generated too much heat to be useful in close proximity.
Fallacy because you have used some crap high power hair driers?
Perhaps Mr Coray quoted in the Telegraph article who makes his living drying people's hair knows better. He likes his 2.1kW driers and sums up with "The more powerful, the faster the blow dry – it’s as simple as that.”
But, he is just some ignorant member of the general public. He needs someone smart and informed like you to tell him it is a fallacy and that SOMETHING IS WRONG even though he and his customers have managed not to notice it.
-
@mojo-chan, I thought you couldn't wait to leave the UK or did you change your mind and you rather stay in Europe?
-
Fallacy because you have used some crap high power hair driers?
Fallacy because a crap high-power hair dryer can't put out more heat than a quality high-power hair dryer. Assuming the same input voltage, heat is a product of resistance. Any inefficiency would only result in more heat, which in this case is a useful product. So, you're telling me that the tool in question, that isn't even the highest power available, is a poor example because it converts energy to heat too efficiently? :o
Perhaps Mr Coray quoted in the Telegraph article who makes his living drying people's hair knows better. He likes his 2.1kW driers and sums up with "The more powerful, the faster the blow dry – it’s as simple as that.”
Out of curiosity, I Googled some hair dryer selection tips. I found http://www.the-best-hair-dryer-reviews.com (http://www.the-best-hair-dryer-reviews.com), which was ranked very high in the results. Like many other guides, it recommended "moar power", but "less heat". Hm. Most of what I read was practically a carbon copy from one site to the next, so I'll just pick on these guys for a minute, since they had excellent placement, and lots of info.
Power. 2?000 watts – recommended if you’re looking for a hair dryer that heats well with a sufficient airflow to dry your hair fast.
Yet:
The power of hair dryers ranges from 1300 to 2200 watts. Please note that it’s not advisable to rush towards the most powerful models: if it’s for everyday use, you should be careful as unnecessarily powerful dryers might damage your hair or even irritate your scalp.
And, curiously:
The temperature of the hair dryer. If it’s hot, it means its resistance is depleted and thus might overheat or even damage the hair.
OK, maybe I can see why maybe having a 2kW dryer is wise - so as not to run out of resistance!
They also offered this stellar advice:
It must be said that DC Motors are manufactured in China and AC Motors in Italy, which says it all in terms of quality. Therefore they cannot be compared knowing that a 1600 Watt AC is equivalent to a 2000 Watt DC.
Who can argue with that logic?
In closing, your honor, do I think that.. maybe.. the hair salon guy is not qualified to understand the finer points of Ohm's Law and whatnot? Yeeeaaah, I kinda think so.
But, he is just some ignorant member of the general public. He needs someone smart and informed like you to tell him it is a fallacy and that SOMETHING IS WRONG even though he and his customers have managed not to notice it.
YES! You're starting to get it! ^-^
-
What the more rabidly right wing contributors to this thread seem incapable of understanding is that the world is not divided exclusively into lovers of freedom and 'miserabilists'. I too have owned powerful motorcycles and enjoyed riding them.
But where do you draw the line with this 'freedom'?
Very good point. Freedom is not a binary feature and there is actually a continuum with freedom on one end and oppression on the other. Some people try to push the needle toward more freedom and some toward more oppression. This is how you get the division into the two camps. Hopefully freedom will prevail.
Leaving the EU is one way in which Britons can increase their freedom.
-
What the more rabidly right wing contributors to this thread seem incapable of understanding is that the world is not divided exclusively into lovers of freedom and 'miserabilists'. I too have owned powerful motorcycles and enjoyed riding them.
But where do you draw the line with this 'freedom'?
Very good point. Freedom is not a binary feature and there is actually a continuum with freedom on one end and oppression on the other. Some people try to push the needle toward more freedom and some toward more oppression. This is how you get the division into the two camps.
Hopefully freedom will prevail.
Hopefully the right amount of freedom will prevail.
I really hope you don't want individuals to be free to murder without consequence, or corporations to be free to poison people for profit.
Limiting the freedom to harm others is not oppression, it is civilization.
Leaving the EU is one way in which Britons can increase their freedom.
Now there we have a meeting of minds. The EU is a bloated monstrosity of dubious economic value with far too little democratic accountability.
-
But, he is just some ignorant member of the general public. He needs someone smart and informed like you to tell him it is a fallacy and that SOMETHING IS WRONG even though he and his customers have managed not to notice it.
A more likely scenario is that the smartie-pants types think they know so much precisely because they actually know so little.
-
Fallacy because you have used some crap high power hair driers?
Fallacy because a crap high-power hair dryer can't put out more heat than a quality high-power hair dryer.
But a crap hair dryer can put out the same amount of heat in less air, perhaps you were mistakenly using a paint stripper.
<snip> irrelevant stuff about being able to find crap on the internet.
-
What the more rabidly right wing contributors to this thread seem incapable of understanding is that the world is not divided exclusively into lovers of freedom and 'miserabilists'. I too have owned powerful motorcycles and enjoyed riding them.
But where do you draw the line with this 'freedom'?
Very good point. Freedom is not a binary feature and there is actually a continuum with freedom on one end and oppression on the other. Some people try to push the needle toward more freedom and some toward more oppression. This is how you get the division into the two camps. Hopefully freedom will prevail.
Leaving the EU is one way in which Britons can increase their freedom.
This shows to some degree that you are trying to shove your american centric concept of "Freedom" down everybody's throat.
Different places in the world have different realities. One reality in Europe is that we are somewhat energy poor.
So If I am limited, as a consumer, to a 900W hairdrier, instead of a marketing friendly 2500W, this is just a small part of our nations struggle to slowly gain back every last grain of energy independence.
Or you might call it "Energy Freedom" in Murica, then paint your face blue, put on a skirt with no undies and run around screaming while waving a plastic sword.
Until the cops come around to shoot you to protect "Freedum"
As Europeans, our governments will have to continue groveling to the Gulf states, Russia and America until we gain this freedom.
And this far more important than the freedom to burn my head of with a leafblower/heat gun combo.
-
This shows to some degree that you are trying to shove your american centric concept of "Freedom" down everybody's throat.
Freedom is a universal human value. Nothing American centric about it. It's sad that you see freedom as some foreign concept.
One reality in Europe is that we are somewhat energy poor.
Some more than others, France for example is an electricity exporter. Micro managing people life is not the only solution.
As Europeans, our governments will have to continue groveling to the Gulf states, Russia and America until we gain this freedom.
And this far more important than the freedom to burn my head of with a leafblower/heat gun combo.
Nice play on words. It's the old its-for-your-own-benefit argument.
-
They can always find someone to say what they want. It reminds me of the time when the EU said that bottled water couldn't claim to cure dehydration, and they managed to find a few doctors who apparently hadn't read the ruling to condemn it.
Those EU bureaucrats sounds like a bunch of busy bodies that tell everybody how to live their lives. Reminds me mayor Bloomberg's attempt to to limit the size of soda cups sold in NY. Luckily the courts sided with freedom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_soft_drink_size_limit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_soft_drink_size_limit)
-
Rather than making ludicrous and unsubstantiated claims, could you point to a single scientific body with national or international standing which holds the phenomenon of anthropogenic global warming to be either false or fraudulent?
In case it needs to be spelt out, this excludes denialist propaganda factories such as the National Center for Public Policy Research.
Not wanting to derail this thread into _that_ argument, I'll just link to my 'global warming' archive of article links, sequential from around 2008 (when I realized Earth's archaeological CO2 vs temp record is flatly incompatible with the fundamental assumptions of AGW, and started looking into it) to present. Links mostly saved sequentially by date, newest at the bottom.
http://everist.org/archives/links/__AGW_links.txt (http://everist.org/archives/links/__AGW_links.txt)
http://everist.org/archives/links/__AGW_quotes.txt (http://everist.org/archives/links/__AGW_quotes.txt)
http://everist.org/archives/links/__AGW_stuck_ship_irony_info.txt (http://everist.org/archives/links/__AGW_stuck_ship_irony_info.txt)
http://everist.org/archives/links/__AGW_CRU_emails_links.txt (http://everist.org/archives/links/__AGW_CRU_emails_links.txt)
A couple of amusing examples just in the last few days:
* Australian BOM caught red-handed dishonestly manipulating Oz temperature data records to create an apparent strong warming trend over the last century, while the original raw data actually shows a slight cooling trend. Then they were caught lying _again_, when making claims about their justification for the manipulation.
* Receding Swiss glaciers inconveniently reveal 4000 year old forests – and make it clear that glacier retreat is nothing new.
Getting back to hair driers, those cheering the 'ban it' mentality still aren't addressing the point that if you force people to use lower powered dryers, then the driers will just be used for longer. Basic physics - it takes a fixed number of joules to convert a set amount of water (in the hair) to vapor (in the air). Since the goal of someone using a hairdryer is to dry their hair, they'll just keep going until it is dry. So with a low power dryer they will simply use it for longer, with the same total energy use.
Same is probably true to some extent with vacuum cleaners. Less suck = more running it back and forth on the carpet. The 'less power --> longer use resulting in similar total energy consumption' relationship is probably more fuzzy (fluffy? cat-furred?) than with hair dryers. Conceivably the total energy consumption for a given cleaning job could even be higher with a less powerful vacuum cleaner. The banning mentality never takes the law of unintended consequences into account.
Someone mentioned paint strippers - yes, I wonder how any regulations to ban 'high power hair dryers' would differentiate from paint strippers and other such hot air blowers? I have a hot air gun that has adjustable power (don't they all?) and could be used as a hair dryer I suppose.
Personally I never use hair dryers for hair, despite having lots of hair. What I do use them for sometimes is heatshrink tubing and locating heat-intermittent electronics faults. For which the choice of power needed is mine, not some regulation's.
And in winter every cold evening I use a hairdryer for bed warming.
Personally I don't like electric blankets; prefer just a big pile of quilts. But getting into a cold bed isn't so fun. Getting into a cold bed and then immediately pointing a really high power hair dryer around under the blankets, warming up both myself and the bedsheets, is great. Just have to avoid airflow obstruction, and that's easily done by holding the dryer by the back end, with the fingers in a tent around the intake. But for this purpose, power and lots of it is best.
Do you imagine the ban-it freaks will make exceptions for that usage?
No I don't think so. Regardless that it only takes less than a minute to get nice and toasty.
-
@TH: you,re whole argument ignore the facts from the past that existing technology can be made more efficient thus requiring less energy to have the same end result.
Example: airconditioner with the new inverter technology. And yes there is a theoretical and practical limit to the efficiency of each technology, but we have not reached that by far for hairdryers and vacuuum cleaners.
Even the 50 year old or more handdryer technology was just changed by Dyson for instance. But it takes more money to investigate in new technology then using old technology. R&D for new technology creates new high paid jobs in the EU instead of a lot of jobs in China ;)
-
Do you object to this kind of regulation?
Of course. If you have a law against false advertisement just use it. No need for a law for each particular case.
As I said, they are utopian busy bodies that micro manage people lives. Cherish your freedom.
...Clearly there is a need for it as your own ignorance on this issue has demonstrated.
Going personal is lame.
-
Hairdryer is more about volume of air moved than heating it. You move a lot of warm air at something just above body temperature to dry hair. Having air at above 60C will degrade the hair when it is dry, and this leaves split ends and at worse burnt and brittle hair. Older Salon driers use 400W max, and move a lot of air to get the whole lot dry in around the same time, just keeping it under 50C all the time.
More power will mean you either have it further away to mix with cold ambient air or you are making your hair brittle.
Funny thing with the motors is that the last Bonfilioli AC motor I bought was actually made in Vietnam. The last DC motor was made in India. The last motor I had rewound was rewound in South Africa, and worked perfectly when put back in service. The oldest motors i have running in regular service are made in West Germany though, and have been running for over 40 years with absolutely no maintenance on them at all, aside from regular checks for loose connections in the terminal blocks. I had to convert one to external fan though when it was converted to inverter drive, as I was unhappy with the cooling it would have from the integral fan at low RPM, so added an external 120mm fan that replaced the fan. That actually moved more air than the original cooling fan.
-
As Europeans, our governments will have to continue groveling to the Gulf states, Russia and America until we gain this freedom.
And this far more important than the freedom to burn my head of with a leafblower/heat gun combo.
Nice play on words. It's the old its-for-your-own-benefit argument.
Yeah, a play on words but also bloody reality.
And for the very same reason I object to people buying gasguzzlers. Their little appendage replacement mobile reduces the energy freedoom of the whole continent.
"But "Freedom" man" That ain't freedom, at best it's consumer choise and availability.
Freedom is my president being able to say "Fuck You" to Putin and telling him where he can put his gas.
In fact, you are so pushy for the so-called "freedom to waste energy and dig our trade deficit" that I would not be surprised you work for Gazprom, a speculative fund, BP, Exon, or have a closet wish to do so.
-
[And for the very same reason I object to people buying gasguzzlers. Their little appendage replacement mobile reduces the energy freedoom of the whole continent.
Objecting is one thing, outlawing is another. I am sure other people object some decisions that you make in your life.
Freedom is my president being able to say "Fuck You" to Putin and telling him where he can put his gas.
If that president stands for justice only when it's convenient he is a merchant, not a leader.
In fact, you are so pushy for the so-called "freedom to waste energy and dig our trade deficit" that I would not be surprised you work for Gazprom, a speculative fund, BP, Exon, or have a closet wish to do so.
You are wrong again.
The concept of personal liberty is threatening to some people. That's sad.
-
Liberty, as a concept, cannot be absolute;
No liberty = Communist state.
Too much liberty = Sierra Leone around 1998
It must have a grammar, a code, a structure. a way for it to available to all.
It can be a magic book, sacred tablets, laws, rules or the "Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy" etc. You cannot have freedom without a method.
It's nuts to think that in can be the same at a molecular level (you or me) and at a macro level (humanity).
Absolute freedom is a void, it's freedom from freedom, it just does not make sense if you study it from a application point of view and not as an dogmatic or orthodox concept.
Concepts are great, and I imagine the way you define freedom is great. But in real life, you will find that you willl need to break your "freedom" rules.
As an example, if I type on this keyboard with absolute freedom I get:
"mkljerg)'tuipg,jia"hjt)^rçikfdsjg,eîonjbpe^rogqepinpemalazijfzandersonifjo^difftit'sngzkngz"
But If limit my freedom by applying "rules" such as grammar and spelling I get:
"I like Pamela Anderson's tits".
And for Pamela Anderson's tits sake, this is a electronics forum.
Electronics is all about using rules (Ohm's law etc) to have the freedom to do whatever you want.
-
Liberty, as a concept, cannot be absolute;
It doesn't have to be absolute, just push the needle toward more freedom, not toward more oppression as this EU regulation does.
-
Liberty, as a concept, cannot be absolute;
It doesn't have to be absolute, just push the needle toward more freedom, not toward more oppression as this EU regulation does.
Then I might suggest you look in your back garden instead of pissing on our bushes.
I can, if I wanted to, strip naked, paint myself blue, run to the police station and shout like a maniac while standing on the bonnet of one of the patrol cars.
At most I risk being laughed at, end up on the Police station Facebook page and get told to go home.
Can you do that? In freedom central USA?
I value that kind of freedom far more that not being able to buy a de-orbiting thruster to dry my hair.
-
[It doesn't have to be absolute, just push the needle toward more freedom, not toward more oppression as this EU regulation does.
Then I might suggest you look in your back garden instead of pissing on our bushes.
I can, if I wanted to, strip naked, paint myself blue, run to the police station and shout like a maniac while standing on the bonnet of one of the patrol cars.
At most I risk being laughed at, end up on the Police station Facebook page and get told to go home.
Can you do that? In freedom central USA?
[/quote]
We have our own issues with attacks on personal liberty. I mentioned earlier the example of the soda cup size limit. In another example, my supermarket is not allowed to give or sell me a plastic bag with handles.
Oppression is a general problem. Nobody is immuned. Just recognize it and help pushing the needle away from oppression. This EU regulation pushes in the wrong direction.
-
Getting back to hair driers, those cheering the 'ban it' mentality still aren't addressing the point that if you force people to use lower powered dryers, then the driers will just be used for longer. Basic physics - it takes a fixed number of joules to convert a set amount of water (in the hair) to vapor (in the air). Since the goal of someone using a hairdryer is to dry their hair, they'll just keep going until it is dry. So with a low power dryer they will simply use it for longer, with the same total energy use.
No, as usual, there's a point of diminishing returns. While your reasoning is not technically wrong, it just fails to account for the upper bound (diminishing returns) and the typical consumer's ignorance prevents them from realizing such a point exists. I'm not trying to say people are hopelessly stupid (although sometimes is as does), but not everyone understands the physical process, and at what point it becomes subject to external limitations.
Paint strippers have a higher threshold, and below a certain point they will be ineffective, so by necessity they have a higher power requirement. Matching the appropriate tool to the job and moderation are the takeaways here.
More power will mean you either have it further away to mix with cold ambient air or you are making your hair brittle.
Ah, but sir! Who would knowingly give up the freedom to have dry, damaged hair?
Really, though, gildasd hit the nail on the head here by pointing out the concept of "energy poor". You can't have all freedoms at once, because by preserving one freedom, you tend to take away another. Most of America (with occasional exceptions) won't have any frame of reference for this. Your power outlet may not be capable of >2000W, but you can pull 1800W all day and all night, and that's not really a big deal. But, speaking to some online acquaintances about things I take for granted (like choice in hard drives for a NAS, based on single-digit differences in idle wattage) has made me more aware of how things like this really make a difference to some people.
I.e.: Freedom is not a boolean value. And also a finite resource.
-
We have our own issues with attacks on personal liberty. I mentioned earlier the example of the soda cup size limit. In another example, my supermarket is not allowed to give or sell me a plastic bag with handles.
Do you really think this is a good example of attack on freedom? I think that was an attempt to not solve, but maybe mitigate, one of the biggest problem of America and most of "advanced" societies–obesity. It was a minute step, but a step in right direction.
We also have a ban in few cities on plastic bags in Poland. People were used to getting those for free. Consequently ll these bags ended up on landfills. Cities introduced minimum price so people switched to reusable bags. Problem of trashy bags solved. In Denmark I never saw these free trashy bags with handles.
Shouldn't you rather mention the Patriot act?
Don't you feel there is a limit on what you can do? Is driving a huge SUV freedom? Yes. Is driving a huge SUV, knowing that it burns a lot more fuel that a smaller car and knowing that you don't really need, but you just feel like having it, freedom?
-
Same is probably true to some extent with vacuum cleaners. Less suck = more running it back and forth on the carpet. The 'less power --> longer use resulting in similar total energy consumption' relationship is probably more fuzzy (fluffy? cat-furred?) than with hair dryers. Conceivably the total energy consumption for a given cleaning job could even be higher with a less powerful vacuum cleaner. The banning mentality never takes the law of unintended consequences into account.
This is why we need energy efficiency ratings on as many products as possible. The average consumer going into a shop cannot tell whether Vacuum A with 900W motor, or Vacuum B with 2000W motor will be the most economical, quickest, or efficient device.
Provide the consumer with that information, and they will begin to make informed choices. For now, it's just a "bigger is better" drive.
And yes, if the manufacturers design the product well, they can suck more with 900W than 2000W.
Same for hairdryers. Ever felt how hot the rear of the dryer runs? What if they altered the air path to direct more of the exhaust air towards the hair? Altered the fan design to more efficiently direct air over the heating element? And what about improving the insulation on the outside of the device? All those things can add up to improvements in efficiency. The overall heating produced by the device may be less, but more will be directed towards the hair, meaning overall efficiency can go UP.
-
We have our own issues with attacks on personal liberty. I mentioned earlier the example of the soda cup size limit.
I have been to NY where a friend of mine ordered the maximum cup size which was about 1,5 litres or something like that? About twice the max we have here.
And then you can get refills for free as much as you want?
This would never work in my country, as soon as the refill is free everyone would order the smallest cheapest cup size :D
What they actually should do is tax all unhealthy foods and beverages and make all healthy fruits and vegetables as cheap as possible.
Your country has started with taking away individuals freedom when they had health consequences for others , like the USA was the great inspirator of abandoning sigarette smoking in restaurants and public places. I had much respect for those laws and it took a long time before our governments also had the balls to make those laws.
But looking at them from your point of view you probably have large problems with those laws taking away the liberty of a few to save the health of others or don't you in those cases?
So where is the boundary of when a government has good laws and when are they bad?
Is it as long as someone elses health is not at risk you find that nobody should be protected from the corporations that slowly poison you with their ingredients? :-//
-
But looking at them from your point of view you probably have large problems with those laws taking away the liberty of a few to save the health of others or don't you in those cases?
Yes, those anti smoking laws went too far. If a bar allows smoking, nobody forces me to enter (I am not smoking BTW).
The utopians want to mold other people life for there taste and the restrictions on our freedom pile up. Don't let the EU bureaucrats to micro manage your life.
-
But looking at them from your point of view you probably have large problems with those laws taking away the liberty of a few to save the health of others or don't you in those cases?
Yes, those anti smoking laws went too far. If a bar allows smoking, nobody forces me to enter (I am not smoking BTW).
The utopians want to mold other people life for there taste and the restrictions on our freedom pile up. Don't let the EU bureaucrats to micro manage your life.
I believe somewhere in California you can't even smoke in your own house. And of course no barbeque allowed either.
Oh the power of insurance companies, seems like everything that is regulated helps them keep a bigger margin since the government keeps us safe anyways but insurance is always required.
-
There really is no freedom too inconsequential for it to be an attack on liberty, huh?
I have friends and family members with asthma (or other respiratory issues) that really appreciate the ban on smoking. Before that, your freedoms barred them from entering several public establishments. Good thing they got their freedom back.
Thanks to this thread, I'm developing a gag reflex to that particular F-word. Must be the urge to oppress taking over. Maybe I should suggest an HOA in my neighborhood so I can make sure all the houses are the same color. yyeeesssss.....
-
I have friends and family members with asthma (or other respiratory issues) that really appreciate the ban on smoking. Before that, your freedoms barred them from entering several public establishments. Good thing they got their freedom back.
Hmm, my example was about privately owned establishments, like bars.
-
I have friends and family members with asthma (or other respiratory issues) that really appreciate the ban on smoking. Before that, your freedoms barred them from entering several public establishments. Good thing they got their freedom back.
Hmm, my example was about privately owned establishments, like bars.
Plus there have been always restaurants that didn't allow smoking before the ban, it's a business decision first and foremost, too bad it has to be dictated.
-
It's not just the EU, or even the 'ban it' mentality that is the fundamental problem. At root it's the attitude that it's OK to use the law to force others to behave/buy/act the way you personally think they should. As has been pointed out, it's about pushing towards more or less individual freedom.
Funnily enough, when it is centralized bureaucracy or corporate 'persons' doing the pushing, it's always towards less freedom for real human individuals.
Here's a classic example (this time from the Guardian):
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/aug/29/us-telecoms-fcc-block-high-speed-internet-chattanooga (http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/aug/29/us-telecoms-fcc-block-high-speed-internet-chattanooga)
US telecoms giants call on FCC to block cities' expansion of high-speed internet
Some small towns in the USA got fed up with the shitty Internet service deals from the major cable companies. So implemented their own screaming fast networks, cheaply. The cable companies are now having conniptions, and trying to use the legal system to put a stop to such horrible violation of the cable companies' freedom to wield their monopoly and extort lots of money in return for poor service.
Back to the EU, and specifically to the EU central government. A very funny article about them, from a pro-Ukrainian-separatist commentary site:
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.it/2014/08/the-eus-ugly-kindergarten-of.html (http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.it/2014/08/the-eus-ugly-kindergarten-of.html)
Russian saying: "to try to scare a hedgehog with a naked butt". :-DD
-
Funnily enough, when it is centralized bureaucracy or corporate 'persons' doing the pushing, it's always towards less freedom for real human individuals.
Not really. Thanks to EU we have Shengen where we are free to travel around without borders. We have a common warranty policy inside EU while if you buy something in US and come back to EU your warranty will be most likely refused. I have a right to vote in Danmark even though I am a Polish citizen. None of these was true before EU.
-
Yes, those anti smoking laws went too far. If a bar allows smoking, nobody forces me to enter (I am not smoking BTW).
Same discussion here in the Netherlands, here the point of view is from the bar-employee that should be protected from inhaling smoke each day.
I know each employee has the right to quit, but the laws are that each employee working for each company should have a healty working environment, otherwise we still would have astbestos workers without masks or coal miners etc.
I believe somewhere in California you can't even smoke in your own house. And of course no barbeque allowed either.
Is that for the fire hazzard in that state, seen a lot of fires there lately.
Anyway this means that this particular law in the US is going much further then the same laws in the EU, so who was it saying that the USA had much more freedom and less laws again? ;)
-
each employee working for each company should have a healty working environment,
It is not unthinkable if health concerns would have driven the employees away so that those bars that allow smoke would be out of business or the remaining employees there are paid more and the patrons there also pay more - a pareto efficient solution.
so who was it saying that the USA had much more freedom and less laws again?
The US is fast becoming a worse version of Europe.
-
Thanks to EU we have Shengen where we are free to travel around without borders.
I have a right to vote in Danmark even though I am a Polish citizen.
You are one of the millions of poles that left Poland for an EU country with higher pay and living standards? No wonder you love the EU. The people of Denmark and those other countries thank the EU not so much.
-
Some small towns in the USA got fed up with the shitty Internet service deals from the major cable companies. So implemented their own screaming fast networks, cheaply. The cable companies are now having conniptions, and trying to use the legal system to put a stop to such horrible violation of the cable companies' freedom to wield their monopoly and extort lots of money in return for poor service.
That's just corporatism. The US is particularly fond of that. The EU would end up suing monopolistic internet providers. Remember when they sued Microsoft?
Freedom is a good thing, but some companies have too much freedom to form monopolies and act in an anti-customer fashion. That needs to stop.
-
You are one of the millions of poles that left Poland for an EU country with higher pay and living standards? No wonder you love the EU. The people of Denmark and those other countries thank the EU not so much.
This is a very racist comment. Just o remind you: europeans moved to US to have higher pay and living standards. People move from villages to cities because of higher pay and living standards. What do you have to say to them?
I moved to Denmark to do a PhD. Now I work at the university researching cutting-edge technologies.
-
Owiec, as a francoenglishspanishbelgian, I am very happy to have you here.
Don't listen to that awful person, he knows not what he speaks of.
(By the way, I keep hearing these unproductive Frenchmen moaning about Poles stealing their jobs. But I also hear that to have villages in the middle of nowhere that are losing inhabitants, maybe your gouverment would accept a donation of a couple of million "quality" frenchpeople to alliviate your problems?)
-
If only they could do plumbing, welding or masonry we'll take them. In the recent time, I hear, it is getting more and more difficult to find people to do these tasks. They left to England: Armstrong And Miller - polish plumbers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qd8oX5NJt84).
-
When I was in the building industry, i used to hire Polish plumbers, electricians and plasterers.
Not because they were cheaper, but due to them being available. In Western Europe we train nowhere near the technical personnel we need, but way too many managers and marketeers we all ready have a glut of.
You really have to absolutely ignorant of European economics to say anything else that Poland is saving our collective butt.
In fact, Europe is lucky that Poland does not charge us for the service.
-
I don't agree at all. Esp. with lower education jobs there are a lot of people unemployed because people from other countries did their jobs for less wages and more important for the businesses that hired them more hours in a day. We have job laws and regulations and a lot of businesses are getting away with them.
If there is a shortage of personell in any business the solution is to educate more people or higher the wages so people start taking those educations. The problem that we have a lot of managers as you call it is that management pays the best (and arguably for the least energy you have to put in the study and work), so it is a "sexy" job for graduates. That is the problem, we reward stupidness instead of technical excellence.
Anyway I have a hard time seeing that we have 600000 unemployed persons in our country and that there are a lot of immigrants from bulgary etc. coming in to do jobs for less pay and less union rules. That is not how it is supposed to be.
And even the countries where the people are coming from suffer, in Poland there are whole towns where children are growing up without fathers, try explain it to them, and why?
It was better if the EU subsidied projects in those countries so there is enough work and stimulate progress there instead of moving people around.
Just my opinion.
-
Oh and the same argument for the millions of africans coming to the EU through Italy,Spain etc.
If there is a war in their country so be it, it is our duty to take them in.
But for the majority it is a economic choice and for those I would say close the borders and go home, you are not going to be happy here not speaking the language, knowing the customs, the bad weather and esp. you are never going to have that dream job since you will be exploited by scrupulous persons.
What are we going to do with millions of unemployed africans while we have no more shelters/homes to put them in, same problem except that these persons can not fit your plumbing *pun intended*
-
I don't agree at all. Esp. with lower education jobs there are a lot of people unemployed because people from other countries did their jobs for less wages and more important for the businesses that hired them more hours in a day. We have job laws and regulations and a lot of businesses are getting away with them.
If there is a shortage of personell in any business the solution is to educate more people or higher the wages so people start taking those educations. The problem that we have a lot of managers as you call it is that management pays the best (and arguably for the least energy you have to put in the study and work), so it is a "sexy" job for graduates. That is the problem, we reward stupidness instead of technical excellence.
Anyway I have a hard time seeing that we have 600000 unemployed persons in our country and that there are a lot of immigrants from bulgary etc. coming in to do jobs for less pay and less union rules. That is not how it is supposed to be.
And even the countries where the people are coming from suffer, in Poland there are whole towns where children are growing up without fathers, try explain it to them, and why?
It was better if the EU subsidied projects in those countries so there is enough work and stimulate progress there instead of moving people around.
Just my opinion.
I was doing factory work all summer for 12,50 to 13,80 euros net per hour.
That's a lot for packaging stuff. But companies can't find Flemish workers. So they have two options: delocalise or hire Poles.
-
When I was in the building industry, i used to hire Polish plumbers, electricians and plasterers.
Not because they were cheaper, but due to them being available. In Western Europe we train nowhere near the technical personnel we need, but way too many managers and marketeers we all ready have a glut of.
You really have to absolutely ignorant of European economics to say anything else that Poland is saving our collective butt.
In fact, Europe is lucky that Poland does not charge us for the service.
A lot of them come here to the US, specially Chicago, they dominate the construction workforce by a lot, very hard workers and awesome quality of work.
-
I was doing factory work all summer for 12,50 to 13,80 euros net per hour.
That's a lot for packaging stuff. But companies can't find Flemish workers. So they have two options: delocalise or hire Poles.
I also worked between my studies in all kinds of jobs.
My opinion: if a company can not find personell to do their jobs for the local rate they should go somewhere else.
It is the law of business that if you can not produce with a profit you go out of business, not to exploit people to stay in business.
Example: aspergus farmers that want personell for €5 per hour can not find people in our country except foreigners. What should happen? The farmer should immigrate to a country where there are enough people wanting to do that job and setup its farm over there OR reinvent the aspergus process by using robots? Or grow them higher like what happened with the fruit farmers, they re-invented how a fruit tree looks (short) and so people don't have to climb ladders to pick the fruit, they can find enough people to do that job.
So innovate or move to another spot or stop doing your business.
We have seen in the beginning of the 1970's what happens if you import a lot of "low educated" foreigners to do your jobs. It is still a small disaster where 2nd generation of those people are going stronger and better but only the 3rd generation is really integrated in the society, so it takes 60 years for foreigners and their families to integrate in their society, which is OK if you keep the inflow small and controllable.
-
A lot of them come here to the US, specially Chicago, they dominate the construction workforce by a lot, very hard workers and awesome quality of work.
They are excellent but where are the americans to do those jobs or do you have no unemployment in your country ;)
-
Oh and the same argument for the millions of africans coming to the EU through Italy,Spain etc.
If there is a war in their country so be it, it is our duty to take them in.
But for the majority it is a economic choice and for those I would say close the borders and go home, you are not going to be happy here not speaking the language, knowing the customs, the bad weather and esp. you are never going to have that dream job since you will be exploited by scrupulous persons.
What are we going to do with millions of unemployed africans while we have no more shelters/homes to put them in, same problem except that these persons can not fit your plumbing *pun intended*
Well, since Europe is getting old (meaning less than 2 children per couple average) you really need immigrants. Educate and train them and they will support your retirement since the burden is getting way higher for the young to support their elders.
-
A lot of them come here to the US, specially Chicago, they dominate the construction workforce by a lot, very hard workers and awesome quality of work.
They are excellent but where are the americans to do those jobs or do you have no unemployment in your country ;)
The thing is, they are Americans :)
-
You give them american visa to do work or do you give them american citizenship?
The nice thing about america is that they have closed borders and can control who comes in.
And in the american case (I am not fully on par on the current situation so I could be wrong here) you only let people in that can contribute to your society in jobs there are no local people for to be found. I think it would be totally different (and also the political climate) if your borders would be open and 1000 boats with 50 african economic uneducated people would arrive in NY city each and every month and would go to the unemployment office demanding a benefit, which is what Spain/Italy have to endure at the moment and where there is a real ethical dilemma.
BTW if I am not mistaken the US has the same problem but then with illigal mexicans doing private jobs. I believe the law is also not very constructive for those people.
-
I was doing factory work all summer for 12,50 to 13,80 euros net per hour.
That's a lot for packaging stuff. But companies can't find Flemish workers. So they have two options: delocalise or hire Poles.
That is a good rate! Here that is a day's wage or more for semi-skilled labour like building, plastering, plumbing or electrical cable pulling and such, and a lot lower for just manual labour. You can get somebody to drive a wheelbarrow, operate a spade or pickaxe and such for half that. Offer that rate here and you would have a queue a kilometre long on the second day.
-
This is a very racist comment.
Why would that be a racist comment?
The nice thing about america is that they have closed borders and can control who comes in.
Really? Given what's going on on the southern board, I thought it would be hard for people to retain that perception any longer.
-
Let's cut down on the increasingly racist tone in this thread
-
This is a very racist comment.
Why would that be a racist comment?
You're Polish? Ah, this means you came here to steal our jobs. Maybe racist is the wrong word here. I think xenophobic would be better.
-
You are one of the millions of poles that left Poland for an EU country with higher pay and living standards? No wonder you love the EU. The people of Denmark and those other countries thank the EU not so much.
This is a very racist comment.
Race has nothing to do with it, how politician like of you to play the racist card.
An influx of millions of workers to the wealthier countries in the EU drives down wages of the skilled and pushes the unskilled towards unemployment. The wealthy get cheaper servants, companies get cheaper workers and the unskilled natives get to live on state benefits, the substantial drop in their standard of living helps to pay for the rise in that of the migrants.
When the borders came down how many Brits, French, Germans, etc crossed them to work in Poland? About 2 million less than crossed in the opposite direction.
Free borders serve to equalize the standard of living across the EU, pretty easy to understand why those in poorer countries thank the EU more than the rest.
-
Apropos freedom and Polish electricians, here is one that rose up to the challenge, stood against oppression and ended up with a Nobel prize:
(https://occupyoakland.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/image009-250x300.jpg)
Another Polish that challenges the authorities in his own way is SA Wardega (check his youtube channel):
Police Trainer (SA Wardega) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdg8Sp1HUKM#ws)
-
You're Polish? Ah, this means you came here to steal our jobs.
Unless "here" means Africa, Asia, or South America, we are talking about the same "race" here. So what exactly made that comment "racist"?
You raised two concerns:
1) stereotyping - aka all polish people are here to steal jobs. That's factually untrue.
2) some polish people are pricing some local people out of the market - I am sure there is some some true to that.
So, being able to subject Poland to EU regulations did create benefits (education and a job opportunity) for you that you otherwise wouldn't have had. ie., your view on EU regulations is a little biased.
I think that's what the other side was trying to point out. I don't sense any "racism" in it.
-
I think xenophobic would be better.
Depending on how you define "xenophobic".
Some may define it as fear of anything foreign / unfamiliar - that's an animal instinct and thanks to it, we have survived this long. ie., xenophobia is a good thing.
Others may define it as unreasonable fear of anything foreign / unfamiliar. Well, unreasonable anything is bad: unreasonable needs for happiness for example is bad; unreasonable attraction to beauty is bad; unreasonable pursuit of knowledge is bad; ...
The dirty word here is "unreasonable", not the fear of anything foreign / unfamiliar.
-
Sheesh, first world problems.........
-
Again, you know nothing of what you speak. They didn't pass a new law, it was a ruling under the existing law regulating advertisement of medical claims.
This is what always happens with any story about the EU. People who know nothing about it read a misleading article and get in a huff.
Bureaucrats should not rule because this is a de facto law making. Legislators should legislate, judicial should judge and bureaucrats should execute the law. In this case it's another example of a central bureaucracy running amok.
Mojo Chan, it's fascinating how you jump to defend every restriction of freedom by your government. Remember, oppression always comes with reasoning. Look out for your freedom and don't take it for granted.
-
Sheesh, first world problems.........
That's why it's a first world, because of people that fault for our freedom. Don't take it for granted.
-
1) stereotyping - aka all polish people are here to steal jobs. That's factually untrue.
I know that but the comment was directed to me, that is why I felt the way I did.
2) some polish people are pricing some local people out of the market - I am sure there is some some true to that.
True. Happens everywhere as I stated previously (e.g. villagers moving to cities). It is actually a job for the local unions. If a Polish worker goes to the union and says that he earns too little union will go to the employer to fix that. This is done both to protect the locals from falling wages and immigrants from getting a substandard pay.
So, being able to subject Poland to EU regulations did create benefits (education and a job opportunity) for you that you otherwise wouldn't have had. ie., your view on EU regulations is a little biased.
Actually Polish education was on a very high standard before we joined EU. Our higher education was always free. If anything I would say joining EU lowered the standard by introducing a 6/6 system instead if 8/4 system (years of primary/secondary education). Many people here are of the opinion that previous system was much better.
I agree that being from a country that benefited a lot from EU (thank you wealthier countries) make me biased. But I also think this is a transient period and maybe in 20 years the economies of european countries will level and no one will have to leave their country to look for a job. We will all look at this period and complain about immigrants from US stealing our jobs ;)
-
But I also think this is a transient period and maybe in 20 years the economies of european countries will level and no one will have to leave their country to look for a job.
I am sure that will happen.
But look further, why should the "EU" concept stop within the existing countries? What about those poor Turks? Or Ukrainians? Or the Georgians? Or the Russians? Or the Africans? Or the Pakistanis? ......
Hopefully, those who complain about racism / xenophia in Western Europe today become enthusiastic advocates for the billions of super-poors from other countries / continents.
We will all look at this period and complain about immigrants from US stealing our jobs ;)
At this rate, you are unlikely to wait too long for that.
-
This is a very racist comment.
Why would that be a racist comment?
You're Polish? Ah, this means you came here to steal our jobs. Maybe racist is the wrong word here. I think xenophobic would be better.
I don't think the Polish are here to steal our jobs. When I had glass fiber installed 3 men came to pull the cable from the street into my home. 2 men where Dutch and one was Polish. The Polish guy was in charge (and did skilled things like welding the fibers) and he even had to show the Dutch guys how to drill a hole in concrete :palm: I've heard other good stories about Polish people being good at construction work. Ofcourse there are also those with very little education which end up with the odd jobs. IMHO being able to build something with your hands is not something people are willing to learn in the West part of Europe. There is enough work for those who are willing to work.
-
...We will all look at this period and complain about immigrants from US stealing our jobs ;)
Reminds me this bumper sticker ;-)
(http://i.imgur.com/yqazROk.png)
One reason Poland is not wealthy is the socialist regime you used to have. I remember visiting east and west Germany before the communist collapsed. It was a stark difference. Same people, same history, same language but different political systems. One free and one oppressive.
-
But look further, why should the "EU" concept stop within the existing countries? What about those poor Turks? Or Ukrainians? Or the Georgians? Or the Russians? Or the Africans? Or the Pakistanis? ......
I am all for all of them having the best standard of living possible. The equalization of wealth is a natural process. You go there where most resources/opportunities are. Why wouldn't you? There are some nice videos about this from Hans Rosling at TED.
-
I am all for all of them having the best standard of living possible.
You probably should then dedicate yourself to opening the polish boarder to people from poorer countries then.
It is noble only if you put your foot where your mouth is.
-
1) stereotyping - aka all polish people are here to steal jobs. That's factually untrue.
I know that but the comment was directed to me, that is why I felt the way I did.
2) some polish people are pricing some local people out of the market - I am sure there is some some true to that.
True. Happens everywhere as I stated previously (e.g. villagers moving to cities). It is actually a job for the local unions. If a Polish worker goes to the union and says that he earns too little union will go to the employer to fix that. This is done both to protect the locals from falling wages and immigrants from getting a substandard pay.
So, being able to subject Poland to EU regulations did create benefits (education and a job opportunity) for you that you otherwise wouldn't have had. ie., your view on EU regulations is a little biased.
Actually Polish education was on a very high standard before we joined EU. Our higher education was always free. If anything I would say joining EU lowered the standard by introducing a 6/6 system instead if 8/4 system (years of primary/secondary education). Many people here are of the opinion that previous system was much better.
I agree that being from a country that benefited a lot from EU (thank you wealthier countries) make me biased. But I also think this is a transient period and maybe in 20 years the economies of european countries will level and no one will have to leave their country to look for a job. We will all look at this period and complain about immigrants from US stealing our jobs ;)
I totally aggree but I have a couple of comments:
- poles are often not the cheapest by the hour, but they tend to work in teams with loads of high end tools.
They simply don't hang around...
- it's not perfect, I have seen utter incompetents. But if they have a technical diploma and/or come recommended, they kick arse.
- but it's not just the Poles, my best ever shop furniture came from a Turkish source.
- lastly, some of my best polish workers have moved back to Poland because the economy is better for them there.
-
I am all for all of them having the best standard of living possible.
You probably should then dedicate yourself to opening the polish boarder to people from poorer countries then.
It is noble only if you put your foot where your mouth is.
They have their doors open...
Most of my Serbian friends moved there.
-
I am all for all of them having the best standard of living possible.
You probably should then dedicate yourself to opening the polish boarder to people from poorer countries then.
It is noble only if you put your foot where your mouth is.
Do you buy electronics from China?
Do you buy clothes made in India and Bangladesh or Sri Lanka?
It is already happening.
-
I have a latvian co worker that came here about 5 years ago that posted on facebook a picture that stated that we should close our borders, my reply was that "he can talk", he said "well at least I want to do something about it"...............
Fact is we have a high unemployment, it is just a pity that the laziness of british workers and their total lack of pride in their work or concern for the success of their employer (therefore guaranteeing their own job) fully justifies the hiring of often skilled and highly motivated workers form other nations!
-
Do you buy electronics from China?
Do you buy clothes made in India and Bangladesh or Sri Lanka?
The answers are "yes" and "don't know - don't care enough to know". But what does that have anything to do with this discussion?
It is already happening.
Meaning you have gone back to Poland to petition the polish government to open its borders?
-
The answers are "yes" and "don't know - don't care enough to know". But what does that have anything to do with this discussion?
You are transferring your money abroad. Part of the money stays with the workers and thus improving wealth of India/Sri Lanka, etc.
Meaning you have gone back to Poland to petition the polish government to open its borders?
The boarders are not close. There are many Vietnamese and Bulgarians living in my small town.
-
Greetings EEVBees:
--Now they have done it. See link below.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/505160/EU-vacuum-cleaner-plan-barmy-bans-on-HAIRDRYERS-and-KETTLES (http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/505160/EU-vacuum-cleaner-plan-barmy-bans-on-HAIRDRYERS-and-KETTLES)
--Will the English Breakfast be next.
"A three legged dog goes into a bar and says "I'm looking for the man that shot my paw"
Jim Varney 1949 - 2000
Best Regards
Clear Ether
-
The boarders are not close. There are many Vietnamese and Bulgarians living in my small town.
I suspect that having foreigners in Poland isn't by itself proof that it has an open border; nor should it negate your strong believe in having an open border in Poland.
Words ring hollow when people refuse to practice what they preach.
-
Do we need another thread on this bullshit?
-
He probably didn't notice the ongoing one, be nice.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/this-is-why-we-should-all-leave-the-eu/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/this-is-why-we-should-all-leave-the-eu/)
-
Greetings EEVBees:
--Now they have done it. See link below.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/505160/EU-vacuum-cleaner-plan-barmy-bans-on-HAIRDRYERS-and-KETTLES (http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/505160/EU-vacuum-cleaner-plan-barmy-bans-on-HAIRDRYERS-and-KETTLES)
Enough complaining. It's for your own benefit ;-)
-
Well, low powered kettles use more electricity than high powered kettles, so all that's needed are some scientists to demonstrate this.
-
Well, low powered kettles use more electricity than high powered kettles, so all that's needed are some scientists to demonstrate this.
... as if the citizenry is a bunch of slaves with no liberty to make decisions for themselves.
No, proving some science is not sufficient.
-
Well, low powered kettles use more electricity than high powered kettles, so all that's needed are some scientists to demonstrate this.
I think you mean "scientists" :box: :-DD
-
I think you mean "scientists" :box: :-DD
That wasn't a funny. Low powered kettles really do use more electricity than high powered kettles.
-
I think you mean "scientists" :box: :-DD
That wasn't a funny. Low powered kettles really do use more electricity than high powered kettles.
Sorry, not a dig at you - just recalling all the other threads where people call the ones they agree with, scientists, and the ones they don't agree with, "scientists".
And I suspect in reality - before anyone gets too pedantic about it in - there are optimum power inputs & rates for heating a given volume of water (at a given purity, in a given container, etc.) to boiling. Too low, and a high a proportion of the input power is wasted keeping up with heat loss; too high, and power is wasted causing the phase change & lost as heat.
-
I have a "brilliant" idea. Let's allow only maximum 0.5l kettles so we don't heat up unnecessary water each time :palm:.
-
I have a "brilliant" idea. Let's allow only maximum 0.5l kettles so we don't heat up unnecessary water each time :palm:.
Tell that to my wife, why she find it strange that in the morning I dump most of the water on the kettle because I really don't want to wait for all that water to boil but she keeps filling it half way every night. I use an Aeropress for coffee so I need hot water for my morning coffee.
I just need one cup worth, then I refill it but in the process wasting filtered water (I should put it in a container instead of dumping it, I know).
-
I have a "brilliant" idea. Let's allow only maximum 0.5l kettles so we don't heat up unnecessary water each time :palm:.
You mean as brilliant as reducing the number of holes in salt shakers? Think I am joking? http://www.foodvision.cieh.org/pages/gateshead-salt-shaker-study (http://www.foodvision.cieh.org/pages/gateshead-salt-shaker-study)
-
Nasty kettles and British tv
Britain peak power demand (from BBC TV series: Britain from Above) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slDAvewWfrA#)
-
You mean as brilliant as reducing the number of holes in salt shakers?
Yeah, but did you ever see the giant salt shakers with enormous holes used in fish and chip shops? They dispensed a veritable Niagara Falls worth of salt onto your meal. Some of us don't actually like to have our lips burning from such an overdose of salt...
-
Greetings EEVBees:
--I did read the noted thread, which made scant mention of tea kettles. The point of my original post to this thread was that messing about with an Englishman's tea is simply not cricket and is going to be a bit of a sticky wicket for the EU Statists.
--Many British kitchens have a dedicated outlet for the tea kettle. They fill and turn on the kettle, get the crockery, sugar, lemon and milk ready and viola the water is boiling. Now they want you to stand around waiting with your thumb up your ear. Also they have introduced flow restrictors so you have to spend an additional 10 to 15 seconds filling the teapot.
"I could see that, if not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled."
P. G. Wodehouse 1881 - 1975
Best Regards
Clear Ether
-
Women and ridiculous water levels in kettles just go along with Women and insane rates of toilet paper usage.
I've tried my best, but there is no way you can reason with them |O :-DD
I give up, life is too short... :palm:
-
Many British kitchens have a dedicated outlet for the tea kettle. They fill and turn on the kettle, get the crockery, sugar, lemon and milk ready and viola the water is boiling. Now they want you to stand around waiting with your thumb up your ear. Also they have introduced flow restrictors so you have to spend an additional 10 to 15 seconds filling the teapot.
Funny :) All sockets in British houses are the same, 240 V, 13 A, in kitchens and elsewhere. A kettle can plug into any of them. You wouldn't put lemon and milk in tea at the same time as the milk would curdle. In any case, no self-respecting British person would put lemon in their tea. Furthermore, the "flow restrictor" is a filter to keep limescale out of your cup. Many parts of Britain have hard water.
But apart from that your facts are spot on.
-
Well, low powered kettles use more electricity than high powered kettles, so all that's needed are some scientists to demonstrate this.
A bunch of "electric engineers" / "science gurus" need some scientists to demonstrate that?
If you still do, you need to go back to your schools of training and ask for a full refund of your tuition + interests.
-
I make my tea a (very) lazy way so use exact amount of water I need 8) http://www.brevilleusa.com/the-tea-maker-onetouch.html (http://www.brevilleusa.com/the-tea-maker-onetouch.html)
Before was never able wait to the moment when water boils so came back to the kitchen when water was already cold because I was soldering or doing something in the meantime. Or if I finally managed to brew a tea, came back when it was already a cold black goo |O. Technology saved me ;D.
-
A bunch of "electric engineers" / "science gurus" need some scientists to demonstrate that?
If you still do, you need to go back to your schools of training and ask for a full refund of your tuition + interests.
I can demonstrate it fine, but we need appropriate people to demonstrate it to the bureaucrats in Brussels...
-
I have a "brilliant" idea. Let's allow only maximum 0.5l kettles so we don't heat up unnecessary water each time :palm:.
If you're smart you don't heat more water than necesarry. Since a kettle is close to 100% efficient it is easy to safe electricity that way.
-
You mean as brilliant as reducing the number of holes in salt shakers? Think I am joking? http://www.foodvision.cieh.org/pages/gateshead-salt-shaker-study (http://www.foodvision.cieh.org/pages/gateshead-salt-shaker-study)
Or increasing the holes in the cheese to save finite resources.
-
Greeting EEVBees:
--Yes we uncivilized Yanks have been known to take lemon with our tea. When I was in the USAF, I was in London for a couple of days. My hostess had lemon, so I thought is was common practice among the Limeys.
--When Richard Feynman was a freshman at MIT, he attended a tea given by the alumni. When asked if he preferred lemon or milk, he replied "Can I have both". His hostess said "Surely you are joking, Mr. Feynman". Hence the title of the excellent book.
"Get ready Little Lady Hell is coming to breakfast"
Chief Dan George 1899 - 1981
Best Regards
Clear Ether
-
Lemon in tea only works with light, aromatic blends, such as from China. In Britain most people favour the darker, more pungent blends from India and Africa with lots of tannins. Such blends work much better with a dash of milk than with a slice of lemon. But of course there are exceptions and some people like to swing the other way...
-
Lemon in tea only works with light, aromatic blends, such as from China. In Britain most people favour the darker, more pungent blends from India and Africa with lots of tannins. Such blends work much better with a dash of milk than with a slice of lemon. But of course there are exceptions and some people like to swing the other way...
My guess is that tea is like any other fashion, and it changes with the years.
-
I'm not sure where it ranks from light to dark but I see that Orange Pekoe is used a lot with American iced tea (which frequently is served with lemon)
-
One of the reasons for limiting power is to encourage people to only heat the water they need. The down side of high power kettles is that people waste a lot of energy heating far more water than they need.
I doubt that with lower power kettles will make people become any smarter. I even doubt that most of them understand that heating more water requires more energy and time.
-
I must admit that most people have no clue about physics.
What to think of the people that are cooking, they have a pan on the fire with already boiling water and vegetables and they actually think that raising the temperature will still decrease the cooking time.
Duh water boils at 100oC the water will not get warmer then that (unless you add salt and increase its boiling temperature or use a pressure cooker).
-
they actually think that raising the temperature will still decrease the cooking time.
I would say that they are right about that: that's exactly how pressure cooker works.
-
they actually think that raising the temperature will still decrease the cooking time.
I would say that they are right about that: that's exactly how pressure cooker works.
That is my second disclaimer comment UNLESS you use a pressure cooker ;)
-
It's that old thing of your freedom to swing your first ends where by nose begins.
You have a very long nose if it reaches my kettle at home.
-
I must admit that most people have no clue about physics.
What to think of the people that are cooking, they have a pan on the fire with already boiling water and vegetables and they actually think that raising the temperature will still decrease the cooking time.
Duh water boils at 100oC the water will not get warmer then that (unless you add salt and increase its boiling temperature or use a pressure cooker).
I learned that from my grandmother and my mother before I even knew physics.
The concept was known since the 4th century but the term bain-marie was not used until one thousand years later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_the_Jewess#Bain-marie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_the_Jewess#Bain-marie)
It's a common practice for old world cooks, maybe some didn't learn from their elders, that's too bad since cooking is an art that has been passed from generations and every home has their own alchemy behind it.
Made an awesome carbonara for my wife last night.
On cooking it's all about hitting the right chemistry of the food to get the right flavors, the methods are more based on smell memory than on actual measurements. And I don't use any chemistry or physics knowledge to cook. I rarely taste the food while cooking.
It's more like a dance between viscosity and smells that got memorized from when my grandmother and my mother cooked (the best two cooks I know in the planet, since they are the only ones that can hit the right tastes I'm used to).
I'm also partial to wines in the region I grew up (right between Rioja and Bourdeaux) which I often use to cook with in order to achieve those olfactory memories that define my family cooking heritage. While cooking I'm also partial to Atlantic seafood.
My point is, physics and chemistry be dammed, yes they are the reason why some food is just good and other excellent. And a few great cooks are chemists recently. Most of them I'm afraid comes from the tradition of their grandmothers :)
-
Well (can be argued) the most influential person on cooking of the last years is for me Harold McGee and what he did is exactly putting science in the kitchen and thus raising a new generation of cooks that do not need luck or recipees with infactual measurements and cooking times.
http://www.amazon.com/Harold-McGee/e/B000APD9MQ (http://www.amazon.com/Harold-McGee/e/B000APD9MQ)
Good for you if you cook on instinct and it succeeds. For me I switched after another tough dry piece of braise and stew that needed 24 hours at 70 degrees to sous vide cooking and now it succeeds each and every time. Cooking is just a function of heat and time, the ingredients, flavour combinations and the magic with the right wine is art ;)
-
That's the thing, I don't cook on instinct it's passed knowledge of many generations so in that way you are right is more like a second nature thing that you don't have to think just do, more like driving than equations and formulas.
I do find sous-vide terribly boring in taste, It's good but monotonous at the same time but that's a personal preference since there is not a right way.
For example if you have the luck to stay in Tuscany on some old farm where the grand mother will cook something special, it will rival any top chef out there. Same in Spain in old towns that survived modernization.
Edit: you can't sou-vide a paella :)
I'm lucky that in Chicago I can find anything from anywhere in the planet as far as ingredients go, of course you can't find a real paella, they might compare to the ones found in restaurants in Spain, but those are not even close as the ones cooked in family households.
I've eaten in really good restaurants in my life but even the best are not as good as what my grandmother or my mother cooked.
-
Well (can be argued) the most influential person on cooking of the last years is for me Harold McGee and what he did is exactly putting science in the kitchen and thus raising a new generation of cooks that do not need luck or recipees with infactual measurements and cooking times.
http://www.amazon.com/Harold-McGee/e/B000APD9MQ (http://www.amazon.com/Harold-McGee/e/B000APD9MQ)
Hopefully the utopian busy bodies will not outlaw the other 'less efficient' cooking methods because they effect the limited resources of the collective.
;-)
-
On the subject of cooking:
We are getting a new 120cm stove for my new house:
http://www.agaliving.com/our-products/aga-range-cookers/aga-masterchef-xl/masterchef-xl-dual-fuel-%28gas-hob%29 (http://www.agaliving.com/our-products/aga-range-cookers/aga-masterchef-xl/masterchef-xl-dual-fuel-%28gas-hob%29)
Expensive? Yes but the same stuff made in somewhere else than Europe is only, at best, 400€ Euros cheaper.
The build quality is wonderful, I especially like the care taken in the small details the usual customer does not even see...
I use to work in kitchens (yes, that's how to study without getting into debt) , and this would totally work for a 30 diners per service restaurant.
That will do great for big family get together's (20 people).
It only needs a 16Amp line (but I'll put a 40 anyhow) for the 4 ovens at the same time!
That's 2500W going full blast...
Or what a Freedom Hairdrier needs to fluff a mullet.
-
Very nice! I only have a 120cm Viking gas oven and with its 6 3kW burners it totals around 35kW , i had to place a special thick gaspipe otherwise it would not work. ;D
-
Don't talk too loud or the next thing they regulate is ovens. Because like you mentioned earlier you can cook fine with less power over longer time.
-
Don't talk too loud or the next thing they regulate is ovens. Because like you mentioned earlier you can cook fine with less power over longer time.
The issue isn't power, it's efficiency. The Freedom Hairdryer is extremely wasteful and doesn't actually dry hair any quicker. If anything the extra power just damages hair. Ovens, on the other hand, make use of all that energy to heat a space to a certain temperature, at which point a thermostat kicks in and reduces power to maintenance levels. The energy is used and not wasted.
But as stated you can cook with less energy with a sous vide. Or if you want bake potatoes or just make roasted garlic using a big oven is a waste of energy. Slippery Slope!
-
On the subject of cooking:
We are getting a new 120cm stove for my new house:
http://www.agaliving.com/our-products/aga-range-cookers/aga-masterchef-xl/masterchef-xl-dual-fuel-%28gas-hob%29 (http://www.agaliving.com/our-products/aga-range-cookers/aga-masterchef-xl/masterchef-xl-dual-fuel-%28gas-hob%29)
Expensive? Yes but the same stuff made in somewhere else than Europe is only, at best, 400€ Euros cheaper.
That category of stoves should be banned. It's a waste of finite resources. For the same price we get get a good enough stove and save the lives of 10 children in Africa. Think of the common good.
;-)
-
On the subject of cooking:
We are getting a new 120cm stove for my new house:
http://www.agaliving.com/our-products/aga-range-cookers/aga-masterchef-xl/masterchef-xl-dual-fuel-%28gas-hob%29 (http://www.agaliving.com/our-products/aga-range-cookers/aga-masterchef-xl/masterchef-xl-dual-fuel-%28gas-hob%29)
Expensive? Yes but the same stuff made in somewhere else than Europe is only, at best, 400€ Euros cheaper.
That category of stoves should be banned. It's a waste of finite resources. For the same price we get get a good enough stove and save the lives of 10 children in Africa. Think of the common good.
;-)
More like 40 at the going rate but also deprive the same amount of Englishmen of work in doing so.
It's a class A efficiency oven, I would not even consider an A-.
As a somewhat traditionalist as far as cooking goes, using a "sous vide" is akin to smearing food with dog poop.
-
As a somewhat traditionalist as far as cooking goes, using a "sous vide" is akin to smearing food with dog poop.
Well, when the busy body Utopians will limit the power of your oven, low temperature cooking will be your only choice. ;-)
-
The "raw food diet" is all the craze down here right now, amongst the trendy set. Switch today and all of these seemingly intractable problems are solved. You'll also generate enough of your own environmentally friendly gas to run something like a Fiat Panda to boot.
-
As a somewhat traditionalist as far as cooking goes, using a "sous vide" is akin to smearing food with dog poop.
Well, when the busy body Utopians will limit the power of your oven, low temperature cooking will be your only choice. ;-)
They already have, that's why it's on a 16A line where the last big oven I installed 10 years ago needed a 40A line.
The old and the new do the same thing, except one uses way less energy.
-
The "raw food diet" is all the craze down here right now, amongst the trendy set. Switch today and all of these seemingly intractable problems are solved. You'll also generate enough of your own environmentally friendly gas to run something like a Fiat Panda to boot.
I mostly eat raw food, out of 21 meals I'd say 18 of them. But that's not due to any craze, it's just that I'm from the south of France and that's our traditional way of eating.
But my Belgian wife has a lot of problems switching over; she insists on having a "heavy meal" at least once a day where I'm happy with 2 to 3 a week...
-
They already have, that's why it's on a 16A line where the last big oven I installed 10 years ago needed a 40A line.
The old and the new do the same thing, except one uses way less energy.
This is still baffling my grandmother. In the old ages you would check the temperature of your oven by touching its glass window. If it burnt your finger just a little bit it was too cold. You had to wait until it was really hot.
With the new oven I can still see her touching the glass window and complaining about the new crappy technology and oven not heating up properly.
-
For all the people that are still doing the same thing as their family has been doing for generations, don't stop if you don't want to,
but here is a nice tale i always will remember:
A man watched his wife cook a salmon in the kitchen. She took the entire salmon, cut off the head with a large extra portion of fishmeat beneath it,
cut of the tail with again a large portion of fishmeat above it, threw the head and tail with a lot of good fishmeat on it in the trash and baked the middle part.
The man saw this happen a few times and asked his wife why she did this.
She told him, "I don't know", "this is how my mother always did it, and that is how she taught me to do it".
On a family party the man asked his wifes mother why she would throw away all that good fishmeat and not cook the entire salmon?
The mother answered: "I don't know this is how my mother always did it and that is how she taught me."
The man went to his wifes grandmother and again asked the same question.
The old lady answered, oh well I had two large cats and they loved the head and tail of the salmon
but most importantly my fishpan was not big enough to cook an entire salmon, we had no fridges back then, so what else could I do,
I could not just throw it away?.
-
My family went through WW2 on the continent and never forgot the hunger and cold that lasted years on end.
Wasting food and energy has always been frowned upon since I can remember. I could waste stuff, but I see no reason to do so.
Even the oven I'm getting will receive a once over with caulk, heat reflective coatings and isolation to boost it's efficiency to a level that a commercial company could not do at a reasonable price.
As for the new house, I'm planning for it to get Isolation of R=4 standard on top of the existing material (35€ per M2 max), a condensation boiler, replacing as many of the steel heating pipes with isolated PEX, triple glass windows and water heating panels on the roof (etc).
Our calculation is that this will pay for itself in 10 years over the existing single pane windows, air gap brick walls and traditional boiler.
I'll be doing most of the work because it costs about 66% less to do so.
Energy prices are not going to go down in Europe in the near or medium future (10 years).
So at the current rate of increase, it's financially suicidal not to make these changes now.
-
My family went through WW2 on the continent and never forgot the hunger and cold that lasted years on end.
Wasting food and energy has always been frowned upon since I can remember. I could waste stuff, but I see no reason to do so.
Mine went through the Spanish Civil War and when it was over, WW2 happened so the recovery time took longer even if Spain didn't participate in the war (not because Franco didn't offer his services to the Germans)
So I'm conditioned to eat everything that is in my plate and not to waste. But also I was taught that quality is better than cheap, it's better to eat less but quality food than more of cheap and less quality food.
The flavor fills you up more than the quantity anyways.
-
Within ten years you will need a new condensation boiler. I asked my boiler service man about new boilers as ours (an oil fired no gas here) is 16 years old he said that the expected service life of a new condensation boiler is under ten years and for the extra 2% or less increase in efficiency I might expect to see it would be better to stick with the boiler I have as it would last at least as long again.
-
Within ten years you will need a new condensation boiler. I asked my boiler service man about new boilers as ours (an oil fired no gas here) is 16 years old he said that the expected service life of a new condensation boiler is under ten years and for the extra 2% or less increase in efficiency I might expect to see it would be better to stick with the boiler I have as it would last at least as long again.
That's what I'll be doing. Isolation comes first.
Our present boiler was 80% efficient new, but being 20 years old, this has probably gone down to about 75%.
The best condensation boilers get 95/98%, so the jump is worth it in our case.
But, knowing much more about boilers than the average consumer (lots of boilers on commercial vessels) I'll probably have to drive to Germany to get models only sold there that are dual source.
AND have a 10 to 15 year warranty (not to mention that my gramp, two uncles and a cousin are/were in the heating business and can give me tips).
And only cost 10 to 15% more than your De Dietrich. But I'll have to Pay 21% VAT instead of 8%, mysteries of Belgian tax system.
As I side note, I used to build shops, and do the heating/air conditioning for those.
In a shop the heating system gets a WAY harder workload than a house system (wide doors that open and close all the time, big windows heat sinks), yet we were able to warranty these for 10 years of near nonstop usage.
So as a consumer, if you don't ask for the same, then you are getting shafted.
-
Within ten years you will need a new condensation boiler. I asked my boiler service man about new boilers as ours (an oil fired no gas here) is 16 years old he said that the expected service life of a new condensation boiler is under ten years and for the extra 2% or less increase in efficiency I might expect to see it would be better to stick with the boiler I have as it would last at least as long again.
What about this: Wikipedia: condensing boiler myths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condensing_boiler#Myths)? "To ensure reliability, condensing boilers must be properly installed and maintained"
-
The "raw food diet" is all the craze down here right now, amongst the trendy set. Switch today and all of these seemingly intractable problems are solved. You'll also generate enough of your own environmentally friendly gas to run something like a Fiat Panda to boot.
I mostly eat raw food, out of 21 meals I'd say 18 of them. But that's not due to any craze, it's just that I'm from the south of France and that's our traditional way of eating.
But my Belgian wife has a lot of problems switching over; she insists on having a "heavy meal" at least once a day where I'm happy with 2 to 3 a week...
I though that in the south of France all they eat is boiled potatoes and tripe? Or perhaps that is another region, I dunno. I like many others are a bit isolated down here you know. A local Chinese takeaway never cooks their veggies properly, so a meal from there is always extra crunchy. They are blanched beforehand but must spend 30 seconds in the wok tops. You wouldn't want to be around me for a good 24 hrs shortly after I've had a hearty serving of crunchy vegetable curry.
-
That category of stoves should be banned.
I don't think you understand today's environmentalism / environmentalists. When they talk about reducing carbon footprint, they are talking about reducing YOUR carbon footprint. THEIR carbon footprint can be as large as they want and you should have no say in that.
In their environmental utopia, everyone is equal, except that those environmentalists are more equal.
-
Within ten years you will need a new condensation boiler. I asked my boiler service man about new boilers as ours (an oil fired no gas here) is 16 years old he said that the expected service life of a new condensation boiler is under ten years and for the extra 2% or less increase in efficiency I might expect to see it would be better to stick with the boiler I have as it would last at least as long again.
That's what I'll be doing. Isolation comes first.
Our present boiler was 80% efficient new, but being 20 years old, this has probably gone down to about 75%.
The best condensation boilers get 95/98%, so the jump is worth it in our case.
But, knowing much more about boilers than the average consumer (lots of boilers on commercial vessels) I'll probably have to drive to Germany to get models only sold there that are dual source.
AND have a 10 to 15 year warranty (not to mention that my gramp, two uncles and a cousin are/were in the heating business and can give me tips).
And only cost 10 to 15% more than your De Dietrich. But I'll have to Pay 21% VAT instead of 8%, mysteries of Belgian tax system.
As I side note, I used to build shops, and do the heating/air conditioning for those.
In a shop the heating system gets a WAY harder workload than a house system (wide doors that open and close all the time, big windows heat sinks), yet we were able to warranty these for 10 years of near nonstop usage.
So as a consumer, if you don't ask for the same, then you are getting shafted.
Our present boiler is 91% efficient according to the test certificate we received when it was serviced in April this year, we do get it serviced once each year. Apparently most condensing boilers do not meet the test figures published by the manufacture in actual service so would only be in the region of 93 to 95% efficient in practice and not the 98 to 99% claimed by some.
-
98 is probably best case scenario... Bungalow and all that.
But the boiler being two floors up, there are going to be pumping loses, so yeah, nominal 98, reality between 90 and 95%.
-
The "raw food diet" is all the craze down here right now, amongst the trendy set. Switch today and all of these seemingly intractable problems are solved. You'll also generate enough of your own environmentally friendly gas to run something like a Fiat Panda to boot.
I mostly eat raw food, out of 21 meals I'd say 18 of them. But that's not due to any craze, it's just that I'm from the south of France and that's our traditional way of eating.
But my Belgian wife has a lot of problems switching over; she insists on having a "heavy meal" at least once a day where I'm happy with 2 to 3 a week...
I though that in the south of France all they eat is boiled potatoes and tripe? Or perhaps that is another region, I dunno. I like many others are a bit isolated down here you know. A local Chinese takeaway never cooks their veggies properly, so a meal from there is always extra crunchy. They are blanched beforehand but must spend 30 seconds in the wok tops. You wouldn't want to be around me for a good 24 hrs shortly after I've had a hearty serving of crunchy vegetable curry.
Are you confusing the South of France with Poland or Eastern Germany? But then again, I could not say what kind of barby comes from where in your land.
Tripe is eaten, but it's more up North, traditionally tripe would go bad fast in warmer places.
Carbohydrates until the 1930's were mostly bean based and expensive. But most veggies grow like weeds, so you end up eating what cheap and plentiful.
-
That category of stoves should be banned.
I don't think you understand today's environmentalism / environmentalists. When they talk about reducing carbon footprint, they are talking about reducing YOUR carbon footprint. THEIR carbon footprint can be as large as they want and you should have no say in that.
In their environmental utopia, everyone is equal, except that those environmentalists are more equal.
Not in my case that's for sure. I would never ask you to do something I'm not prepared to do.
But that goes for work too, I'm learnig the jobs of donkey man and wiper even if I'm going to be an officer. I can't tell somebody to do a job if I don't have any idea of how to it myself.
-
People in most of the UK or further south can have free hot water from solar heating most of the year. You would still want a boiler too, but most of your hot water could be free.
Free? Who pays for the solar system?
-
That the idea behind the dual source boiler. It feeds off a hot water tank until it gets too cold then gradually switches to pure gaz...
-
People in most of the UK or further south can have free hot water from solar heating most of the year. You would still want a boiler too, but most of your hot water could be free.
Free? Who pays for the solar system?
Freedom pays for free.
-
Free? Who pays for the solar system?
Freedom pays for free.
Yes, the freedom to take other people money
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Belgium#Subsidies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Belgium#Subsidies)
-
All I did with the hot water cylinder was turn it down to 60C ( the original setting was basically hot enough to cook lobster in seconds) and insulate the cylinder and the inlet and output piping for 2m from the unit. It became a big green ball of isotherm ( recycled PET bottles made into fibre) and the only issue is the cold water tap now has some warm water after 5 seconds of running, from conducted heat through the 3m of pipe. Still, it did drop the usage by about 20% or so. I could add a time switch but as there is no off peak rate to use here it would actually increase power use by the contactor and timer power.
-
Free? Who pays for the solar system?
Freedom pays for free.
Yes, the freedom to take other people money
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Belgium#Subsidies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Belgium#Subsidies)
That's been corrected, you can't get more subsidies for photovoltaic as from 1st Jan last year unless you plan to cover a 2000m2 factory.
Our university actually works with the government because apparently politicians can't count. So we had a impromptu lecture on this:
The far right wing used the cost of solar as a political argument accounting only the cost of paying for electricity.
The left/green completely forgot the infrastructure costs and some other stuff.
Etc. In fact nobody knew what was happening, industry included.
Reality is far more complex: PV kW's are a direct cost BUT they permit the country to avoid buying electricity at a premium from our price gouging French neighbors now that the Germans don't export it anymore at a bargain.
In a nutshell, from the price of a kW you must:
- Subtract the cost of "saved" imports to the costs of buying this electricity.
- Add the cost of modernizing the infrastructure.
- Subtract the permanent cost of a full size, or a couple of smaller, gas power station.
- Bucket loads of other smaller factors.
Simple to say but the "simplified" demonstration spans couple of full size blackboards. You can't cut it down to a FOX soundbite.
The general conclusion of this was that PV costs the Gvt money, but far less than expected and has the added bonus of giving money to Belgians that tend to invest much more in Belgium than your average sheik.
Their recommendation was to slow down/stop the installation of PV's because:
- The grid would take a few years to catch up to the present glut.
- It made sense to wait a 10 years-ish for the 3rd gen as a replacement for the 1st gen rather than investing on 2nd gen.
- More saving could be derived from insulating houses than from not buying electricity from France.
- Large scale wind is easier to throttle thus complements nuclear better.
- The Flemish Gvt only has a budget for X civil servants, so they must run a one horse race or hire more people.
- More stuff I have forgotten.
The the choice was easy to make:
Insulation, insulation, insulation.
-
People in most of the UK or further south can have free hot water from solar heating most of the year. You would still want a boiler too, but most of your hot water could be free.
Free? Who pays for the solar system?
The way it works is: you buy it, then after a while it pays for itself and everything after that is free.
You are confusing ROI for 'free'.
-
People in most of the UK or further south can have free hot water from solar heating most of the year. You would still want a boiler too, but most of your hot water could be free.
Free? Who pays for the solar system?
The way it works is: you buy it, then after a while it pays for itself and everything after that is free.
You are confusing ROI for 'free'.
In any case, when and if i get hot water solar, I'll be paying for it. Nobody else.
PV solar is another matter because you depend on the grid.
-
The general conclusion of this was that PV costs the Gvt money
Where does government get its "money"?
-
The general conclusion of this was that PV costs the Gvt money
Where does government get its "money"?
Selling biscuits door to door mostly.
-
You have a nice government, then.
Maybe you can put it on a longer leash?
-
Taxes of course ::)
But would you rather your state invest:
- More expensively in your country or buy outside?
- In cheap resource that needs to be replaced 100% each month or one that will give back for 10/20 years (in sometimes complex ways)?
- And sometimes make mistake trying something or do always the same old same old?
Oversimplification of these issues are for the "punditus ignoranty" prevalent on daytime US radio/TV.
Personally I think they are intertwined, nearly organic in complexity thus cannot be solved in a one all, baseball rules derived, solution.
-
But would you rather your state invest:
I would rather you the tax payer invest.
Government is never going to know your needs better than you do.
-
But would you rather your state invest:
I would rather you the tax payer invest.
Government is never going to know your needs better than you do.
I cannot do what the state does, the state cannot do what I do.
Each must do it's part. One cannot be separated from the other. Vacuum does not exist.
-
I cannot do what the state does
Sure. If you don't know what's good for you and you don't know how to invest your own money, having a 3rd party, even if a wasteful 3rd party, doesn't seem like a terrible idea.
However, maybe you will allow the freedom of investing one's own money to those who do know what's good for themselves and who do know how to invest their own money.
See, a big distinction between advocates for big government and small government, in this particularly would go like this:
1) the advocates for big government would force everyone to hand their money to the government to invest, regardless of if the individual knows what's good for them or not;
2) the advocates for small government would offer people the option to hand their money to the government to invest. If some of us aren't comfortable or proficient in investing their own money (you for example), they can hand the money to the government; If some of us are more comfortable in handling our own affairs, we have the ability to investment our own money.
People like me would be worse off in a big government universe; People like you would never be worse off in a small government universe.
That, in its essence, is what "freedom" means.
-
Vacuum does not exist.
???
Let me guess, you went to a government run school...
:)
-
The general conclusion of this was that PV costs the Gvt money
Where does government get its "money"?
Selling biscuits door to door mostly.
Most likely it has good incentives for corporate tax havens, the biscuits is just a front :)
In 2010 Belgium as on the top 10 of money flowing through it, not sure where is now
-
Vacuum does not exist.
???
Let me guess, you went to a government run school...
:)
Well, maybe those government run schools know what they are doing.
A perfect vacuum is an ideal concept which cannot be found anywhere in the universe.
So no, vacuum does not exist.
-
Are you confusing the South of France with Poland or Eastern Germany? But then again, I could not say what kind of barby comes from where in your land.
Koala bear stuffed with shrimp. Paul Hogan didn't mention the first part due to cultural sensitivities. Very tasty.
-
A perfect vacuum is an ideal concept which cannot be found anywhere in the universe.
Who said perfect? Our Hoover isn't perfect but it exists for sure.
-
It's been entertaining to follow this thread as is continues to amble on. The OP is quite right that regulating the peak wattage of a vacuum cleaner is silly, especially given the short amount of time most vacuums are used.
[Rant on]
The real fun is reading the endless postings by the libertarian types who appear to believe that just because government does lots of silly things and has a tendency to overreach means that all (or most) government regulation is bad. Their utopian vision might be forgiven if it wasn't so distracting from the real issues.
Personally I'd love to live in the Agrarian Anarchy that Jefferson and other of the USA founders envisioned. Unfortunately I don't live in a large country of only 2.5 million people with a rural agriculture based economy as they did. I live in a country of 310 million with an economy dominated by large, very powerful corporations.
Freedom and liberty are great things but as others have pointed out in this thread one person's attempt at exercising their personal liberty often infringes on the personal liberty of someone else.
It's as if some never got over their freshmen reading of “Atlas Shrugged” - never realizing that Ayn Rand was a second rate intellectual with daddy issues.
Before someone accuses me of being anti capitalism – I can tell you that I have seen firsthand the problems and absolute un-workability of a state controlled economy. I traveled extensively in Eastern Europe before the fall of the Berlin wall – traveled under the radar apart from the state approved tourist hotel track- staying with locals. I saw the meagerly stocked grocery stores and the empty fancy restaurants with all tables reserved for party officials. I was at Wenceslas Square in Prague in 1988 on the 70th anniversary of the 1st Czech Republic when the truckloads of Jackboots with German Shepards and water cannons arrived. No, I like my capitalism just fine – but all good things in moderation.
I know what happens when the government tries to do too much and regulate too much but that doesn't mean all government regulation is unneeded or misinformed. Anyone who was alive in the US before the Clean Water Act and remembers what the US waterways looked like might get it. I grew up in Southern California before the Clean Air Act and remember the missed days of school due to frequent smog alerts. Seat belts, air bags, etc, etc... Unrestrained capitalism can be just as bad as a state controlled economy.
Currently the government in the USA (and EU) is overreaching in many areas – with the Orwellian state surveillance and other evils associated with the NDAA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act) begun by Bush and continued under Obama being prime examples. On these issues the so called “Liberty Movement” in the USA has it right. The problem is that for most of them their emotions and hatred of Obama (whether motivated by latent racism or hatred of anything labeled – even if incorrectly – as liberal) are used by the corporate elite (Koch brothers being the most visible example) to direct their energy (and dogged internet postings) at the wrong targets. It's no longer about left versus right – that argument is designed to take the eyes of the masses off the ball. The real struggle is the ongoing attempts by the corporatocracy to to wrest control of the planets dwindling resources away from the rest of us. Pure greed.
So back to the OP – limits on wattage of vacuums? Whatever..... Just well intentioned but misdirected efforts by low level bureaucrats.
All government regulation bad? Of course not. What are the real issues? Current government overreach in the areas of personal privacy in the name of the “war on terror”? Definitely. Ongoing transfer of more power and wealth to the Plutocrats and their sock puppet politicians (on both the left and the right) – Hell yeah!
[/Rant off] >:D
-
Before someone accuses me of being anti capitalism – I can tell you that I have seen firsthand the problems and absolute un-workability of a state controlled economy. I traveled extensively in Eastern Europe before the fall of the Berlin wall – traveled under the radar apart from the state approved tourist hotel track- staying with locals. I saw the meagerly stocked grocery stores and the empty fancy restaurants with all tables reserved for party officials. I was at Wenceslas Square in Prague in 1988 on the 70th anniversary of the 1st Czech Republic when the truckloads of Jackboots with German Shepards and water cannons arrived. No, I like my capitalism just fine – but all good things in moderation.
Well I have been to America two times, very recently, and I can tell you first hand that it was long time since I saw so many homeless people. Cities deserted by night. By day morbidly obese people roam the streets on mobility scooters.
What you saw is Europe just after war under our soviet "protectors". We also didn't like that period.
-
Well I have been to America two times, very recently, and I can tell you first hand that it was long time since I saw so many homeless people. Cities deserted by night. By day morbidly obese people roam the streets on mobility scooters.
What you saw is Europe just after war under our soviet "protectors". We also didn't like that period.
Not in Chi-Town (Chicago). But I would love to know the two cities (or towns) you visited where everything is so grim, so I avoid them :)
-
Not in Chi-Town (Chicago). But I would love to know the two cities (or towns) you visited where everything is so grim, so I avoid them :)
Atlanta and San Diego. San diego was nicer in a sense of city life but still quite a lot of homelessness. Atlanta consists mostly of parking lots. In the night, when everyone went back to their suburb home, it was deserted.
-
Why not just ban tumble dryers? At least that would do some good.
-
The world can save 3% of its total global energy spending by just shutting down the entire internet :-\
-
On minimizing YOUR carbon foot print, has anyone looked into how the latest environmentalist hero Tom Steyer made his riches?
It is a very inconvenient truth, as our yesteryear's environmentalist hero Al Gore would say, :)
-
The world can save 3% of its total global energy spending by just shutting down the entire internet :-\
Or just ban trolls, spam and aggregations sites. That should reduce usage by about 2.5%
The remaining 0.5 is culture, science, business and porn.
-
On minimizing YOUR carbon foot print, has anyone looked into how the latest environmentalist hero Tom Steyer made his riches?
It is a very inconvenient truth, as our yesteryear's environmentalist hero Al Gore would say, :)
By founding an investment firm. In 2012 he had what he described as a "Road to Damascus" awakening about the dangers of climate change and left the company in order to devote his time and wealth to tackling the issue.
Presumably you are referring to the fact that around 10% of his firm's investments were in fossil fuel companies? How does that disqualify him from supporting the cause of environmentalism now?
-
Well I have been to America two times, very recently, and I can tell you first hand that it was long time since I saw so many homeless people. Cities deserted by night. By day morbidly obese people roam the streets on mobility scooters.
What you saw is Europe just after war under our soviet "protectors". We also didn't like that period.
Not in Chi-Town (Chicago). But I would love to know the two cities (or towns) you visited where everything is so grim, so I avoid them :)
He made it up. Here is a reality check:
http://www.earthcam.com/usa/newyork/timessquare/?cam=tsrobo1 (http://www.earthcam.com/usa/newyork/timessquare/?cam=tsrobo1)
-
Effectively you have no freedom to choose an electricity supplier without regulation, and even with it you are forced to invest in money-making infrastructure owned by private companies who have you over a barrel. Many Europeans feel that electricity supply, like health care, road building and other infrastructure should be publicly owned, or at least run for the public's benefit. It makes sense to encourage solar installations with subsidies, and in many countries the government just forces the energy companies to provide low cost loans so there isn't even any significant tax money going into it. This moves ownership and control back to the public and individuals, since we realized how stupid it was to privatize it in the first place.
You think you are free, but actually you just made yourself some amoral profiteering company's bitch because you are so violently opposed to any kind of collective action through the government.
Agree completely. In my region, solar is not very effective, so our local government works with private industry to provide subsidies for residents who own their home to make investments in energy efficiency. To qualify, you have some tests run to see how much energy is lost in your home as-is. Then, you do whatever you want to remedy the problems found, and then have a second survey done to show the efficacy of those changes. Finally, you get reimbursed based on the measured level of improvement made. It has been so successful, the program has been extended several times.
My mom went through this last year and cut winter fuel costs by over half, and the house is far more comfortable to be in. I've signed up for my own home, where I will then get money returned to me for fixing some issues that make the floors cold in the winter. I benefit, the local contractor industry benefits, it's good for the environment, even the energy company is for it, since the bulk of their profit is in fixed administrative charges, and it helps curb the expense of providing for peak demand. What's the downside?
I don't think you understand today's environmentalism / environmentalists. When they talk about reducing carbon footprint, they are talking about reducing YOUR carbon footprint. THEIR carbon footprint can be as large as they want and you should have no say in that.
Folks like that exist for sure, but again this naive viewpoint fails to account for the many shades of gray between black and white.
I am a confessed tree-hugger. I believe in conservation, but I also believe in meaningful freedom. I appreciate convenience and understand there's a cost to everything. There is a balance between extremes. I don't like wasting energy -- it makes me uncomfortable to take more than my fair share. As such, if I can do something to consume less without significantly impeding my quality of life, I am eager to do so. I would NOT ask someone else to make sacrifices I'm unprepared to make. I support restrictions on energy-thirsty appliances because the market has proven, demonstrably, that efficiency is attainable.
*IF* you can get the same work done with less energy, why... seriously, why... not do so? What is really to be gained by wasting energy? E.g., I have a one-cup water boiler that does the job in about 1 minute while consuming 1400W. Why boil a liter of water on a multi-kW kettle with something like this available? You're not saving time, energy, or getting any more convenience out of it. So what's the point? For making spaghetti, sure, I get it. But for tea...?
-
My mom went through this last year and cut winter fuel costs by over half, and the house is far more comfortable to be in. I've signed up for my own home, where I will then get money returned to me for fixing some issues that make the floors cold in the winter. I benefit, the local contractor industry benefits, it's good for the environment, even the energy company is for it, since the bulk of their profit is in fixed administrative charges, and it helps curb the expense of providing for peak demand. What's the downside?
I expect the other people that are paying for it see that as a bit of a downside.
If it is so wonderful why the f**k does someone else have to pay for it to make it attractive?
-
Well the taxpayers are subsidizing the companies, that is also not exactly how i would have liked it, i rather wish that taxmoney would go to schools, hospitals and such.
-
Greetings EEVBees:
--The redistribution of wealth in Europe, is proceeding, even accelerating. The middle class beset by doubling power bills, and increasing taxes, is disappearing, the rich are getting richer, and left voting immigrants are invited to come in and get on the dole, it is free, all wives are covered, and it helps to create left voting government workers, to make sure that benefits are maintained and even increased.
--Meanwhile while Putler, in an homage to Stalin, slouches across the fields to redistribute the Ukrainian grain harvest again. The spirit of Chamberlain comes to the fore again. Surely peace in our times and increased redistribution are at hand.
"All I wants of you, Cap'n Simmons,is plain seevility, and that of the commonest goddamndest kind!"
Zeph W. Pease
Best Regards
Clear Ether
-
Because in Europe we believe in redistribution of wealth. We don't want to live in your shitty libertarian paradise thanks.
Perfectly rational position for those recipients of such redistributionist societies.
-
Because in Europe we believe in redistribution of wealth. We don't want to live in your shitty libertarian paradise thanks.
No "we" do not believe in redistribution of wealth. Perhaps I can come round your house and forcibly 'redistribute' some of your wealth into my pocket because you seem incapable of taking responsibility for it yourself.
I know how best to spend my money; me; myself. And I'm much better and more efficient at it than some spineless bottom-feeding parasitic career politician using it to buy my vote and his comfortable retirement.
You have absolutely no 'right' to my money, nor do I have any 'right' to yours. Take responsibility for yourself, comrade, and stop deferring to the almighty state to force others to share your Marxist views.
-
I know how best to spend my money; me; myself. And I'm much better and more efficient at it than some spineless bottom-feeding parasitic career politician using it to buy my vote and his comfortable retirement.
I read a very interesting model of spending money. Basically there are 4 categoreis
1. You use your own money to purchase a product for yourself (or people close to you).
2. You use your own money to purchase a product for strangers.
3. You use other people money to buy a product for yourself.
4. You use other people money to buy a product for strangers.
In #1 you care about both the cost and the quality. In #4 (the government case) you care about neither.
-
I support restrictions on energy-thirsty appliances because the market has proven, demonstrably, that efficiency is attainable.
*IF* you can get the same work done with less energy, why... seriously, why... not do so? What is really to be gained by wasting energy? E.g., I have a one-cup water boiler that does the job in about 1 minute while consuming 1400W. Why boil a liter of water on a multi-kW kettle with something like this available? You're not saving time, energy, or getting any more convenience out of it. So what's the point? For making spaghetti, sure, I get it. But for tea...?
The point is that your needs and desires are not shared by everybody.
One cup water boilers are less flexible than kettles, and not necessarily any more efficient. Many modern kettles have a flat element and are quite capable of boiling exactly as much water as you require.
My favourite mugs hold nearly a pint of tea - I don't want to be forced to wait twice as long to boil it because some bureaucrat can't conceive of any volume larger than the EU standard teacup.
-
If it is so wonderful why the f**k does someone else have to pay for it to make it attractive?
Because in Europe we believe in redistribution of wealth. We don't want to live in your shitty libertarian paradise thanks.
Sure, Europeans love paying taxes, just not as much as they love other people paying taxes.
That didn't answer the question anyway. Why do these schemes need to be paid for by someone else for people to take them up? If people can't afford them then maybe they could be offered cheap loans, after all the claimed huge savings would pay off those loans in no time - right.
-
Greetings EEVBees:
Why do these schemes need to be paid for by someone else for people to take them up? If people can't afford them then maybe they could be offered cheap loans, after all the claimed huge savings would pay off those loans in no time - right.
--That would involve real accounting rather than razzle dazzle.
"A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers."
August von Hayek, Friedrich 1899 - 1992
Best Regards
Clear Ether
-
That didn't answer the question anyway. Why do these schemes need to be paid for by someone else for people to take them up? If people can't afford them then maybe they could be offered cheap loans, after all the claimed huge savings would pay off those loans in no time - right.
Well.... there are a few answers to that, all of which play a part. Here we go:
1) It's something I would do anyway, because it saves me money to make my home more energy efficient.
2) As such, and especially for others who are not motivated by the ROI alone, the partial reimbursement (and maybe just as important, the qualification deadlines) provide an incentive to do these things sooner than later.
3) From an infrastructure perspective, the climate here is such that providing for peak demand is more of a burden than investing a little money upfront to reduce costs in the long run.
4) Especially in rural areas and beyond, there are lots of people that cannot absorb the complete costs themselves. If some of my taxes go toward improving their quality of life as well, I'm pretty OK with that. (I realize this is probably dangerously close to socialism or, oppressing someone's liberty to.. have a drafty house.. or whatever, who knows.)
5) Our local economy is rather well subsidized by natural resources. As such, I suspect the tax burden of this little program is probably not at all significant -- while the benefit, is.
-
2) As such, and especially for others who are not motivated by the ROI alone, the partial reimbursement (and maybe just as important, the qualification deadlines) provide an incentive to do these things sooner than later.
First you take their money and then you give them some of it back if they obey. That's a pure oppression.
-
2) As such, and especially for others who are not motivated by the ROI alone, the partial reimbursement (and maybe just as important, the qualification deadlines) provide an incentive to do these things sooner than later.
First you take their money and then you give them some of it back if they obey. That's a pure oppression.
Yes if you don't do what the government wants it takes your money and uses it to bribe you.
"government of the people, by the people, for the people" what happened to that?
Government by politicians for themselves, then for the people as long as the people understand the politicians know what is best for them. They all come from the same barrel which explains why there is so little interest with voter turn out reaching all time lows.
Los Angels is actually going to enter participating voters in a lottery with cash prizes, they are going to take your money and use it to bribe you to vote. There is something desperately wrong with the political system and politicians running it, that they could even contemplate buying votes to try to hide the problem shows how bad it is.
-
Because in Europe we believe in redistribution of wealth. We don't want to live in your shitty libertarian paradise thanks.
Not "we", "you"
The disappearing middleclass doesn't like it. Only the ones on the receiving-side: workless, bureaucrats and employees of government supported big companies.
-
Greetings EEVBees:
Why do these schemes need to be paid for by someone else for people to take them up? If people can't afford them then maybe they could be offered cheap loans, after all the claimed huge savings would pay off those loans in no time - right.
--That would involve real accounting rather than razzle dazzle.
"A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers."
August von Hayek, Friedrich 1899 - 1992
Best Regards
Clear Ether
You are completely of the bloody subject...
We are not talking about paying more taxes, gibing other free people stuff or living in some vast Kolkhozian communist utopia you think Europe is turning into.
(Hint, it's not).
You come from the US, a land that has been energy positive or nearly positive for ever, where you can afford to waste. Where "wasting" is in fact a big part of the system.
I find it very arrogant, oppressive and insulting that you, from your big fat rich country come to tell us how to run things in our very different funny named countries.
I mean, the US is not exactly the happiest, best run place there is.
You sound like my fat uncle telling me how to lose weight.
States on continental Europe are investing in conservation of energy, not for some idiotic green "let's share this" (even if that's sometime used as a marketing ploy).
WE ARE ENERGY POOR, we have to IMPORT our ENERGY, we have an ENERGY DEFICIENCY, our economies have to buy energy OUTSIDE at a PREMIUM.
This is a waste of our hard earned cash on a cosmic scale (and we pay twice, once in our energy bill, once in our taxes to subsidize the whole stupid mess).
And it's not some bureaucrat in a corner office in Brussels, nearly all our energy companies are private (even if states are investors): this is CAPITALISM.
You might not like capitalism, I judge not if that's your thing, I quite like it. But as everything, it tends to work better within rules.
Because the market does not regulate itself (or 2008, and all bubbles, would have never happened).
What is our present situation?
Well we have this big fat moronic bear on one side called Russia, and he's not nice.
On the other side we have 'Murica, that even if they are are friends, they won't cut us a deal (and should not).
So we are left with Gulf States that contain a lot of beardy guys that would like to blow us up.
You have Canada and Mexico. Scary.
So it could be argued that we are in fact in a low level energy war, that could become a high level one if the Russians cut the pipes and decide to sell only to China.
We can increase our sources (more drilling, new field discoveries in deep sea, offshore wind, reopening coal pits, nuclear), diversify them (South America, Africa) and - wait for it:
reduce waste. Such as making household appliances more efficient.
Sure, me like everybody, would like to say f"uck you big government" and sit on the porch of my ranch wasting cheap energy 24/7, but I can't, or I have to move to the US.
(I don't want to, I like it here).
-
2) As such, and especially for others who are not motivated by the ROI alone, the partial reimbursement (and maybe just as important, the qualification deadlines) provide an incentive to do these things sooner than later.
First you take their money and then you give them some of it back if they obey. That's a pure oppression.
"Goes outside, takes in a deep breath"
Nah, no oppression felt.
-
Because in Europe we believe in redistribution of wealth. We don't want to live in your shitty libertarian paradise thanks.
Not "we", "you"
The disappearing middleclass doesn't like it. Only the ones on the receiving-side: workless, bureaucrats and employees of government supported big companies.
Where the hell do you live?
Even factory floor workers here (Flanders) are middle class. Have houses, German cars, holidays in the South of France, a bit of money invested ... Etc.
You really really need to be a total and absolute drunken failure to NOT be middle class here.
And if you are, the VDAB ( and the rest of the system) will teach you a job and hold your hand until you can waddle about by yourself.
-
...
And it's not some bureaucrat in a corner office in Brussels, nearly all our energy companies are private (even if states are investors): this is CAPITALISM.
I don't agree with this.
Most are private-ish. With politically nominated employees, with politics making all the decisions: Where/how/when to invest in what, they even decide what the selling price is, and who gets a discount, or free, who pays more, and when. On the buying side they also decide how and when the plants have to be run.
There're absolutely no free market in this. But there are several companies, they got a "license" with the help of their friends, and now have to obey these with the risk of loosing it.
The consumer energy networks aren't double, that would cost too much, so the consumer can only choose one. He can only choose the callcenter where he can complain if there are errors on the bill.
-
The disappearing middleclass doesn't like it. Only the ones on the receiving-side: workless, bureaucrats and employees of government supported big companies.
Where the hell do you live?
Even factory floor workers here (Flanders) are middle class. Have houses, German cars, holidays in the South of France, a bit of money invested ... Etc.
You really really need to be a total and absolute drunken failure to NOT be middle class here.
My description of middle class is: Not a slave of a multinational, not an owner of a multinational. Called KMO here.
Have a look at the companies that existed 20 years ago, and were productive. Much of them dissapeared due to laws nobody needed, and most were unaware of.
If there is one thing that goes forward, it's desindustrialisation. The very big can stay, the little ones have to go.
But maybe you are completely unaware of this, never saw this. But I did. Often, and that scale of industry is not gonna come back easyly.
-
...
And it's not some bureaucrat in a corner office in Brussels, nearly all our energy companies are private (even if states are investors): this is CAPITALISM.
I don't agree with this.
Most are private-ish. With politically nominated employees, with politics making all the decisions: Where/how/when to invest in what, they even decide what the selling price is, and who gets a discount, or free, who pays more, and when. On the buying side they also decide how and when the plants have to be run.
There's absolutely no free market in this. But there are several companies, they got a "license" with the help of their friends, and now have to obey these with the risk of loosing it.
The consumer energy networks aren't double, that would cost too much, so the consumer can only choose one. He can only choose the callcenter where he can complain if there are errors on the bill.
In our case, when we moved house we choose Electrabel because they had the best offer, but a few months latter, a local group offered to do group negociation, we participated and got the ssame deal as companies get, about 20% cheaper! If that's not capitalism, I don't know what is.
It's not perfect, but miles ahead of what the assisted socialized cluster fuck I had to endure in France.
Belgians tend to forget how well their country works on a number of aspects;
As an example, my sister did a PACS in France a few years back, she had to take half a day off work and it took 3/4 hours. My girlfriend and I did the same en Gent yesterday (Samenwoning Contract), 10 minutes including the wait within our 30 min lunch break!
-
In our case, when we moved house we choose Electrabel because they had the best offer, but a few months latter, a local group offered to do group negociation, we participated and got the ssame deal as companies get, about 20% cheaper! If that's not capitalism, I don't know what is.
I believe your story, I am also happy that I can choose between some, it gives a perfect illusion of having choice. Good enough for most of the people.
Belgians tend to forget how well their country works on a number of aspects;
Dont mix my complaints with "not knowing how well we are".
It's an action of defending the wellness we had before, and in my case, making others aware of what I see happening, and the future based on that.
... the assisted socialized cluster fuck I had to endure in France.
...As an example, my sister did a PACS in France a few years back,
I won't look at france to compare how things are done here. It's too far behind. I worked there. Tried to.
But I'm glad you also see that their way of doing is not what we want.
-
The disappearing middleclass doesn't like it. Only the ones on the receiving-side: workless, bureaucrats and employees of government supported big companies.
Where the hell do you live?
Even factory floor workers here (Flanders) are middle class. Have houses, German cars, holidays in the South of France, a bit of money invested ... Etc.
You really really need to be a total and absolute drunken failure to NOT be middle class here.
My description of middle class is: Not a slave of a multinational, not an owner of a multinational. Called KMO here.
Have a look at the companies that existed 20 years ago, and were productive. Much of them dissapeared due to laws nobody needed, and most were unaware of.
If there is one thing that goes forward, it's desindustrialisation. The very big can stay, the little ones have to go.
But maybe you are completely unaware of this, never saw this. But I did. Often, and that scale of industry is not gonna come back easyly.
Yeah, the ship building fiasco in the 1980's is a good example. The Dutch are still mocking Belgians for that idiotic short sighted political move...
The Oostende region has still not fully recovered and the land rules/prices make it hard for new industries to take up the slack. Zeebruggge is the opposite, a great reconversion.
That kind of scarring might explain why people/companies tend to bootstrap rather than go for loans and subsidies.
As for small industry, the main problem seems to be finding personnel and space to grow.
Starting a small company in Belgium is ridiculously simple and cheap to do compared to France or Spain (no idea about other places)
-
Yeah, the ship building fiasco in the 1980's is a good example. The Dutch are still mocking Belgians for that idiotic short sighted political move...
The Oostende region has still not fully recovered and the land rules/prices make it hard for new industries to take up the slack. Zeebruggge is the opposite, a great reconversion.
Sorry I don't know that example, maybe too far away or not my sector.
As for small industry, the main problem seems to be finding personnel and space to grow.
Yes, you can go to a industry site and pay 10 times the price of a building, but engaging 25 people so you can get subsidy so you have it all back.
But starting it in your own street or in your backyard is forbidden due to a multiple of goodlife rules, supported by the workless.
The ones who had a good working company (+-10 workers) in a now overurbanised region are forced to leave due to new traffic regulations, dissapearing parking space, criminalisation and lack of follow-up, and are left the same choice: Investing multmillions on an new site, waiting for the moment that also the last customer is forced to buy in china, or cash now, close the company, buy a yacht or a ranch.
-
Yes, you can go to a industry site and pay 10 times the price of a building, but engaging 25 people so you can get subsidy so you have it all back.
But don't let the word out, some Flemish companies I've worked for refuse to work with known subsidy queens.
It might get you a good deal on the short term, but it will end up costing more in taxes on the long run.
Even getting a unnecessary short term loan (bankers talk here) means having to do groveling on the phone with suppliers and clients...
But starting it in your own street or in your backyard is forbidden due to a multiple of goodlife rules, supported by the workless.
That's weird, because in Gent it is actively encouraged. Must be local regulation.
We just bought a house with a double garage precisely to do that (simple metal workshop to start) so we asked the municipality and they were happy about it.
I can't do something that is way too noisy, smelly or dangerous, but most of the stuff I want to do, I can.
The street is even precabled for 400V triphase!
-
Have a look at the companies that existed 20 years ago, and were productive. Much of them dissapeared due to laws nobody needed, and most were unaware of.
If there is one thing that goes forward, it's desindustrialisation. The very big can stay, the little ones have to go.
I am unaware of all the politics and other circumstances but what I heard is that for instance the Ford plant closed in Belgium and was moved to Spain because the wages of the workers were €40/hour in Belgium and €20/hour in Spain. Now I have no clue if that is the average pay or that someone working the belt gets that kind of money but €40/hour is a lot more then we get here in the Netherlands for those jobs and then our income tax is also much higher.
The problem as I see it, is that we have built ourselves a luxury life that needs a certain income to be sustained.
Due to all kind of circumstances, companies no longer generate the profits that are needed to pay all workers those kind of pay. So the only jobs that are left are the jobs that can not be done somewhere else for a lot less, which (for as long as its worth) are the intelligent jobs, creating new products, new sources of income, or cutting costs on productionlines etc. etc.
Lately you can also see that the higher educated jobs are outsourced to countries that invest much more in education than we do. The only jobs that are really safe are the service jobs like dentists, doctors, repairman but how many does a country need?
-
40 an hour? That's more than 3000€ Net.... Even 20, taking into account pay scale, is about the max for factory work.
One of the greatest assets the North of Spain has (apart from lower cost labor) is that they have very competitive steel and tooling prices reinforced by much cheaper industrial land.
The move was probably financed by simply doing a real estate deal...
-
40 an hour? That's more than 3000€ Net.... Even 20, taking into account pay scale, is about the max for factory work.
I think that is what the employer had to pay incl. all the government extra's, holiday money, 13th month etc.
Anyhow, the hourly wages in Spain were half of that in Belgium that was the take away message, which is rather sad knowing there is only 1500km between the two countries and both are in the same economic unity.
An economist said on tv that this will be the first time that the next generation will be less wealthy than the previous generation, meaning we are decreasing in our standards of living as we knew it and have to adjust to a lesser life of luxury.
-
An economist said on tv that this will be the first time that the next generation will be less wealthy than the previous generation, meaning we are decreasing in our standards of living as we knew it and have to adjust to a lesser life of luxury.
The redistrutionist philosophy coming home to roost.
More equality is the way to go, :)
-
Due to all kind of circumstances, companies no longer generate the profits that are needed to pay all workers those kind of pay.
I am skeptical about that. Instead i think that, at least for bigger companies, they hand out a lot of money to the shareholders and highest-ups first, leaving little for the actual workers. Add greed into the mix, and they try to maximize their profits by laying off a lot of people or paying them even less.
And i guess that this will come back to bite them in the bum some day. Paying less and less to the workers means that they will buy less and less. If people buy less, companies will sell less. Selling less means less profit, which in turn leads to them paying even less, and the cycle starts over.
Another issue are taxes, that direectly benefit the country (and thus the people living in it). Here the problem is not wether taxes should be raised or lowered. The problem is that they have to be paid in the first place. There are way too many loopholes that allow corporations to effectively avoid paying most, if not all, taxes. This has to stop.
Greetings,
Chris
-
The shareholders are part owners of the company. They are in a way a debt to those individuals. As for workers. In many cases the supply exceeds the demand.
-
The problem is all these dammed automations and electronics no need for employees any more :-DD
-
The problem is all these dammed automations and electronics no need for employees any more :-DD
That's why the term is "pick and place machine" and not "pick and place worker". The amount of money you'd have to pay to get someone skilled to do accurate pick and place on things the size of a crumb would probably spell the end for the company.
Besides if you get a loan from a bank or investor for a few million dollars to set up pick and place equipment, it's easier for them to liquidate a machine to get their money than paid wages.
-
The redistrutionist philosophy coming home to roost.
It was unbridled capitalism and corporate tax dodging that caused that. Weren't you paying attention to the last decade?
You are making up stuff again to justify the oppression that you keep promoting.
Oppression always comes with 'justification'.
-
Because in Europe we believe in redistribution of wealth. We don't want to live in your shitty libertarian paradise thanks.
Do you suggest redistribution within each country or across the EU?
-
The redistrutionist philosophy coming home to roost.
It was unbridled capitalism and corporate tax dodging that caused that. Weren't you paying attention to the last decade?
You're right. I want to go back to the good old days where we didn't have large companies and you had to have at least 6 kids because half of them would die from the flu or measles or dysentery before they were strong enough to plow the fields. Better yet, give me some rocks and sticks, I need to get a fire going so my cave wife can cook whatever creature I bring back from the forest if it doesn't eat me first.
-
Because in Europe we believe in redistribution of wealth. We don't want to live in your shitty libertarian paradise thanks.
Do you suggest redistribution within each country or across the EU?
It's survival of the fittest, you don't have to be the fastest gazelle to live, you just can't be the slowest.
If the EU wants to prosper sometimes doing what's best for the most means getting rid of dead weight.
-
It's instructive to note that countries with the most progressive taxation have by most measures the best quality of life for its citizens - best health care, lowest crime rates, "happiest" population etc. Scandinavian countries are the notable leaders. The fact that they have very progressive taxation but are also by most measures the wealthiest countries argues against the tried and failed "trickle down" theory of national wealth creation. The USA of the 1950s and 1960s was in that class but we've been progressively sliding down hill ever since we decided to embrace the " borrow and spend" Reagan revolution (made possible only by holding the worlds reserve currency).
Look around the world and you will quickly see that the countries with the most unrestrained capitalism are all 3rd world countries with small groups of wealthy elite controlling a corrupt political class who lord over masses of poor with little or no middle class. Sadly this is where the USA has been headed for the past 30 years.
"Survival of the fittest" in such countries is really "survival of the most privileged". Take away the military and security forces that keep the elite in power, arm all the citizenry and "survival of the fittest" might actually have some meaning.
It's the same old tired argument by those who are privileged (or imagine that they will be) that they have what they have because they earned it - never acknowledging the role that a privileged birth and luck played. "I got mine" and anyone who questions my self serving greed is a "communist" or "socialist" and trying to oppress me.
Personally - while my wife and my income put us in the top 5% of earners in the USA, I'd rather pay a higher tax rate and live in a more just and happy society. I've traveled enough in the 3rd world to know that even from a purely selfish point of view, I would not want to be one of the elite living in such paradises of unrestrained capitalism.
-
I'd rather pay a higher tax rate and live in a more just and happy society.
You can pretty much boil down the differences between liberals and conservatives to this sentence.
If a conservative wants high taxes or a good cause, he gives his money / time to such charities / causes.
If a liberal wants high taxes or a good cause, he imposes that onto the rest of the society.
In the liberal's eyes, anyone who disagrees with it is either evil or retarded.
-
It's the same old tired argument by those who are privileged (or imagine that they will be) that they have what they have because they earned it - never acknowledging the role that a privileged birth and luck played. "I got mine" and anyone who questions my self serving greed is a "communist" or "socialist" and trying to oppress me.
Freedom is very low on your priority list. This shows that this is not just an EU only problem, oppression supporters are everywhere. Around here the government punishes supermarkets that give me a paper bag without charging me extra for it.
-
[If a conservative wants high taxes or a good cause, he gives his money / time to such charities / causes.
If a liberal wants high taxes or a good cause, he imposes that onto the rest of the society.
Very good point, freedom doesn't preclude charity, it just makes is by choice.
-
Wasn't a conservative that said "You are either with us or against us in the fight against terror"?
Arrogance is not just a liberal thing, and just that little phrase said by our dear ex president killed democracy just a little.
I get that majority rules, but that doesn't mean I can't have an opposite view otherwise we are a regime not a democracy.
-
Arrogance is not just a liberal thing, and just that little phrase said by our dear ex president killed democracy just a little.
Oppression comes from all directions, socialists, theocrats, environmentalists, conservatives, greed'ies, and general utopian busy bodies. It's a general tendency of people to tell other people how to live their lives with disregard their freedom.
Cherish freedom, push the needle away from oppression.
-
I get that majority rules
Majority rules isn't the heart of democracy - you can end up with tyranny easily. Many "democracies" fall into that category.
The heart of democracy is the protection of minority, especially unpopular minorities.
-
I get that majority rules
Majority rules isn't the heart of democracy - you can end up with tyranny easily. Many "democracies" fall into that category.
The heart of democracy is the protection of minority, especially unpopular minorities.
And often it's not even the majority, it's the bureaucrats that make the rules.
-
Cherish freedom, push the needle away from oppression.
Holy Klono's tungsten teeth and curving carballoy claws; here we go again.
It has been pointed out several times in this thread that one man's freedom is another's oppression. Chanting simplistic political slogans ad nauseam isn't going to change that.
-
Freedom is very low on your priority list.
What priority list? I've posted no such list.
Of course freedom is important. You seem to equate freedom = no taxes and no regulation. There are plenty of examples of countries with low taxation and little regulation but very little freedom and likewise, plenty of examples of countries with progressive taxation and effective, appropriate regulation of corporate greed that have high levels of personal freedom. America of the 1950s and 1960 is historical example. By the criteria of some here Truman and Eisenhower were "liberals".
Many of todays so called "conservatives" fail to recognize that freedom only exists when there is a degree of personal and corporate responsibility to the greater society.
The idea that all you need to have a level playing field is to rely on the charity of the wealthy is laughable. Historical and current society is full of examples showing the failure of this model and no examples of the contrary. We have been steadily moving in that direction in the USA for the past 30 years. How's that working out for our "freedom and liberty" The fact is that the wealthy are only wealthy on the backs of the less fortunate.
Human nature is to be greedy. Fortunately we also have the ability to choose to live in a society where that greed is kept in check.
I'm all for the idea of an agrarian anarchy - if the human population was what it was 500 years ago that might work.
As our population has swelled, humans have chosen a model of industrial civilization. However flawed, part of that choice has been to put in place governments (and associated taxation and regulation) to keep greed in check.
It's fine and dandy to say you're against taxes and regulations, but it's hard to take that seriously if you fail to acknowledge the consequences of living in such a world.
-
I would like to say that mtdoc's contributions to this thread have been models of reason and restraint which deserve careful consideration.
Unfortunately all three of them have more than ten lines, and they are therefore doomed to be either ignored or skimmed for elements which can be decontextualized and used for political point scoring.
-
The fact is that the wealthy are only wealthy on the backs of the less fortunate.
To quote Dave... "bullshit".
That is Elizabeth Warren level justification for lack of success. Anyone in this country can be a millionaire through hard work, careful planning and resolute execution. There is no guarantee of huge success (hundreds of millions), but anyone can be very financially secure. People just don't want to make those sacrifices.
I've had a lot of employees over the years in low, middle and high level jobs. It is my observation - confirmed from many other biz owners - that there is very rarely anything "less fortunate" about people who experience no success.
But it is human nature to absolve one's self from blame, so of course, it is never the fault of the "less fortunate".
Human nature is to be greedy. Fortunately we also have the ability to choose to live in a society where that greed is kept in check.
Factually untrue. The charitable giving record of the people of the USA speaks for itself.
-
40 an hour? That's more than 3000€ Net.... Even 20, taking into account pay scale, is about the max for factory work.
I think that is what the employer had to pay incl. all the government extra's, holiday money, 13th month etc.
Anyhow, the hourly wages in Spain were half of that in Belgium that was the take away message, which is rather sad knowing there is only 1500km between the two countries and both are in the same economic unity.
An economist said on tv that this will be the first time that the next generation will be less wealthy than the previous generation, meaning we are decreasing in our standards of living as we knew it and have to adjust to a lesser life of luxury.
Allready took out stuff.
Social security costs (from the employer's side) are also pretty high in Spain.
-
I'd rather pay a higher tax rate and live in a more just and happy society.
You can pretty much boil down the differences between liberals and conservatives to this sentence.
If a conservative wants high taxes or a good cause, he gives his money / time to such charities / causes.
If a liberal wants high taxes or a good cause, he imposes that onto the rest of the society.
Because all people are inherently fair, right? Yeah, OK. Tell you what... let's just stop with this "economy" thing, and let everyone decide to work for the things they want. No prices, no paychecks. You want a new car? You just do the amount of work you think is fair in return for that new car. Whatever you think is fair. Some people will work a day, some people will work 20 years. It'll all even out in the end.
Bullocks.
I would wager that, of all those making more than they absolutely need to survive, not even a whole percent of that excess goes to charitable contributions, with two exceptions: Those who are rich enough that they literally have more money than they can spend (e.g.: The <insert name here> Foundation); and those that tithe a legitimate 10% (or whatever) of their income (before taxes!) because they've agreed to participate in a society that puts "look out for #1" further down their list of priorities.
Everyone else needs to be "repressed" so that the remaining population doesn't starve their "free" asses to death. Given the choice, those that could would literally take 100% and leave nothing.. not even scraps... for anyone else. That's man's nature. Screw the other guy, I'm gettin what's mine.
It has been pointed out several times in this thread that one man's freedom is another's oppression. Chanting simplistic political slogans ad nauseam isn't going to change that.
We could replace that guy with a for() loop and probably end up with a more constructive conversation.
-
It's instructive to note that countries with the most progressive taxation have by most measures the best quality of life for its citizens - best health care, lowest crime rates, "happiest" population etc. Scandinavian countries are the notable leaders. The fact that they have very progressive taxation but are also by most measures the wealthiest countries argues against the tried and failed "trickle down" theory of national wealth creation. The USA of the 1950s and 1960s was in that class but we've been progressively sliding down hill ever since we decided to embrace the " borrow and spend" Reagan revolution (made possible only by holding the worlds reserve currency).
You incorrect mix causation and correlation. There are many reasons those scandinavian countries have some high metrics in some areas that are totally unrelated to taxation.
Furthermore, you would have a hard time convincing anyone that life in the USA was better in the 1950's. Who wants to go back to small houses, one car, a small B&W TV (if you're upper middle class), driving vacations to the next state instead of flying to Europe, and the like? By any metric, life is way better today. People just remember the past fondly, and forget the downsides.
-
You incorrect mix causation and correlation. There are many reasons those scandinavian countries have some high metrics in some areas that are totally unrelated to taxation.
I did not claim causation. I agree that there are other factors involved. The point was that claiming that progressive taxation is in itself ruinous to a countries wealth is not supported by the facts.
Furthermore, you would have a hard time convincing anyone that life in the USA was better in the 1950's. Who wants to go back to small houses, one car, a small B&W TV (if you're upper middle class), driving vacations to the next state instead of flying to Europe, and the like?
And there it is in a nutshell. It's all about having more stuff - more stuff = more happiness and because I have more stuff then life is better. Key words in your post are "(if you're upper middle class)"/ The problem is that the middle class is shrinking and the ranks of the lower middle class and working poor are growing.
By any metric, life is way better today
By any metric? Really? I agree that many things are better. Medicare and social security have helped the elderly. Environmental regulation have improved the water and air.
But you seem to have missed the point - which is that the myth that progressive taxation impedes prosperity and freedom is demonstrably false - with many examples of the contrary.
-
And there it is in a nutshell. It's all about having more stuff - more stuff = more happiness and because I have more stuff then life is better. Key words in your post are "(if you're upper middle class)"/ The problem is that the middle class is shrinking and the ranks of the lower middle class and working poor are growing.
Speaking of which:
Wealth Inequality in America (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM#ws)
So far no one could explain to me why that is supposed to be good, especially not the "you are wanting oppression" folks. The "anyone can be a millionare" mem is nothing more than a myth. Yes, more people can become millionaires. But unless those who are already (or are even richer) give up some of their money, the only other source for that money are those who have less. After all, there is a finite amount of resources, including money, on this planet. Everyone being rich is impossible. A very few being super-rich while the majority is poor is not sustainable. Things must go back to some middle-ground.
Oh, and notice the discrepancy between what people think how the situation is, and what they think it should be. And that in turn compared to how it really is. I doubt that the general situation is that much different in any other "western" and "wealthy" country.
Greetings,
Chris
-
It has been pointed out several times in this thread that one man's freedom is another's oppression.
That's called New Speak. You don't expect anybody to take it seriously.
-
Everyone being rich is impossible.
Depending on how you define "rich". By 1500's standards, for example, everyone in West Europe and America is super-rich; By African standards, everyone in West Europe and America is rich; By the 1950's standards, most people in West Europe and America today are rich; ...
Without defining "rich", your statement has no meaning.
I would say, however, while everyone in Piketty's universe is eager to take money from the "rich" for themselves under the disguise of "social equality", those same folks seem to be incredibly shy of recognizing that by the same token, those "poor" West Europeans and Americans should have given away their (relative) riches to those truly poor in Africa, Asia and the rest of the world.
Their extreme lack of interest in redistributing their own (relative) wealth to the truly poor seems to suggests that their enthusiasm in "social equality" is driven only by their own greed.
I don't mind taxation actually. and to take it further, I don't even mind unfair progressive taxation. For every dollar that Piketty or Warren takes out of their own pocket to help the poor, I will take ten dollars out of my own pocket to help the poor.
For all the mountains of words those two have expended to express their concerns and loves for the poor, they seem to be extremely reluctant to express in their own dollars.
-
About taxation: the liberals are very fond of mentioning that in the 1950s, the highest tax rate in the US was in the 90%. Economy was booming so they wanted to go back to those times.
I have actually offered to subject myself to 2x of the highest tax rate, even if it is more than 100%, during any era that the liberals pick, as long as they commit to shrink government spending to the same levels of that era.
No takers so far, :)
-
My position on this is very simple, and quite reasonable if I may say so, :)
1) your money is yours: I don't want a penny of your money. spend it all you want. None of my business.
2) my money is mine: I shall spend it as I see fit. None of your business.
I don't have to have any say in how you redistribute your wealth; I only ask that you let me redistribute my wealth my way.
You cannot find a more reasonable person than that, :)
-
Without defining "rich", your statement has no meaning.
Seems you need to play dense because you ran out of arguments. I'm pretty sure you know damn well what i meant with that. But let me speak it out for you, and try to follow what i write this time:
I was refering to the "everyone can be a millionaire" myth. If you were able to read and follow context, it would have been trivial to deduce that by "Everyone being rich is impossible" i mean millionaire. FFS, it was even in the same paragraph, so that context thing shouldn't have been too hard.
Unless of course you think only of numbers, and not of the value it represents. Then yes, everyone can be a millionaire. Just that such a million would be worth only a fraction of todays million. Heck, in 1924 everyone pretty much was a trillionaire. A multi-trillionaire, for that matter:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/100-Billionen-Geldschein-2.jpg)
(Our "Billionen" is your "trillions")
Greetings,
Chris
-
My position on this is very simple, and quite reasonable if I may say so, :)
1) your money is yours: I don't want a penny of your money. spend it all you want. None of my business.
2) my money is mine: I shall spend it as I see fit. None of your business.
I don't have to have any say in how you redistribute your wealth; I only ask that you let me redistribute my wealth my way.
You cannot find a more reasonable person than that, :)
Fine! Please keep that in mind the next time you walk or drive on the street. Because i'm pretty sure that whatever tax you pay in your lifetime won't be enough for all the roads and sidewalks you use. Unless you want to use stuff that others have paid for. And you better have no insurance at all, or if you have, you take out only up to what you have paid in so far. After all, you don't want to use anyone elses pennies, do you?
Greetings,
Chris
-
On wealth redistribution: Wealth redistribution should be limited to one's own wealth. It doesn't take any courage for me to redistribute your wealth.
and vice versa.
-
I have always wondered why those advocates of wealth redistribution are always interested in redistributing other people's wealth and not their own.
I mean, Piketty made millions selling his book on income equality (itself an oxymoron if I may add); Warren draws $750K from an ivy tower. Yet, none of them seems too eager to contribute a penny to their "worthy causes" that they want to force the less fortunate to contribute to.
If you cannot walk your talk, you should shut the f@#$k up.
Don't you think so?
-
About taxation: the liberals are very fond of mentioning that in the 1950s, the highest tax rate in the US was in the 90%. Economy was
I have actually offered to subject myself to 2x of the highest tax rate, even if it is more than 100%, during any era that the liberals pick, as long as they commit to shrink government spending to the same levels of that era.
No takers so far, :)
I'll take it.
Note if you get rid of the immoral corporate socialism of the Bush/Obama financial bailout and "war on terror" military and "homeland security" spending then as a percent of GDP the government spending would be similar to the 1950s.
-
It has been pointed out several times in this thread that one man's freedom is another's oppression.
That's called New Speak. You don't expect anybody to take it seriously.
It's called nothing of the sort. Another way of saying the same thing has been mentioned before in this thread: "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins."
That was written by Zechariah Chafee, a rather famous American civil libertarian and defender of free speech, but in your twisted version of reality apparently a socialist oppressor.
And the invented language in Orwell's book Nineteen Eighty-Four was called Newspeak, not New Speak. If you are going to hurl ludicrous insults, at least try to get them right.
-
On wealth redistribution: Wealth redistribution should be limited to one's own wealth. It doesn't take any courage for me to redistribute your wealth.
and vice versa.
Wealth redistribution is already happening and it has been for some time. See the video posted by mamalala for details.
As Warren Buffet likes to say "There already is class warfare - my class is winning"
You're right - it takes no courage for the rich to rob the poor - it happens daily. Sadly most don't seem to realize where their own wealth comes from.
The question is will wealth redistribution continue to be the covert type that has been ongoing - leading us to a greater and greater separation between the haves or have-nots? The problem is becoming more acute as the size of the total pie decreases with resource depletion. Infinite growth on a finite planet ain't gonna happen.
Eventually it will end - the question will it be by peaceful means or by the historically more common mode of change : social unrest and violence.
-
Mamalala excellent video, unbelievable that riots don,t break out since the persons that have to keep up the law, police and military fall in the last 20% income. They don,t want to know it seems, they want to keep believing in a dream which is in reality nithing more then a dream.
Unfortunately today was a press bulletin that also in our country this is going on, much less drastic than the us but still the richer are getting richer and the poor poorer.
I agree with some that you have to work and study to earn to get up there but it looks more and more that it is a pyramid scheme. Most of the wealthiest persons had families making their fortunes more then a hundred years ago. They don,t show up on the tv or newspapers they stay in the dark.
Now as we all know in a pyramid game it is impossible to go to the top, you can make more money but the rows above you profit even more.
If you want to be or go on the top it seems like you have to start youre own pyramid ( business) and hope that nobody sees and recognizes it till it is a succes, because if you start something small and the big fish see and recognize the potential they will start their own enterprise in that field and with their enormous funds it is a lost race. That is how it works in reality, you can start playing but as soon as you move in their playing field they will eat you up alive
-
I have always wondered why those advocates of wealth redistribution are always interested in redistributing other people's wealth and not their own.
You talking about a few hypocritical specifics here (the book author you keep bringing up), or the rest of us? I'm an advocate of progressive taxation. I'm also happy to play by that same ruleset. I'm not poor. Not rich either, but I would hold no grudge against someone at half my income benefiting from social services that my taxes fund.
In a way, the idea of automatic redistribution is a relief. I don't like tipping because I want to give enough to make the service provider feel like they got taken care of, while being prudent enough to ensure I can afford to partake of those services. For me, having this stuff worked out in an equitable fashion would mean one less thing I have to worry about. Extrapolate that to roads, schools, military, health care, and heck even Internet access. Once I know the social structure is taken care of, I'll feel a lot better about working to better my own circumstances.
If you cannot walk your talk, you should shut the f@#$k up. Don't you think so?
Sure do.
-
I have always wondered why those advocates of wealth redistribution are always interested in redistributing other people's wealth and not their own.
I mean, Piketty made millions selling his book on income equality (itself an oxymoron if I may add); Warren draws $750K from an ivy tower. Yet, none of them seems too eager to contribute a penny to their "worthy causes" that they want to force the less fortunate to contribute to.
If you cannot walk your talk, you should shut the f@#$k up.
Don't you think so?
By "Warren", I presume you mean Elizabeth Warren, hatred of whom appears to be something of a right wing shibboleth.
According to 2012 figures, she and her husband contributed over $100,000 to various charities between 2008 and 2011.
For every dollar that Piketty or Warren takes out of their own pocket to help the poor, I will take ten dollars out of my own pocket to help the poor.
So you will be contributing a million dollars to charity then?
Incidentally, you seem to be conflating Ivy League with ivory tower.
-
Most of the wealthiest persons had families making their fortunes more then a hundred years ago.
There has been extensive research that shows that wealth rarely passes beyond the 3rd generations. I assume that it is easier to do that in a more progressive society like Europe.
You can test this by looking up the list of wealthiest individuals and count how many of them are self-made.
A partial list goes like this: Bill Gates, Carlos Slim Helu, Amancio Ortega, Warren Buffett, Larry Ellison, Charles and David Koch, Sheldon Adelson, Christy Walton, Jim Walton.
I am going to make a wild guess that none of those guys come from families that were rich a hundred years ago. Furthermore, none of them made their fortunes in a society that were progressive / overly redistributive.
And if you ask why our young people today aren't confident that their upward mobility isn't too good, those people probably are poster boys (and girls) of how capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than redistributive policies ever will.
-
The liberals' eyes light up when they talk about redistributing other people's money (but never their own).
I kind of see that in some women's talking about shoes or nerds talking about scopes.
At least the later two are redistributing their own money.
-
The liberals' eyes light up when they talk about redistributing other people's money (but never their own).
It's so cute the way right-wing Americans use "liberal" as a term of opprobrium. The definition of liberalism is as follows:
Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.
How un-American.
-
And you are still missing the thread-full of people here that are all for it. Starting to sound like you're stuck on repeat as well. Have you really no takers on fair economic policy, or do you just quietly ignore those who accept your theoretical offers?
Regarding your line of self-made millionaires -- the fact that the majority of the US' wealth is held by a handful of folks that just about everyone -- in developed nations worldwide -- knows of by name if a pretty clear sign that the wealth could use some redistributing. Once those guys are holding merely 100x the bankroll of middle management, or there are too many to keep track of, then let's talk about how we can afford to loosen regulation a little. Until then, there's very little standing in their way of consuming even more of what's left. (If they haven't enough now, when is it enough?)
-
It's called nothing of the sort. Another way of saying the same thing has been mentioned before in this thread: "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins."
If the other man nose begins in my pocket it's too long.
-
This thread is definitely going around in circles at this point, and has clearly drifted away from the question of whether it is a good thing to regulate the maximum power of domestic electrical appliances.
As enjoyable as it is to reduce the right-wing contingent to incoherent raving, perhaps we should return to the topic at hand.
For the record, I would favour the provision of accurate information about their effectiveness; in other words placing limits on advertising rhetoric rather than consumer choice.
-
Mamalala excellent video, unbelievable that riots don,t break out since the persons that have to keep up the law, police and military fall in the last 20% income.
Thanks, but it isn't my video, i just stumbled across it a long while ago. If you listen carefully, you will note that he talks about how ~99% of the people think it should be. Funny that the top 1% is disustingly rich. Makes you wonder who that missing 1% about who thought how it should be were ... Of course this is just speculation on my part.
Greetings,
Chris
-
I'd rather pay a higher tax rate and live in a more just and happy society.
You can pretty much boil down the differences between liberals and conservatives to this sentence.
If a conservative wants high taxes or a good cause, he gives his money / time to such charities / causes.
If a liberal wants high taxes or a good cause, he imposes that onto the rest of the society.
In the liberal's eyes, anyone who disagrees with it is either evil or retarded.
:-+
-
For the record, I would favour the provision of accurate information about their effectiveness; in other words placing limits on advertising rhetoric rather than consumer choice.
Yes, which is what this regulation also enforces. Sure, it is sad to see that a thing like efficiency has to be enforced in such a way, but then, there is no one else to blame for it than manufacturers and sheepish customers who blindly followed the "more power is better" stanza. Yes, if my overall system is only 10% efficient, more input gives me more output. However, i can also stay at the same input and double my output by simply making it 20% efficient.
Plus, this regulation also takes care of how long it should last as a minimum. Funny how people often complain that their cheap crap fails so early, but then go up all in arms if someone tries to get manufacturers to build stuff that lasts longer...
Greetings,
Chris
-
And often it's not even the majority, it's the bureaucrats that make the rules.
I see that happening in our country too. They decide who gets a permit to build what where. The voted law is still used as a base, but the implementation depends on the bureaucrat and the type of customer.
-
And there it is in a nutshell. It's all about having more stuff - more stuff = more happiness and because I have more stuff then life is better. Key words in your post are "(if you're upper middle class)"/ The problem is that the middle class is shrinking and the ranks of the lower middle class and working poor are growing.
Speaking of which:
Wealth Inequality in America (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM#ws)
So far no one could explain to me why that is supposed to be good, especially not the "you are wanting oppression" folks. The "anyone can be a millionare" mem is nothing more than a myth. Yes, more people can become millionaires. But unless those who are already (or are even richer) give up some of their money, the only other source for that money are those who have less. After all, there is a finite amount of resources, including money, on this planet. Everyone being rich is impossible. A very few being super-rich while the majority is poor is not sustainable. Things must go back to some middle-ground.
Oh, and notice the discrepancy between what people think how the situation is, and what they think it should be. And that in turn compared to how it really is. I doubt that the general situation is that much different in any other "western" and "wealthy" country.
Greetings,
Chris
"Who pays taxes"
IDIOTS - Who pays the most taxes - Franklin vs Marx (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvFkeq3l1as#)
I don't begrudge people for having more money than me. I aspire to be them.
What Creates Wealth? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661TPEvCCTU#ws)
-
I did not claim causation. I agree that there are other factors involved. The point was that claiming that progressive taxation is in itself ruinous to a countries wealth is not supported by the facts.
Your facts also don't show that progressive taxes aren't harmful. Who is to say that the countries you referenced wouldn't be infinitely better off if they had flat taxes?
And there it is in a nutshell. It's all about having more stuff - more stuff = more happiness and because I have more stuff then life is better. Key words in your post are "(if you're upper middle class)"/ The problem is that the middle class is shrinking and the ranks of the lower middle class and working poor are growing.
People aren't being railroaded into buying 'stuff'. People want 'stuff'. If people want to work and buy stuff with their earnings, then it's very arrogant to suggest they aren't doing what they want or that they aren't happier or better off. Like telling someone "you don't really like ice cream, you only think you do" - as if there is some sort of higher logic from the enlightened few that supersedes what people know themselves first hand.
By any metric? Really? I agree that many things are better. Medicare and social security have helped the elderly. Environmental regulation have improved the water and air.
You'd be hard pressed to find many metrics by which a person's life was better 50 years ago than today. Sure, there will always be some outliers, but I have a friend in his 30's who refuses to have a cell phone because he believes life was better before we were weighed down by constant communication. That's his choice, but the vast, vast majority of the country doesn't agree with him. We aren't progressing as a society kicking and screaming... we're progressing because that's what people want.
But you seem to have missed the point - which is that the myth that progressive taxation impedes prosperity and freedom is demonstrably false - with many examples of the contrary.
You haven't demonstrated that - see above.
There are also plenty of examples and studies showing that progressive taxation does impede prosperity. And you can't ignore the other factors you accepted in your first paragraph play a role. Ultimately, everything that "lives off the back of value" (instead of creating value itself) is a luxury that exists because of the underlying value. So that includes the vast majority of the financial sector, even much of the sales and administrative function of any company, and certainly the vast majority of government spending. It all exists on the back of the actual value being created. People need to be very, very careful about overburdening that underlying value creation too heavily, because it is fleet and mobile and can't be legislated to stay in one place. That's a lesson we should have learned carefully over the past decade, but we have not.
-
Have a look at the companies that existed 20 years ago, and were productive. Much of them dissapeared due to laws nobody needed, and most were unaware of.
If there is one thing that goes forward, it's desindustrialisation. The very big can stay, the little ones have to go.
I am unaware of all the politics and other circumstances but what I heard is that for instance the Ford plant closed in Belgium and was moved to Spain because the wages of the workers were €40/hour in Belgium and €20/hour in Spain.
This is true, the numbers you mention is the price these red-flag terrorists cost to the company.
But the middle class is loosing again here. Year after year, Ford got subsidy for a lot of things, everytime with a new name, new regulation, new law. "education", "investment" and so on, so they got a big part of that 40 euro back. I even think they got their industry ground for free.
The middle class company had to pay the same amount of money to their workers, but they can't hire a lobbyist or department of lawyers to go fishing for subsidy.
-
And you are still missing the thread-full of people here that are all for it. Starting to sound like you're stuck on repeat as well. Have you really no takers on fair economic policy, or do you just quietly ignore those who accept your theoretical offers?
Regarding your line of self-made millionaires -- the fact that the majority of the US' wealth is held by a handful of folks that just about everyone -- in developed nations worldwide -- knows of by name if a pretty clear sign that the wealth could use some redistributing. Once those guys are holding merely 100x the bankroll of middle management, or there are too many to keep track of, then let's talk about how we can afford to loosen regulation a little. Until then, there's very little standing in their way of consuming even more of what's left. (If they haven't enough now, when is it enough?)
It's a very basic economic error to imagine that wealth "held" by someone is unavailable to be earned by someone else. That is incorrect - Bill Gates' wealth is not locked away in a vault at his home in the form of gold bars. It is circulating in the economy and ready to be earned by you or me or anyone else.
Furthermore, it is an additional error to imagine that Bill Gates' wealth somehow detracts from my wealth, or that his wealth detracts from my opportunity.
Once these basic economic errors are corrected, one sees that the idea of redistribution doesn't work. A lifetime is short in the big scale of things, and as pointed out above, wealth generally does not last beyond a couple or few generations, far too short a time for anyone to gain a lock on the American economy of stifle the value that the bottom 99% are able to attain.
The only thing stopping anyone here from becoming a multi-millionaire is hard work, smart investment and more hard work.
-
This thread is definitely going around in circles at this point, and has clearly drifted away from the question of whether it is a good thing to regulate the maximum power of domestic electrical appliances.
As enjoyable as it is to reduce the right-wing contingent to incoherent raving, perhaps we should return to the topic at hand.
For the record, I would favour the provision of accurate information about their effectiveness; in other words placing limits on advertising rhetoric rather than consumer choice.
And ad-hominems are the first sign that someone is having trouble backing up their point.
It seems that yourself and a couple of other guys on the left side of things are getting frustrated and angry. Just an observation.
-
We just bought a house with a double garage precisely to do that (simple metal workshop to start) so we asked the municipality and they were happy about it.
I'm happy for you, I hope you succeed.
In my region I have +10 examples of people, starters who want to build 50 to 200m2 on their own land, within the 50m-zone, every time it became a 5 year story that transfers +2000 euro to the bureaucrats and the result is nearly always zero.
-
So far no one could explain to me why that is supposed to be good, especially not the "you are wanting oppression" folks. The "anyone can be a millionare" mem is nothing more than a myth. Yes, more people can become millionaires. But unless those who are already (or are even richer) give up some of their money, the only other source for that money are those who have less. After all, there is a finite amount of resources, including money, on this planet. Everyone being rich is impossible. A very few being super-rich while the majority is poor is not sustainable. Things must go back to some middle-ground.
Oh, and notice the discrepancy between what people think how the situation is, and what they think it should be. And that in turn compared to how it really is. I doubt that the general situation is that much different in any other "western" and "wealthy" country.
Greetings,
Chris
Chris,
The words bolded above are a fundamental (and very common) misunderstanding of economics. Firstly, wealth is created (and destroyed), not simply passed around. Secondly, money "held" by one person is most certainly not unavailable to be earned by someone else.
Case in point... let's say I build Yachts. Bill Gates likes my Yachts and buys one for $100 million. I am $100 million richer, and Bill Gates has an asset valued at $100 million (let's forget appreciation/depreciation and keep things simple). I have just earned $100 million of Bill Gates' money.
You could use Zuckerberg as the rich guy and the founder of Whatsapp (who got some billions of Zuck's money) as the seller if you like. Point is that someone having money most definitely does not remove that money from circulation. And, the number of dollars (or Euros or Kroner or Francs) in the world is not a fixed amount, nor is the value of those dollars. It changes all the time. If everyone took $100 and burned it... it doesn't make the value of the remaining dollars worth more. And if I create a business doing $1 million in sales, I haven't taken $1 million from other businesses. I've created $1 million in value. Other businesses may lose value, but the net sum is most definitely not zero.
It's a fundamental misunderstanding of economics to think otherwise, and IMO a very dangerous one - because it leads to bad ideas, like "we need to redistribute wealth", or the thought that governments can provide prosperity. They cannot. At most and at best, they can provide opportunity.
-
For the record, I would favour the provision of accurate information about their effectiveness; in other words placing limits on advertising rhetoric rather than consumer choice.
+1 for government not limiting consumer choices.
You see, it was not that hard. ;-)
-
I did not claim causation. I agree that there are other factors involved. The point was that claiming that progressive taxation is in itself ruinous to a countries wealth is not supported by the facts.
Your facts also don't show that progressive taxes aren't harmful. Who is to say that the countries you referenced wouldn't be infinitely better off if they had flat taxes?
When the countries that are best off by almost all objective measures have very progressive tax structures it strongly suggests that progressive taxes are not harmfull. Despite your claims there is no evidence to the contrary.
Flat tax? The poor should be so lucky. They pay a much larger portion of their income in taxes than the wealthy. Jerry Brown proposed a flat tax in the 1992 presidential election. For some reason conservatives and the wealthy did not embrace it.
The tired old tactic of "who pays the most taxes?' is just silly since there is such an extreme concentration of wealth at the top end of the income scale. Imagine a country were 99.99 percent of the wealth was concentrated to the 0.0001% (not far from reality really) - how could the poor in that country possible match the taxes of the super rich even if they paid a much higher portion of their meager income. It's a simple mathematical concept that any engineer should be able to grasp.
-
So far no one could explain to me why that is supposed to be good, especially not the "you are wanting oppression" folks. The "anyone can be a millionare" mem is nothing more than a myth. Yes, more people can become millionaires. But unless those who are already (or are even richer) give up some of their money, the only other source for that money are those who have less. After all, there is a finite amount of resources, including money, on this planet. Everyone being rich is impossible. A very few being super-rich while the majority is poor is not sustainable. Things must go back to some middle-ground.
Oh, and notice the discrepancy between what people think how the situation is, and what they think it should be. And that in turn compared to how it really is. I doubt that the general situation is that much different in any other "western" and "wealthy" country.
Greetings,
Chris
Chris,
The words bolded above are a fundamental (and very common) misunderstanding of economics. Firstly, wealth is created (and destroyed), not simply passed around. Secondly, money "held" by one person is most certainly not unavailable to be earned by someone else.
Case in point... let's say I build Yachts. Bill Gates likes my Yachts and buys one for $100 million. I am $100 million richer, and Bill Gates has an asset valued at $100 million (let's forget appreciation/depreciation and keep things simple). I have just earned $100 million of Bill Gates' money.
You do see that you basically contradict yourself here, right? If you build a yacht and sell it to Gates for 100 million, then yes, you would be 100 million richer, but gates would be 100 million poorer, in real money, that is. Or do you really want to tell me that, on a balance sheet, you just made money out of nothing? As soon as that yacht leaves you it is already worth less than 100 million, because it woul be considered "used". Stepping a foot on it? Now it's worth even less. Maybe he can find some idiot who will pay 200 million for it becaue he owned it first, but then that guy is out 200 million. And then, you didn't create that yacht out of nothing. You are not 100 million richer, because you had to pay for the materials first. And the workers who helped you build it.
But lets assume Gates can sell it for 100 million. So now he is even, but the same problems apply to whoever bought it. In the end, no matter what, the yacht will end up in the scrapyard, sold for whatever value it has in metals and the likes. So no, you can't "keep things simple" by just ignoring real world factors like depreciation.
But if you like assets so much, what about stocks? One can create a company and issue stocks. Let's say he's a single person, with a desk and computer in his home, writing some software. He now issues stocks, 1000 of them, each worth a dollar, and sells them for that. Some "analyst" comes along and thinks it's all the hype now. Stock rises to 10 dollars each. But it is still a single guy on a single desk with a single computer. Has his computer or desk now become 10 times the worth than before? Where is the real value? Or the opposite: some "analyst" says it's all crap and the stocks are worth one cent each now. Is his computer and desk now worth only 1/100th?
If his stock rises folks suddenly made money out of nothing. If it falls, suddenly the money is destroyed. After all, the initial real money was only 1000 dollars. No matter what book-keeping tricks one wants to employ, the only real money it was worth was 1000 dollars.
But anyway, don't you think it is something to consider if 99% of your fellow americans already think that the way wealth is distributed in your country is worse than what they think how it shoul be distributed? And that the realitly how it actually _is_ distributed is far, far worse? Are those 99% all pinko communists that want to oppress you? You may accuse a bunch of folks of being freeloaders, abusing the system. But if the disparity between what they think it is vs. what it should be, and then vs. what it really is, is that huge, you may want to take some time to reflect on that and reconsider your beliefs.
Greetings,
Chris
Edit: Replace 99% by 92%. My mistake, sorry.
-
Flat tax? The poor should be so lucky. They pay a much larger portion of their income in taxes than the wealthy.
Very true. Something that some folks either can not grasp or willingly chose to ignore. The absolute amount of money that is paid in total, by group, doesn't matter much. What is important is the relative amount.
Someone who makes 1000 bucks a month, and pays 20% tax, has 800 bucks left for that month. Someone who makes one million bucks a month and also pays 20% tax is left with 800,000 bucks. So yes, in absolute terms the richer guy paid more, naturally. But it does affect him much, much less than the poor guy.
Greetings,
Chris
-
I think this thread has drifted far enough off topic to be closed.
-
I think this thread has drifted far enough off topic to be closed.
Agreed!
-
You are about one month late, it's been discussed to death until I think it got locked.