People thinking that they are saving money from more energy efficient products

[peterb]

He was talking about my OP - why don't you look at what he was quoting. So at this point he needs to prove that I am wrong!

Did I say "all" people are gullible - emm what??

also like how some of you ignore the third point and make it sound like I am against spending extra on more efficient items.

You didn't - and I did not say you did - you actually said 'most' but that was not my point. But if you prefere to rephrase it, what is your definition of most/ and if that came from talking to people, what is the sample size? You are stating it as fact - of course, it might only be an opinion based on people you have talked to, which is a different matter.

don't seem to understand the cost of leccy per kWh,or actual power draw differences or even what the relevant load differences are,or where to even find the information.

True, a point I made early on in the thread.

did I say 9/10 were gullible?? Emm,what??

Again, you didn't. What you said, and what I questioned was

But 9/10 people actually do since they are thinking they will save money -

Allow me....

51 percent.

Pretty random irrelevance, unless I have truly missed something in there!

The best thing is the assertion was made about people I had talked too - the whole "all" thing was what Topgun added to the mix. Yet in my OP I did not say all people. Maybe I should invoke Nazis now.

Another bit of random irrelevance?

But the basis of your OP is:

It is rarely worth changing a component that is still serviceable for something that is more energy efficient without doing the sums to see if the return on investment is worthwhile - which I'd agree with. (I guess you'd agree that it might be worth buying more energy efficient equipment as a replacement for a failed item, provided the same ROI sums were applied - and an alternative less efficient product could be found for a lower price?)

Some people (we'll agree to differ on the percentage as it cannot be determined) eople who buy energy efficient items on the basis that it will automatically save them money are mislead by marketing claims and don't do their homework to see if the claims are applicable to their particular circumstances?

Is that a fair summary of your position? None of which I would particularly disagree with in general.

However, I would go further and submitthat the use of energy efficient products (certainly in temperate or cold climates) might be self defeating, because the heat that les efficient products generate contribute to the overall heating of the domestic environment (ie, the boundary of the home or office) and reducing that heat input might be compensated for by an increase in other heating methods.

The follow on from that (IMHO) is that the only real way to reduce energy consumption is by reducing the overall heat loss from the home so that the heat generated by appliances makes a significantly greater contribution to the heating of the domestic environment so that the use of appliances/equipment/installations designed solely for heating is reduced.

[wasabi]

Pretty random irrelevance, unless I have truly missed something in there!

51 percent of the world's population believe there is a magic man in the sky. Therefore more than half the world's population believe a load of ridiculous poppycock.
Ergo gullible.
Ergo statement people are gullible is statistically true.

[peterb]

51 percent of the world's population believe there is a magic man in the sky. Therefore more than half the world's population believe a load of ridiculous poppycock.
Ergo gullible.
Ergo statement people are gullible is statistically true.

Ah, as I thought - no relevance to the topic of energy efficient components (or to serious statistical analysis )

[wasabi]

The follow on from that (IMHO) is that the only real way to reduce energy consumption is by reducing the overall heat loss from the home so that the heat generated by appliances makes a significantly greater contribution to the heating of the domestic environment so that the use of appliances/equipment/installations designed solely for heating is reduced.

I live in an area of 1950s houses. I bothered 5 years ago to put a load of loft insulation in (paid for by me, no grants). Noticably in winter our house is one of approx the 10 percent in the area where there is snow/ice on the roof on cold days. Everywhere else the slates are free from the cold stuff.

We have a large shed and no kids so not much pressure on our living space, so don't need the attic as a junk storage area. Shifting the junk out was the single biggest job of the project. Attics are an interesting thing because it is the place where stuff goes you really know should be going in the bin. Xmas tree excluded of course. If these figs are true, holding onto junk is worth a couple of hundred quid a year to most households.

[wasabi]

Ah, as I thought - no relevance to the topic of energy efficient components (or to serious statistical analysis )

YOU asked for evidence whether people are gullible.

[peterb]

I live in an area of 1950s houses. I bothered 5 years ago to put a load of loft insulation in (paid for by me, no grants). Noticably in winter our house is one of approx the 10 percent in the area where there is snow/ice on the roof on cold days. Everywhere else the slates are free from the cold stuff.

We have a large shed and no kids so not much pressure on our living space, so don't need the attic as a junk storage area. Shifting the junk out was the single biggest job of the project. Attics are an interesting thing because it is the place where stuff goes you really know should be going in the bin. Xmas tree excluded of course. If these figs are true, holding onto junk is worth a couple of hundred quid a year to most households.

Yes, those are interesting figures. My house is fairly modern, so it has loft insulation (between the ceiling rafters to the depth of the rafters and is partly boarded as well) - and the loft is cold in winter as well as being a store of the the sort of stuff you describe!

I also have cavity wall insulation, so the next thing I need to look at is improving the windows, which are wooden framed, double glazed, but only 4mm spacing. I would like to replace them with triple glazing, but I need to look at the costs. The seals on some of the panels have failed and ned replacing anyway, so the question comes down to cost. The central heating boiler is pretty old, but basic, so apart from the capital cost of replacing it with a modern condensing boiler, the se servicing costs would increase, and if I increase the insulation of the house, the existing (relatively) inefficient boiler will be using les energy anyway, so the RoI is correspondingly lower.

Of course, ROI is not just monetary, there is the comfort factor, and better double glazing (or triple glazing) would cut down ambient noise. slightly and possibly reduce the maintenance requirement on the frames.

[Top_gun]

But you seem to be also in denial at the amount of electronic waste being generated each year:

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainab...lectronic-junk

Recycling cannot keep up and its being dumped in the 3rd world with massive economic and environmental consequences.

Cool,lets just upgrade all the time. Its not like the rest of the world needs clean land and water.

No, I'm not in denial in the amount of electronic waste being generated each year. I very much doubt energy efficiency is the driver for the waste. What drives electronic waste is when manufacturers constantly update their products and refuse to support their obsolete products. For example, I have an old Canon scanner which still works perfectly yet Canon refuses to release new drivers to work with newer windows OS.

Unfortunately for everyone,if most people could do the maths,we would not be nearly 1.4 trillion pounds in debt,and in the middle of a generally rattled economy.

The £1.4 trillion has nothing to do with people being bad at maths. That's another absurd assertion. Rather, a substantial figure was used to bail out the greedy bankers who caused havoc to our economy. Also paying for our roads, our transport infrastructure, hospitals, school buildings, our energy infrastructure, military, etc.

That is a bold statement - on what basis do you state that? Is that the direct cost of running the appliance? But are you taking into account the side effects?

I bought myself an energy monitoring device from Maplin and each of my appliances was rated in terms of energy consumption. The fridge freezer consumed about 1200 kwh and was replaced with a newer one which uses just 150 kwh. Assuming that each unit cost 10p means I've saved over a hundred pounds a year. In reality, the savings are much bigger because I'm paying more for each unit of electricity and it hasn't account for predicted rise in cost to subsidise your spanking new solar panel or rising energy cost!

Of course, this saving is reflected in my electricity bill.

I don't buy the theory of side effects. For example, the heat generated through my modem is wasted because it's not controllable. I can't turn off the heat during summer, when I go out or go to bed. Heat generated through electricity is expensive compared to heat generated through my central heating which is two-thirds cheaper and more controllable.

The only real and guaranteed way of using less energy is to reduce the overall thermal loss from the rom (or house) ie - better insulation.

I'm interested in aerogel so once their prices drop to a reasonable level then I may apply them to my home.

[DanceswithUnix]

Of course, ROI is not just monetary, there is the comfort factor, and better double glazing (or triple glazing) would cut down ambient noise. slightly and possibly reduce the maintenance requirement on the frames.

I was wondering about putting some insulation on my garage door: http://www.screwfix.com/p/ybs-loft-i...ack-of-1/76477

The garage temperature would impact on the house temperature in the winter, specially the kitchen. I have no idea how much though, but if it makes it nicer to sit at my garage workbench in the winter then I think it is worth doing anyway (specially as it isn't that expensive a job compared to something like boiler replacement).

[Zak33]

I live in an area of 1950s houses. I bothered 5 years ago to put a load of loft insulation in (paid for by me, no grants). Noticably in winter our house is one of approx the 10 percent in the area where there is snow/ice on the roof on cold days. Everywhere else the slates are free from the cold stuff.

I live in a 90's house and I did mine too, 18 inches deep wher I could (though boarded out in other areas).. and the snow stays on it for days, and other neighbours are dry by the evening!

And you can tell which rooms have the thickest insulation over them upstairs on a cold day!

[mikeo01]

51 percent of the world's population believe there is a magic man in the sky. Therefore more than half the world's population believe a load of ridiculous poppycock.
Ergo gullible.
Ergo statement people are gullible is statistically true.

Well no because I could say:
49 percent of the world's population believe there is not a magic man in the sky. Therefore more than half the world's population believe a load of ridiculous poppycock.
Ergo gullible.
Ergo statement people are gullible is statistically true.

Same both ways.

Both sides are gullible.

You may opt to buy energy efficient products because the big companies tell you to and that they tell you it is "super duper efficient".
Whilst others may opt not to buy it because they believe it is a load of rubbish, thinking efficiency is overhyped.


You need a balance and an understanding. As some have mentioned, unless you use your head and realise you need both to achieve efficiency (a.k.a that energy efficient heating along with wall, loft insulation and bleeding common sense (turn stuff off).

[wasabi]

Well no because I could say:
49 percent of the world's population believe there is not a magic man in the sky. Therefore more than half the world's population believe a load of ridiculous poppycock.
Ergo gullible.
Ergo statement people are gullible is statistically true.

two points of view:

1 has no proof whatsoever other than some people have a vague feeling of 'his presence is all around us' and self-referential poppycock from some book a weirdo wrote a long time ago.

2 the other point of view is to not believe made up poppycock.

[wasabi]

I live in a 90's house and I did mine too, 18 inches deep wher I could (though boarded out in other areas).. and the snow stays on it for days, and other neighbours are dry by the evening!

And you can tell which rooms have the thickest insulation over them upstairs on a cold day!

I used two layers of eco-wool over the top of the existing single layer. Wonderful stuff because it isn't scratchy and is made from recycled plastic bottles.

Have thought about putting some raised shelving and a few walkways up there for storage, but so far not desperately needed the space.

Next thing I'm considering is putting some polystyrene insulation on the inside of external facing walls. Probably piecemeal as and when SWMBO decides we need to redecorate those rooms. Despite cavity wall insulation they're noticably cold to the touch in winter. A reading from one of those heat sensors would be interesting, but I suspect we're already ticked off the big easy wins..

[Top_gun]

I've replaced an ageing DECT cordless telephone, which wasn't working well, for a more energy efficient model. According to my calculations, the energy savings have paid for the cost of replacement and will continue to save me money year after year. Same again for my newer router which replaced an ageing set of modem and router.

Of course, the savings are much higher as I assumed the cost of a unit as 10p kwh and as we all know the cost of electricity has risen and will continue to rise.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

You didn't - and I did not say you did - you actually said 'most' but that was not my point. But if you prefere to rephrase it, what is your definition of most/ and if that came from talking to people, what is the sample size? You are stating it as fact - of course, it might only be an opinion based on people you have talked to, which is a different matter.



True, a point I made early on in the thread.




Again, you didn't. What you said, and what I questioned was






Pretty random irrelevance, unless I have truly missed something in there!



Another bit of random irrelevance?

I keep talking about people I have interacted with and had such discussions on forums,randomly in real-life and the internet?? Thats a full subset of people from non-degree level to those with PhDs,etc.

If you are talking sample size - over a 100 or so(I keep loosing track of how many times on tech forums I keep having to do calculations for people,so probably even more) so far over the last few years.

look at the AMD price cuts threads and how people are getting confused about saving money in electricity. If people on technical forums still get confused about these things,what hope is there in the realworld - the only people I know who actually seem to do the maths well are those with a technical background/technical minded in the first place.

The UK does not rank well for general numeracy skills anyway:

http://www.theguardian.com/education...ic-skills-oecd

People tend to trust what is told to them without actually trying to verify such claims.

This is why I think the media does play an important role,but ultimately I don't see them doing a good enough job of informing people IMHO.

But the basis of your OP is:

It is rarely worth changing a component that is still serviceable for something that is more energy efficient without doing the sums to see if the return on investment is worthwhile - which I'd agree with. (I guess you'd agree that it might be worth buying more energy efficient equipment as a replacement for a failed item, provided the same ROI sums were applied - and an alternative less efficient product could be found for a lower price?)

Some people (we'll agree to differ on the percentage as it cannot be determined) eople who buy energy efficient items on the basis that it will automatically save them money are mislead by marketing claims and don't do their homework to see if the claims are applicable to their particular circumstances?

Is that a fair summary of your position? None of which I would particularly disagree with in general.

However, I would go further and submitthat the use of energy efficient products (certainly in temperate or cold climates) might be self defeating, because the heat that les efficient products generate contribute to the overall heating of the domestic environment (ie, the boundary of the home or office) and reducing that heat input might be compensated for by an increase in other heating methods.

The follow on from that (IMHO) is that the only real way to reduce energy consumption is by reducing the overall heat loss from the home so that the heat generated by appliances makes a significantly greater contribution to the heating of the domestic environment so that the use of appliances/equipment/installations designed solely for heating is reduced.

Yes,pretty much what I am trying to say,but at least from my experience I would say people tend NOT to do the maths,and trust what is told to them by the media. In fact its telling thing when if you ask people how much they pay per kWh - it tends to draw a big blank.

On top of this for things like computers,a lot of power measurements are not based on running anything relevant.
You really need to hunt around for the information.

No, I'm not in denial in the amount of electronic waste being generated each year. I very much doubt energy efficiency is the driver for the waste. What drives electronic waste is when manufacturers constantly update their products and refuse to support their obsolete products. For example, I have an old Canon scanner which still works perfectly yet Canon refuses to release new drivers to work with newer windows OS.

The constant upgrade cycle tends to be more the problem,more than even built in obsolescence - plenty of products will work and be supported past more than a few years. But we live in a very consumerist culture anyway.

The £1.4 trillion has nothing to do with people being bad at maths. That's another absurd assertion. Rather, a substantial figure was used to bail out the greedy bankers who caused havoc to our economy. Also paying for our roads, our transport infrastructure, hospitals, school buildings, our energy infrastructure, military, etc.

LOL,where have you been in the last decade or so??

It was bad maths,with massive risk taking with overconfident estimates and assumptions with lead to the banking sector screwing up. It was bad maths,with risk taking with overconfident estimates and assumptions with lead to governments basing more and more optimistic growth predictions on the banking sectors and an overinflated housing market with NO fallback,and our poxie lot selling off large quantities of our gold at a time when it was at a historic low.

It was bad maths,and risk taking with overconfident estimates with lead to people paying beyond the odds for homes,buying excessive amounts of items on higher purchase and credit cards like cars,phones,holidays while at the same time not saving enough.

If people's maths were fine,we would not be in this bloody mess now,would we??

In fact the 1929 stock crash was due to people taking on debt to play the stock market and get rich(like people doing with homes) and taking debt on to buy consumer products. When the sums did not add up,it all came tumbling down.

Even if you take mortgages out of the equation,people are mired in debt.


I think we will need to agree to disagree like I said before.

I bought myself an energy monitoring device from Maplin

One work of warning - not all of the energy monitors are fully accurate from what I gather,so even though you will see bulk changes(upwards or downwards),they might lack accuracy.

[mikeo01]

two points of view:

1 has no proof whatsoever other than some people have a vague feeling of 'his presence is all around us' and self-referential poppycock from some book a weirdo wrote a long time ago.

2 the other point of view is to not believe made up poppycock.

I won't get into a discussion about it as it is irrelevant to the thread.

However two simple points back. Reverse those sentences.

Both views and theories are made from humans, who are naturally arrogant and simply ignorant.

What we have created has come from our limited knowledge capacity, "evidence" from our own perceptions, and creations from our own simple limited minds and understanding.


In other words, what I am trying to say is that both sides are equal and effectively cancel each other out, as both come from that same origin; arrogant, ignorance humans with a restricted understanding capacity and limited perceptions.



And to make this point relevant to this thread, it is exactly the same. Human achievement is limited, understanding is limited and fundamentally ignorance and arrogance come into play.

One may buy into the whole efficiency argument whilst one may go completely against it. The ultimate rule of thumb is this: these are man made products, we are only just understanding what the heck efficiency means (rule out bills, think environmental), yet people will use them regardless of their motive.

The only real way to be efficient is to try and incorporate natural elements into the mix, then you are not solely relying on the thing that is actually costly and damaging. Think gardens, insulation, using natural sources etc etc.


It is a back hander because to use natural sources you must fork out money and emissions to actually create those things. So guess what? Either way has a negative impact. Either think in the long run or cut back your habits. Because the industrial resolution got us here and you can't reverse history.


Both sides cancel themselves out

[wasabi]

In other words, what I am trying to say is that both sides are equal and effectively cancel each other out, as both come from that same origin; arrogant, ignorance humans with a restricted understanding capacity and limited perceptions.

Until there is evidence of an intergalactic pink star-banana which shed seeds onto the planet to create the trees, I won't believe that either.