1600 W maximum on vacuum cleaners from from Sept!

[kalniel]

This topic keeps coming back to the reasoning required to justify a ban on appliances using lots of electricity. I am finding it harder and harder to agree with the ban the more information and thinking is applied to the actual problem trying to be addressed; far better solutions exist for both the specific industry in question and the wider economy which seem to be unknown to the people making the decision.

Usually it seems that way because they're actually making decisions for reasons we don't know. Ie politics. It might be that a country has a particular manufacturing base in efficient electrical goods and this was offered to them as a sweetner for them agreeing to tougher air pollution restrictions that would otherwise have hit them more than another country. The EU is *ultimately* meant to act in interests of it's citizens, but the link between that and the actions taken can be very long and convoluted.

[watercooled]

*cough*germany*coughcough*

Which politically greenwashed country has ironically raised their carbon footprint and increased their reliance on fossil fuels after the idiotic and short-sighted political decision to shut down a huge amount of nuclear generating capacity before having a sound way of replacing it? Besides importing nuclear power from France just across the border of course.

[watercooled]

As to vacuum cleaners, I think a peak power draw ban is probably sensible, because there is after all only so much suction you need to clean a carpet. I know several people have knocked the Henry but both me and the step-son have found it eminently capable of the task it is asked to do, at only 600W. I'm not saying everyone should get a Henry (tbh, if I could've found one locally I'd've bought the backpack vacuum numatic also make which is just too cool for words ), but it's obviously possible to create a good vacuum cleaner with a 600W motor, so why not put a cap on motor power? There's a hard limit on how efficiently you can vacuum that is determined not by the design of the vacuum cleaner but by how quickly people can push it around the house: giving my Henry twice the suction wouldn't mean I vacuum twice as quickly because I physically couldn't push it round the house twice as quickly. So you'll very quickly get in to a diminishing returns siutation; sure the vacuum cleaner is sucking twice as hard, but you're only getting a 5% boost in efficiency because it's spending most of the time sucking at an already clean piece of carpet. As with many tasks, one strongly suspects that the power of the vacuum cleaner isn't the primary deciding factor in how quickly one finishes vacuuming.

That only really applies to cylinders without any mechanical aid to remove dirt i.e. roller brushes. Powerful uprights are far easier to move across the floor and tend to clean in one pass, vs laboriously scrubbing to death with a cyliner.

Also speaking from experience; as I mentioned earlier, we also have a Henry but thankfully only one carpet. It's a royal PITA to clean it though, the upright it replaced was infinitely more effective at the job until it was given away. I think it was 1800W, but got the job done at least 3-4x faster than the Henry on full power mode, and probably exponentially faster than eco mode as it just never seems to remove all of the visible dust from the dark carpet,

[wasabi]

*cough*germany*coughcough*

Which politically greenwashed country has ironically raised their carbon footprint and increased their reliance on fossil fuels after the idiotic and short-sighted political decision to shut down a huge amount of nuclear generating capacity before having a sound way of replacing it? Besides importing nuclear power from France just across the border of course.

My inlaws are German and some of the crackpot mindset from otherwise very intelligent people is staggering. Have relatives who are engineers, lawyers, teachers - they really believe a bunch of windfarms will power Germany.

[watercooled]

Just a comparison to another appliance where energy saving is a big deal, washing machines have gotten more efficient, and washing detergents more efficient at washing at low temperatures.

This ban is analogous to banning washing machines from shipping with the capability to heat the water. Of course, the detergent box will tell you it works fine with cold tap water, but there are times you want some heat. And heating water uses a lot of energy.

Or banning tumble dryers because, you know, you can hang clothes outside to finish drying them. Dryers will also use vastly more energy than a vacuum. Why have those things not been banned (yet)? Probably because they're

...pants on head retarded...

even though they could make far more of an environmental impact (read: still nothing worth writing home about) than this vacuum nonsense.

The scary thing is that, in light of this silliness, we might be sleepwalking into that sort of culture where governing bodies with questionable motives get to decide what we're allowed to buy and can ban stuff at the drop of a hat. To reiterate again, my anger at this issue is at the principle of trivial bans like this; blanket bans really shouldn't be imposed upon a population without a really, really, really good reason to do so, and with some solid evidence to back that up. That does not apply here, whichever way you look at it.

And no, I don't trust all of their conclusions without question. These are the same sort of people who think wind is a technologically and economically viable source of energy, and 'prove' it by misrepresenting figures hoping no-one notices. For instance, they will state the nameplate capacity of the turbines. Then state they have an x percent loading factor. The bit they don't tell you is that it's the amount of time the turbines are producing *any* power, NOT the percentage of the nameplate peak. And then of course we're presented with average figures when they boast about MWh per year. Yeah, and based on averages we could rely on solar 24/7 without any means of storage . See what I mean?

Back in the real world where variability are real concerns, we need to have some form of reliable backup for when the weather will inevitably not be in our favour e.g. gas CCGT, or OCGT if you need faster response. So on top of the cost of wind, which is already astronomical per unit, you have to start factoring in the cost of building and running the mandatory backup stations if wind begins to make up a significant part of the supply, raising it further. And as I mentioned earlier, big power stations take a long time to respond to demand, so a lot of them would need to have a huge spinning reserve to cope with rapid changes in output from wind i.e. burning the fuel and producing the CO2 they're meant to be preventing, just at vastly increased cost.

[scaryjim]

That only really applies to cylinders without any mechanical aid to remove dirt i.e. roller brushes. Powerful uprights are far easier to move across the floor and tend to clean in one pass, vs laboriously scrubbing to death with a cyliner. ....

Odd - my experience of a wide range of both uprights and cylinders is that it makes very little difference at all. I've certainly never had to scrub at anything with the Henry - it handles pretty much everything on a single pass, and while it is perhaps a little harder to move across the carpet than an upright it's only a marginal difference. Believe me, if it took significantly longer to clean with the Henry my step-son wouldn't put up with it, since vacuuming is one of the ways he earns a bit of extra cash

But besides, none of that actually negates my point, which is that there is still a hard limit as to how quickly you can vacuum a house, which is set by the physical need to move the vacuum across the floor. That may be marginally faster for an upright, but it still means there's a limit on how much suction you need to get the job done: increasing the suction beyond that is not going to gain you any efficiency, because you'll just be sucking harder at the same bit of floor, which will already be clean.

Of course, increasing the suction power on a cylinder can actually make the vacuum cleaner less efficient, because it gets harder to move the head across the carpet. As I said, kick the Henry into turbo mode and on a carpet I simply can't move the head. Even in Eco mode I sometimes need to loosen the bleed vent slightly. I suspect that it is the distance between the carpet and the inlet that has lead to the wattage race in upright vacuum cleaners anyway - a lower power pump just can't genersate enough suction at ground level.

Of course it probably does depend on the exact nature of your carpets too, as well as what's actualy creating the dust you're trying to vacuum up. Our main problem is cat hairs, and the Henry seems to handle those with aplomb.

[watercooled]

Just while I'm on a roll with my rant, this is the sort of tripe we're constantly seeing. Decide for yourselves whether the author is confused, or if they're deliberately attempting to mislead readers:
http://scotland.wwf.org.uk/wwf_artic...sid=5917#fact2

Myth 2: Wind farms are inefficient and only work 30% of the time.

Efficiency is often incorrectly confused with load factor. A modern wind turbine produces electricity 80-85% of the time, generating different outputs depending on the wind speed. The load factor is the ratio of average output over the theoretical maximum output over a period of time (usually a year). For a typical onshore wind farm this is between 28-30%, higher for an offshore wind farm.The load factor of conventional power stations is on average 50% . The efficiency of a UK coal plant is typically only 36% to 39% , as much of the thermal energy is lost as waste heat. Unlike conventional power stations, no energy is wasted with renewables, and any improvements in turbine efficiency will simply mean an increase in the load factor. Indeed the best performing modern wind farms now deliver load factors of close to 50% .

Looks to me like they're the ones confusing load factor and efficiency. 80-85% represents, as I said earlier, the amount of time they're moving at all.

I'm not sure where they've pulled the 28-30% figure from as it's higher than I've observed over the past few years, but even ignoring that, that means we'd need on average (as I said in my last post, average doesn't quite cut it either) over three times the nameplate capacity just to meet demand.

Load factors of load-following power plants CANNOT be compared like they're doing, to baseload sources like wind. Simply because load-following supplies do what it says on the tin, they deliberately adjust output to meet demand so for example coal is used far less in summer than winter. For a better comparison, look at nuclear where the fuel cost is nearly insignificant, which achieves >80-90% load factor depending on age, with that 10-20% often being downtime for refuelling on older reactors which cannot be refulled while in operation, and due to lower temperature deltas in summer meaning lower thermal efficiency.

Their use of that 36-39% figure for coal is very suspicious, immediately after they talk about people being misled in terms of load factor and efficiency. The 'fact' they claim that no energy is lost with renewable is also plain and simple WRONG - what about friction and resistive losses in the turbines, then transmission losses?

And they're the ones complaining about how people are distorting the facts?

All forms of power generation require back up and no energy technology can be relied upon 100%. The UK's transmission system already operates with enough back-up to manage the instantaneous loss of a large power station (for instance when the 1.3 GW Torness nuclear plant shut down in 2011 due to jellyfish ).

There's a world of difference between a spinning reserve to cope with a generation loss, and a backup capable of taking over the entire grid when the wind stops!

[Top_gun]

ny vacuum cleaner that uses collection bags as part of the filtration bag is going to loose efficiency very quickly as the pores of the bag glog up - so if there is less suction, the vacuum will pump a smaller volume of air, so to get a decent flow of air (which is what carries the dust away) the area of application will be smaller. Volume of air is proportional to pressure difference and velocity).

My Miele vacuum cleaner uses a collection bag and I have not notice a loss of suction power. Since Miele has claimed that there is no suction performance loss in their lower wattage eco model (S8340) when compared to its energy guzzling brethen then your argument about longer cleaning time is very much redundant.

As an asthma suffer, I did't want to buy the Dyson cleaner where you would inhale dust flying around as you empty the dust collection canister. The Dyson vacuum cleaners have an history of unreliability and Which magazine rarely award 'Best Buy' status to any of their cylinder machines. Miele, on the other hand, have regularly won Which magazine best buy. Not surprising as their products are well engineered for reliability and functionality.

However, I see the sun has come out, and as my solar_PV_installation is generating considerably more than 1400 Watts, I'll go and do some really energy efficient vacuum cleaning.

Good for you, though there was a severe weather warning when I checked today's weather forecast for Southampton. Are you still living in Southampton?

[kalniel]

There's a world of difference between a spinning reserve to cope with a generation loss, and a backup capable of taking over the entire grid when the wind stops!

Well, yes - it's all about spin really

[watercooled]

Since Miele has claimed that there is no suction performance loss in their lower wattage eco model...

...it must be true!

[wasabi]

Of course it probably does depend on the exact nature of your carpets too, as well as what's actualy creating the dust you're trying to vacuum up. Our main problem is cat hairs, and the Henry seems to handle those with aplomb.

Indeed. We have some very old bare floorboards with gaps the size of chasms. From time to time they need cleared of accuulated fluff. Only a skinny nozzle with the Vax at full tilt shifts it. The little portable job we also have won't touch it or would be puffing away for hours.

If Mr Vax dies I might have to get one of these.

[Top_gun]

...it must be true!

As you are a climate change denialist I think I can safely discount your opinions.

Zak addition: bit rude that tbh, please be nice, ta

[watercooled]

Odd - my experience of a wide range of both uprights and cylinders is that it makes very little difference at all. I've certainly never had to scrub at anything with the Henry - it handles pretty much everything on a single pass, and while it is perhaps a little harder to move across the carpet than an upright it's only a marginal difference. Believe me, if it took significantly longer to clean with the Henry my step-son wouldn't put up with it, since vacuuming is one of the ways he earns a bit of extra cash

But besides, none of that actually negates my point, which is that there is still a hard limit as to how quickly you can vacuum a house, which is set by the physical need to move the vacuum across the floor. That may be marginally faster for an upright, but it still means there's a limit on how much suction you need to get the job done: increasing the suction beyond that is not going to gain you any efficiency, because you'll just be sucking harder at the same bit of floor, which will already be clean.

Of course, increasing the suction power on a cylinder can actually make the vacuum cleaner less efficient, because it gets harder to move the head across the carpet. As I said, kick the Henry into turbo mode and on a carpet I simply can't move the head. Even in Eco mode I sometimes need to loosen the bleed vent slightly. I suspect that it is the distance between the carpet and the inlet that has lead to the wattage race in upright vacuum cleaners anyway - a lower power pump just can't genersate enough suction at ground level.

Of course it probably does depend on the exact nature of your carpets too, as well as what's actualy creating the dust you're trying to vacuum up. Our main problem is cat hairs, and the Henry seems to handle those with aplomb.

I'll try to avoid this bit turning into a perpetual debate, but as you say it may depend on the surface you're cleaning; it certainly makes a *huge* difference on thicker carpets in my experience. There really isn't any room for debate there as far as this use is concerned. I decided on a Henry thinking it would be a reliable, solid performer, and made in UK IIRC. While we've not really had it long enough to judge the former, it has been reliable so far, but performs terribly vs the upright with brush on carpets. Also the angled pipe at the end of the hose seems to be made from a poor choice of plastic as it cracked within a few weeks of owning it and it's now held together with duct tape, not that it's relevant to the topic.

And again, without meaning to sound repetitive, even with the 'it probably won't be an issue' argument, where is there a solid reason for a blanket ban? That's what I'm getting at, and have been all along.

[watercooled]

As you are a climate change denialist I think I can safely discount your opinions.

So I have have both poor maths skills and refuse to accept climate change now, eh? Not my day is it?
How exactly did you infer this? At what point in my walls of text have I refuted the relationship between CO2 and climate change?
Or is it just because I don't fall for greenwashing fallacies that I must therefore not believe in climate change? The two are independant, just FYI.

As a wise man once said:

Always good lines to take when one's own arguments are weak - and one adopted by many EU apologists. Inspirational.

I.e. I said nothing of the sort; you're just trying to sully my arguments with laughable accusations.

In direct response to your post; you're echoing the marketing claims of a manufacturer. Are you therefore accepting this as solid, impartial, scientific evidence?

[MrRockliffe]

With Dyson being British, let's hope they don't just downsize current models and instead make use of lower power.

[Top_gun]

In direct response to your post; you're echoing the marketing claims of a manufacturer. Are you therefore accepting this as solid, impartial, scientific evidence?

Well Miele is a reputable manufacturer so I'd take their claim seriously plus the fact that Which magazine has awarded their lower power vacuum cleaner as a best buy is more than enough to counteract your hearsay evidence.

With Dyson being British, let's hope they don't just downsize current models and instead make use of lower power.

All Dyson vacuum cleaners are manufactured in Malaysia. Many of Dyson models are well below the EU directive threshold for wattage.