The Economics of the Daily Mail

mystic_trev

PasturesNew wrote: »

Also, if you're vacuuming for longer, you're shortening the lifespan of each vacuum, requiring more energy to make another underpowered one for you to buy ... which then needs packaging and transporting.

It's the same with buying a new boiler, you have to have a 'condensing' one by law. They last about half the time as the old conventional ones, and (when they go wrong) the parts are more expensive.

PasturesNew

mystic_trev wrote: »

It's the same with buying a new boiler, you have to have a 'condensing' one by law. They last about half the time as the old conventional ones, and (when they go wrong) the parts are more expensive.

We'll have more poor people in the future without heating/hot water as their boiler's not lasting as long and/or needs fixing at a price they can't afford.

chewmylegoff

Generali wrote: »

It's a good point but does that actually happen? Is your point borne out by empirical evidence?

Perhaps the EU's is.

I use every vaccuum cleaner for the same amount of time regardless of its power output. However the changes may effect me as our cleaner might take 5 minutes longer to do the hoovering which means fewer shirts ironed. Better get a more powerful iron.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

I
It's happened with CO2 emission limits on cars. My two litre diesel today is higher powered with lower emissions than the equivalent agricultural type diesel of a few years ago. Far more reliable too.

Your car is plastered with contraptions which the agricultural diesel didn't have. If any of those contraptions go, you can be looking at over £1,000 a time.

This means (and there is evidence for this), many of the newer diesel cars are being scrapped well before their "end of life" as it's just too expensive to fix them.

The most realiable diesel engine, was actually the agricultural VAG 1.9 TDI PD unit. Nothing since has proved more reliable than that.

And in any case, it's all about petrol again now.

michaels

Generali wrote: »

It's a good point but does that actually happen? Is your point borne out by empirical evidence?

Perhaps the EU's is.

Interesting that you take this postion, normally you ar very keen on letting the market decide?

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Your car is plastered with contraptions which the agricultural diesel didn't have. If any of those contraptions go, you can be looking at over £1,000 a time.

This means (and there is evidence for this), many of the newer diesel cars are being scrapped well before their "end of life" as it's just too expensive to fix them.

The most realiable diesel engine, was actually the agricultural VAG 1.9 TDI PD unit. Nothing since has proved more reliable than that.

And in any case, it's all about petrol again now.

A full life cycle analysis is required to make a true comparison. My anecdotal evidence is that every new car I have is more reliable than the previous car (with the exception of a 2002 Renault!) and, like for like, is better value and safer too.

Just had a quick look on VCA site. A 2001 Vauxhall 2.0L diesel emitted 154g co2 per km and got 37.2 mpg. A 2012 equivalent emits 119g co2 per km and gets 52.3 mpg - these are dramatic differences in only a decade.

Innovation was forced by the market price of fuel but also by tax and legislative changes nudging demand towards more efficient cars.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

A full life cycle analysis is required to make a true comparison. My anecdotal evidence is that every new car I have is more reliable than the previous car (with the exception of a 2002 Renault!) and, like for like, is better value and safer too.

I'm talking here specifically about the bolt on's to newer diesel cars which do exactly what you describe.

Namely the DPF which is responsible for the figures you quote.

Don't really need lifecycle analysis for this. We have the evidence. This is one of those discussions where it's always two camps....the person who never had a problem with their DPF and the person who did.

When your DPF goes wrong, which, it likely will at some point in the cars lifecycle (not neccesarily when you own it), it will cost around £800-£1900 to sort out.

Many motoring groups have done research and analysis on this, including the AA...

AA experience

We're seeing some evidence of DPF systems failing to regenerate even on cars used mainly on motorways.

On cars with a very high sixth gear the engine revs may be too low to generate sufficient exhaust temperature for regeneration.

Occasional harder driving in lower gears should be sufficient to burn off the soot in such cases.

DPF regeneration will be initiated by the ECU every 300 miles or so depending on vehicle use and will take 5 to 10 minutes to complete. You shouldn't notice anything other than perhaps a puff of white smoke from the exhaust when the process is completed.

There's no evidence in AA breakdown data that the problem's going away – newer car models seem just as likely to suffer DPF problems if not driven 'correctly' as those built when DPF's were introduced.

And from Honest John

As widely predicted, the problem is that diesel particulate filters have a limited life of perhaps 80,000 to 100,000 miles before they become completely clogged with ash, cannot be cleaned out or 'replenished' and need to be replaced.

Many owners are now finding out that the cost of that can be anything from £1,000 to £3,500 - possibly as much as the value of the car and certainly far more than the saving on fuel from driving a diesel car rather than a petrol one.

This DPF is the sole reason you can quote the figures you quote.

Car forums are littered with DPF issues. Not to mention the eye watering costs of replacing clutches on diesels thanks to dual flywheels (to dampen down vibrations that the "agricultural" diesels had.

The 1.6 "ECO" diesel units used in Citreon, Peugeot, Renault & Ford are blowing turbos left right and centre, often before 40,000 miles. Requires a new turbo, tubo feed pipe and internal clean. The reason? To cut down emissions, the EGR sends some back into the engine. This coats the engine with ash and deposits which gum up the turbo feed pipes etc, eventually blowing your turbo. Same can be said about the VAG 1.6 units, but to a lesser extent as they saw the problems of the PSA units. The 2 litre VAG units are plagued with blocked injectors for the very same reason.

It's a real shame that this has happened to diesels. Manufacturers can quote pretty numbers, but they are now obliged to do an assessment of your driving before they sell you a diesel car. Not all do though.

The emissisons are not lower. It would require a stroke of magic to use the same fuel but reduce the emissions burnt on exactly the same fuel.

It's simply what comes out of your car is lower. But they have to go somewhere. Hence all the problems associated with sending some of theise emissions back into the engine to be combusted.

daveyjp

michaels wrote: »

According to the BBC 4 out 5 Which 'Best Buys' were over 1600w...If your vacuum uses 25% less power but you have to vacuum for 50% longer to get the desired level of cleanliness how much has the environment benefited? Are we as consumers too stupid to factor energy costs into our buying decisions?

Flawed logic (or Mail/Express logic) as you assume that to get good suction you need a large motor, you don't.

The first vacuum cleaners used far more than 1600w, but the suction was terrible. The result wasn't a higher rated motor, but modifications to how the vacuum worked.

Manufacturers are on board with the changes.

Graham_Devon

They are coming after your hair dryers, kettles and lawn mowers now!

The European Union is considering pulling the plug on high-wattage hair dryers, lawn mowers and electric kettles in a follow up to its controversial ban on powerful vacuum cleaners.

The power of hairdryers could be reduced by as much as 30 per cent in order to be more eco-friendly, a draft study commissioned by Brussels suggests, threatening many of the models favoured by hairdressers and consumers for speedy blow-dries.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11061538/EU-to-ban-high-energy-hair-dryers-smartphones-and-kettles.html

daveyjp

Its only "controversial" because the Telegraph wants it to be.

99.9% of people have no idea what the wattage of their vac is and won't care in a few months time.