Bitcoin Forum

First it's vacuum cleaners, now 'lunatics' in EU plan barmy bans on HAIRDRYERS and KETTLES
This is crazytown

Where's my nanny?

More...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)

This is such a crappy situation, we have to be the ones paying high for energy and giving the example to "go green", while places like USA and China pollute as much as they want so they can have cheap energy...

Just because someone in Brussels  brought this up as an idea doesn't mean that everyone here in Europe is nuts. If you think about it, it's not that of a bad idea. The biggest electronic device you have at your home is most likely your oven. It uses around 5000 watts, isn't it weird that a hand held device like a hair dryer consumes half of that? That's inefficiency at it's best. The previous campaign to push incandescent light bulbs out of the market and replace them with energy saving ones was succesfull and no one was affected by it in a negative way. I can't see why you find this proposal to be unreasonable.

Because the quality of the product will be sacrificed along with the power consumption. Honestly, there's a limit to how efficient these different types of devices can even be while serving the intended purpose of the device. Is it better to vacuum your rug once with a machine equipped with a 1600 watt motor, or twice with a 900 watt motor? Really, the amount of energy we use on this entire planet is insignificant compared to the amount of energy available (wasted) but most of our methods of power generation are notoriously inefficient and wasteful (be it in the actual refining process of the fuels, the manufacturing of the components required for clean power, or the actual waste products of power generation.)

The sum total of the work to be performed by the end user is a constant, the efficiency of the worker is a variable that should be considered along with the efficiency of the power generation method, and the efficiency of the power consumption to produce/refine/create the materials used in the product, and in assembling the product after the individual components have been created. Reducing the wattage isn't going to increase the efficiency without completely redesigning the motor with different and more expensive components. The net power consumption can increase by shifting more energy from the end user towards the manufacturing of the product, and also an underpowered motor will produce more heat decreasing the efficiency further as it is used...

How about replacing single phase transformers with 3 phase transformers in residential areas; increasing the power output of existing electrical devices while simultaneously decreasing the amperage, and reducing the total cost of power for everybody...

I don't find energy efficiency to be bad. If the wattage of a device is lowered by x times this doesn't necessarily mean that the device will have to me used x more times to achieve the same results. In my oppinion, companies manufacturing those products haven't been putting much effort on making them efficient and I can't say that it's bad that there's now something that might change that. And so far I can say that there has been a pretty good job done with efficiency ratings. Here's the label for washing machines for example.

I had a debate with someone on this. My position was that it was needless interference and that market forces could sort it out. But it turns out there are some reasonable arguments from the protectionist side. Recapping:

Free market
As people use more electricity, especially for things like recharging their battery-powered cars (just wait until that one hits ;) ), electricity prices will naturally increase to cover infrastructure upgrades and lock-in. 'Dumb' consumers will be pruned away as they learn to spend their money more wisely. The devices are basically harmless and there exist less extreme methods of discouraging people from using them if it's such a big deal.

Protectionism, Socialism-lite
A large part of the electricity infrastructure is not part of the market. It's controlled by governments and monopoly providers, and continuity of supply is a big social obligation. For something that big, markets are too laggy to be able to maintain a stable system, while still giving people complete freedom to use whatever electrical devices that they want. The 'price' indicator is too slow and crude to be able to provide all of the information that consumers need, such as: whether everyone else's electricity usage has also increased, upcoming maintenance costs, or upcoming problems with fuel supplies.


So I kind-of lost that debate. And it reminded me of an argument I made one time, that old industries usually seem to stagnate. They become concerned with things like consolidating their market position and eliminating competitors rather than innovating. Vacuum cleaners seem to fit into that category. They're all the same old plastic crap, and producers keep putting shittier and shittier motors into them, just so that their model has bigger numbers in the showroom.

This is just ridiculous. Time to leave the EU before we reach topping point. Seems like the longer we stay the stupider we will get!

2400W for a hair dryer is understandable since it's just a heater. But complacency stifles development. The dryers could have a jet-like bypass that recirculates most of the hot air.

But the vacuum cleaners have turned to complete shit. Our family's 1800W one is quite obviously weaker than the old 1200W we had many years ago. The piping is the same diameter, and it's a similar kind of soft flexible plastic that cannot physically maintain lower pressure without deforming and coiling up. If it wasn't for the forced-air cooling, the motor's electrical rating would probably be only about 400W, maximum. The motors are simply inefficient and grossly overloaded, so they have to waste even more power for self-cooling. Even in the 1990s the designs were already so bad, that if the suction was blocked, the machine would either have a warning light or automatically activate some kind of bypass to keep the cold air flowing so the motor wouldn't burn itself out, even though a blocked vacuum cleaner is operating at minimum load!

Even engineers tend to forget about all the sh*t that goes on inside household appliances. Thank goodness we have capitalist Americans who can lead the way and wipe out the competition with better efficiency and better everything! :D

There are some different, more subtle issues there, as the battle against "planned obsolescence" is an ongoing one. Fluorescent tubes have a naturally very long life span of many years, but manufacturers try to cut it short with extremely shitty electronics that are designed to fail within 5000 hours. Even my computer's PSU is better than that, and it has far more interdependent parts. Unscrupulous manufacturers also try to increase overall production throughput by making the devices non-modular, so people throw out CCFLs that are 95% 'good' but happen to have one burnt-out component that's locked under the non-serviceable moulded plastic.

The theory seems to be that recycling legislation will force the costs back onto manufacturers, encouraging them to produce better quality but I'm not convinced. It seems like a bad alternative to leasing. As broken lights (or vacuum cleaners) are shuffled between consumers and producers, a constant trickle of toxic waste falls out of the loop and fills the dumping grounds and/or wildlife areas. Meanwhile, transport, shipping, sales and other middlemen industries make a tidy profit. It's surely worthwhile for larger items, but 1~3 euro trinkets are likely to be disposed of together with inorganic waste, despite the scare of mercury pollution. Out of sight, out of mind.

By fixing one problem, they've created another and have subtly shifted the energy consumption elsewhere, so in my opinion getting rid of incandescent bulbs was not a clean fix.

+1

Now it is confirmed that the EU is run by a bunch of jokers.

Banning toasters and kettles would do little to stem global warming. If they are serious about slowing down the global warming phenomenon, then adopt measures to discourage illegal logging and deforestation in the Amazonian region and Indonesia. Imposing a ban on the Indonesian hardwood and the Peruvian Mahogany would do quite a lot on that regard.

But off-course, the hardwood business is run by powerful cartels and the EU don't have the balls to stand up to them. So what is left? Harass the ordinary citizens by banning all sort of essential utilities.

Residential areas do have 3 phases. But normally only one phase is installed in the home because it's just not necessary to have more. Extremely power hungry devices like on-demand water heaters, air conditioners, or car chargers likely have their own 3-phase wiring. Comparing vacuum cleaners to those high-power devices is nonsense.

Maybe Americans should first get 240VAC. Then we can talk.

A simple step can stop all this BS. Replace carbon-di-oxide emitting thermal power plants with nuclear power plants. This can reduce a lot of greenhouse gas emissions. Also, wind-power and solar-power are good options.

I will not favor solar power, as it is too expensive even now. But nuclear power is a wonderful option. However, the waste disposal is still quite a bit problematic. If we can invent some new method to re-use the nuclear waste, then nuclear energy will be a very attractive option. Wind power is also a wonderful option. But it cannot be implemented everywhere.

Wouldn't less powerfull electric kettle be less efficient than more powerful? With shorter time for heating there is less time for convection and radiation of heat?

This is all part of the energy war, and Russia trying to use its energy dominance in an attempt to control Europe. With the prospect of Russia "renegotiating" gas deals every winter, a "20 year plan" for building nuclear plants just isn't fast enough.

Until you make the power plants themselves green this isn't going to make a fucking difference, never mind the fact that the Carbon Dioxide produced by living beings completely outweighs anything that the coal and oil industries do.

As someone who lives in Greece, I know that Nuclear power is not used for electricity here. The only reactor we have is for experimental purposes. Apparently it was decided by our politicians that due to the earthquake activity and the small size of the country we we couldn't benefit enough from nuclear power. We were still buying energy created from nuclear plants in Bulgaria some years ago though.

Seriously? Do you need to mention Russia in every single post of yours? We were discussing about the EU proposal to ban toasters and kettles. What Russia has to do with this?

Did Putin forced you to buy gas from him? Russia is not forcing anyone to buy the natural gas (they don't even have enough natural gas to export to countries such as South Korea and Japan). EU nations are purchasing it, since it costs almost 50% less than the LNG from Qatar.

Nope. Read above.


They're the suppliers of the gas that has a large effect on electricity cost. Aren't we allowed to discuss the real reasons behind the push for better efficiency?

Let's hope "they" will not ban the .. ASICs !!  ;)

Anyway these are poor and less effective measures against global warming.

Who cares, you can still buy the efficient stuff online, legal.
I have a nice stock of old light bulbs, and if I want more I buy them onloine, and I buy the long life version.
Because, you see, the old light bulbs are also made to have an artificially short life span, the same as the new ones actually.
So they can sell the ones without artificially short life span as "long life" at a higher price.
Yes, I know, by buying them I'm falling for the scam, but at least I'm aware of it.

ASICs will be on the top of the hit-list. What about kill two birds with one stone? They can protect the bankers who sponsor them, and at the same time give an impression that they are doing something to reduce the harmful effects of global warming. BTW... I am not sure whether large-scale Bitcoin mining occurs in the EU or not. Electricity there is insanely expensive.  >:(

KnC has a large hangar farm up in the North of Sweden.
Electricity is relatively cheap and cooling is natural.

By the way, Norway (not in EU) is almost 100% renewable, seeing is electricity is generated in hydo-powerplants. We do everything with electricity here: heating, cooking, lighting. It's kind of pointless prohibiting hair-driers, when we have 7-8 1000W-1500W panels heating the house 24/7 for better part of the year.

ASICs are just "free" heating. :)

Bitcoin mining is not done in a large scale, I guess we will never have a big percentage of the households to run a miner themselves. What is mentioned in the OP obviously affects everyday use devices that are used by every household.

And yet you're happy to freely use the services and products created in those 2 energy wasting countries  ::)

If you're a consumer you're consuming regardless of where it's coming from.  Unless you're living in a rainforest canopy you're probably not carbon negative.

Why don't they ban vibrators ?

I never though that electricity was inexpensive in Sweden. They have one of the highest tax rates in all of EU. But if a large part of the electricity is produced from the hydro-power plants (as in the case with Norway), then I don't think that anyone will blame them for global warming. Too bad that the other EU nations, such as the UK and Germany don't have major rivers which could be used to generate hydro-power.  ;D