British Press; EU will die in its own dirt tomorrow.

[Khendraja'aro]

You're right. Hypocrisy is much closer to the mark.

Only if you think that a piece of engineering (vacuum cleaners) and a very dubious piece of economic theory (free market fixeth all!) are actually somehow comparable.

[Hazir]

I'd much prefer a free market fix to, "I like my Roomba and it works for me, so let's force everyone to use my solution," but I'm old fashioned like that.

Like market solutions work so perfect if people simply don't know. I personally will admit to thinking untill quite recently that high wattage meant better suction. I learned different because in Turkey all machines have to indicate efficiency on the energy label. I realised I'd always been buying vacuum cleaners on the basis of misinformation.

[Enoch the Red]

Only if you think that a piece of engineering (vacuum cleaners) and a very dubious piece of economic theory (free market fixeth all!) are actually somehow comparable.

No, it's blatantly hypocritical to complain about an argument being dismissed as though it was being presented as a solution to all things, when in almost the same breath you have done the exact same thing for the free market solution of letting the consumer decide what they need and what to purchase.

[Khendraja'aro]

Again, you're comparing an engineering feat (with engineering having a great track record of coming up with solutions) with an economical theory (with economics as a whole having a poor record of coming up with reliable solutions, not just this particular piece).

But I see that further elaboration would likely fall on deaf ears since you seem to be deadset on your course.

[Enoch the Red]

Again, you're comparing an engineering feat (with engineering having a great track record of coming up with solutions) with an economical theory (with economics as a whole having a poor record of coming up with reliable solutions, not just this particular piece).

I'm making - and have made - no such comparison. Your hypocrisy lies in your misuse of rhetoric, not in some imagined comparison of vacuum cleaners to economic theories.

[wiggin]

I think there's an interesting discussion to be had underneath all of the EU/UK/etc. hysteria. What is the best method to improve energy efficiency in general, and in appliances in particular? Are outright bans appropriate? What about doing nothing and letting the free market decide?

It seems unlikely that either is the right approach. Given the relatively low cost of energy, and the minimal attention paid by consumers to the link between appliance efficiency and their electric bill, it seems unlikely that market forces alone will cause a drive for significantly more efficient appliances. Yet outright bans are arbitrary (why 1600 watts? Why 900 watts?) and capricious; banning something wholly bad like lead in fuel is different than trying to titrate down energy usage of an essentially benign appliance. Some sort of incentive system makes more sense.

A good start would be improved labeling - not just prominent display of power consumption, but also 'efficient' labels. Something like the Energy Star label in the US (I'm sure there are similar labels elsewhere) put out by the DOE for more efficient appliances. I have a friend working at the DOE who does detailed analysis and testing of use cycles/etc. of various appliances and helps to determine what constitutes 'efficient' (it rarely is just a power measurement). A seal of approval - prominently displayed - would help. Furthermore, public information campaigns can be undertaken to improve the perceived link between energy bills and appliance choice - potentially including expected energy savings of a device over alternatives on the labels. Lastly, I suspect that increasing the cost of energy to consumers would do more than anything else to improve efficiency. Obviously this is wildly unpopular - energy is subsidized in much of the world - but I think it can be done in a way that is not regressive but still incentivizes economization (e.g. rebate systems and the like).

None of these solutions would require outright banning of things (which I'm very leery of), and could still significantly improve energy efficiency without limiting individual choice. They'd also have good knock-on effects, like a greater awareness of the need to limit energy use et al.

[RandBlade]

Corrolary: If Rand prophesizes that a product will not work for him it won't work for anyone.

I'm also not quite sure where you all are living. Coal mines? Grain mills? Dubai?

Except I didn't say a product wouldn't work for me. Once again, bullshitting.

Independent rating agencies (and Hazir) are saying that the best will be banned. Not me.

That was a retort to Rand's "This won't ever work!" attitude. But feel free to rant on!

I notice this trend of you guys that I present a single counter-example to some broad and sweeping claims and you promptly jump on me and try to make my answer look like I meant it to be the answer to all the things. Oh, well, if you must.

But it does make you look rather silly.

Since your fictionalising quotes attributed to me, please quote the post where I said - as you put in quotation marks - "This won't ever work!"

I never said that but keep making up ludicrous straw men to make yourself feel better. Why bother dealing with reality when you can make up your own things to rebut.

[Dreadnaught]

Instead of micromanaging voltage, shouldn't regulators be focused on big-picture policies that promote more efficiency? I mean, I would much rather all the spilled ink her be focused on promoting geothermal or nuclear power (or in the case of certain places, arguing against suicidal cuts in nuclear power).

[Flixy]

I think there's an interesting discussion to be had underneath all of the EU/UK/etc. hysteria. What is the best method to improve energy efficiency in general, and in appliances in particular? Are outright bans appropriate? What about doing nothing and letting the free market decide?

It seems unlikely that either is the right approach. Given the relatively low cost of energy, and the minimal attention paid by consumers to the link between appliance efficiency and their electric bill, it seems unlikely that market forces alone will cause a drive for significantly more efficient appliances. Yet outright bans are arbitrary (why 1600 watts? Why 900 watts?) and capricious; banning something wholly bad like lead in fuel is different than trying to titrate down energy usage of an essentially benign appliance. Some sort of incentive system makes more sense.

A good start would be improved labeling - not just prominent display of power consumption, but also 'efficient' labels. Something like the Energy Star label in the US (I'm sure there are similar labels elsewhere) put out by the DOE for more efficient appliances. I have a friend working at the DOE who does detailed analysis and testing of use cycles/etc. of various appliances and helps to determine what constitutes 'efficient' (it rarely is just a power measurement). A seal of approval - prominently displayed - would help. Furthermore, public information campaigns can be undertaken to improve the perceived link between energy bills and appliance choice - potentially including expected energy savings of a device over alternatives on the labels. Lastly, I suspect that increasing the cost of energy to consumers would do more than anything else to improve efficiency. Obviously this is wildly unpopular - energy is subsidized in much of the world - but I think it can be done in a way that is not regressive but still incentivizes economization (e.g. rebate systems and the like).

None of these solutions would require outright banning of things (which I'm very leery of), and could still significantly improve energy efficiency without limiting individual choice. They'd also have good knock-on effects, like a greater awareness of the need to limit energy use et al.

We have these labels: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europea...n_energy_label

Though apparently not for vacuum cleaners.

edit: it seems part of this move includes energy labels for vacuum cleaners, including how well they clean:

On 1 September 2014, vacuum cleaners in the EU will have to abide by a new set of minimum requirements. They cover:

• Power
• Performance (ability to pick up dust)
• Energy efficiency
• Dust re-emission in the exhaust air (particularly important for people with asthma)
• Noise level
• Durability (no early failure of the hose or the motor)

Label: Consumers can make informed choice
Furthermore, the efficiency and performance of vacuum cleaners will have to be rated on A-G scales in an energy label displayed on appliances in shops and also in Internet stores.
The legislation looks at power, but also at cleaning performance. Dust pick-up is part of the new rules. New models put on the market must meet minimum dust pick-up requirements, based on a practical test that measures the pick-up performance.

As regards power, the maximum allowed input power will be reduced: from 1600 Watt in 1 September 2014, to 900 Watt in September 2017. The current average on the market is about 1800 Watt.

https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/rebuttal/...-cleaners-ever


Blanket bans on wattage seems a bit silly to me - though it might be reasonable for vacuum cleaners, I don't know (and I don't really want to get sucked into a discussion about Dysons and Roombas), I can imagine that for certain applications you would want a more powerful vacuum, or that a larger but equally efficient one would be banned. Efficiency is what should matter, not pure wattage. After all, if your vacuum is half as powerful but so crappy you need to go over each area four times, you're not exactly improving the situation.

I think translating power use to actual costs is very useful, a lot of people don't realise what certain appliances actually cost. On the other hand, a simple energy label can also be misleading even if true, since it only compares to similar products usually. I.e. a fridge that is far bigger than you'd need can still be rated in the top class, even if it uses more energy than you need. And a vacuum cleaner that is very efficient, but far more powerful than you actually need, would still get a good label. In fact, certain SUVs get a green energy label, because they're more efficient than similar SUVs, not that they are particularly green themselves.

Instead of micromanaging voltage, shouldn't regulators be focused on big-picture policies that promote more efficiency? I mean, I would much rather all the spilled ink her be focused on promoting geothermal or nuclear power (or in the case of certain places, arguing against suicidal cuts in nuclear power).

From the same source:

The new rules will save 19 terawatt-hour per year by 2020, which is the electricity produced by more than 4 power plants or consumed by 5.5 million households.

So sure, not big picture, but not exactly nothing either, and is a part of the same program that introduced standards and labeling for fridges etc., so altogether it adds up. Apparently they research which products have a significant impact and only act on those, which would make sense.

Oh, and voltage has been 'micromanaged' back in 1988, learn your science

[wiggin]

Dread:

Voltage != Power [/pedant]

I think that it's difficult to conflate efficiency in consumption with efficient power generation. Plenty of methods of power generation are relatively efficient, though efficiency can be measured in a lot of different ways - efficient compared to the cost of capital, or compared to how much energy is extracted from a given maximum, or whatever. Improving efficiency here MAY be a good idea for a number of reasons, but it's unlikely to significantly effect consumption. In fact, if efficiency in production/distribution drives down costs, it's likely to increase consumption.

Energy efficiency from a consumption perspective is a way to get the same functional outcome using less energy - better air conditioners, insulation, appliances (e.g. washing machines, vacuums, etc.), load smoothing, etc. This reduces consumption directly and results in a smaller need for supply/capacity. This is almost certainly a good idea, as it is often cheaper, extremely good for the environment (at a low cost), etc.

Flixy:
Agreed. Just getting an 'efficient' label isn't enough, I think that estimated cost considerations (rather than kWh numbers that people don't understand) help to handle this. Knowing that your SUV will cost the average driver an extra $1000 a year in fuel costs will get far more attention than MPG numbers. Ditto for appliances (BTW, I do want to emphasize that at least the DOE's 'Energy Star' labels take a lot of time understanding actual use scenarios rather than just a headline number like wattage. My friend spends most of the time running appliances in a variety of use conditions and designing models to compare real efficiencies across devices and brands.)

[Flixy]

Flixy:
Agreed. Just getting an 'efficient' label isn't enough, I think that estimated cost considerations (rather than kWh numbers that people don't understand) help to handle this. Knowing that your SUV will cost the average driver an extra $1000 a year in fuel costs will get far more attention than MPG numbers. Ditto for appliances (BTW, I do want to emphasize that at least the DOE's 'Energy Star' labels take a lot of time understanding actual use scenarios rather than just a headline number like wattage. My friend spends most of the time running appliances in a variety of use conditions and designing models to compare real efficiencies across devices and brands.)

I don't doubt the testing is done rigorously, but at some point it has to be translated to a simple label. BTW, am I correct when I think that the energy star is just a stamp of approval, and doesn't classify any further (the European labels go G-A (sometimes up to A+++)? From a quick google I just see the picture I used to see when starting up old computers.

[wiggin]

Energy Star is just the stickers, essentially saying that the appliance beats the federally mandated limit by a determined percentage for each class of devices. It's been expanded from just computers et al to pretty much everything. In addition, most appliances come with an EnergyGuide sticker that includes expected power consumption, comparisons insides its class, and expected cost to operate annually.

There are flaws to both systems, and there's always difficult choices to make when determining something as vague as 'efficiency' or 'typical usage', but I think the general approach is sound. Coupled with appropriate campaigns and incentives to save energy, I think it could be quite effective - without resorting to heavy-handed tactics like outlawing certain devices on the basis of a single spec.

[LittleFuzzy]

Works on carpets as well.

No, it works on shitty, shallow-pile carpets. Carpets that might as well be wood floors anyway.

[Hazir]

Energy Star is just the stickers, essentially saying that the appliance beats the federally mandated limit by a determined percentage for each class of devices. It's been expanded from just computers et al to pretty much everything. In addition, most appliances come with an EnergyGuide sticker that includes expected power consumption, comparisons insides its class, and expected cost to operate annually.

There are flaws to both systems, and there's always difficult choices to make when determining something as vague as 'efficiency' or 'typical usage', but I think the general approach is sound. Coupled with appropriate campaigns and incentives to save energy, I think it could be quite effective - without resorting to heavy-handed tactics like outlawing certain devices on the basis of a single spec.

Speaking as an average consumer I'd say that the annoying thing about most labels is that they soon become another way for producers to fool people into believing their product is better than the product of the competition, where the truth of the matter is that they were merely smarter at playing the system. Seriously, I was buying into the more powerful = better myth for a long time, and producers were only too happy to make 'us' believe that that was exactly the case. Only when I needed to buy a vacuum in Turkey I started to realise that my metric was entirely irrelevant and in the end I found out that a relatively cheap low powered machine I could buy was significantly better at doing the job than machines having up to 1000W more powerful engines, accidentally also costing a lot more.

[Khendraja'aro]

Since your fictionalising quotes attributed to me, please quote the post where I said - as you put in quotation marks - "This won't ever work!"

I said that this is a summary of your attitude, Rand. Learn to read.

[Khendraja'aro]

No, it works on shitty, shallow-pile carpets. Carpets that might as well be wood floors anyway.

Strange, I must've imagined the steep price tag for my carpet then.

[RandBlade]

I said that this is a summary of your attitude, Rand. Learn to read.

Learn to read this: I NEVER FUCKING SAID THAT!!

Quit making up bullshit and deal with the real world, if you can find a way to pull your head out of your arse long enough to locate the real world.

[Khendraja'aro]

"summary of your attitude", Rand.