Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Anybody have any ideas about what actually should constitute the basics of a good "green" vacuum cleaner?

I was checking out the Eureka Envirovac's ad claims and specs -- plus some not so favorable customer reviews today. They got me thinking.

Eureka claims that it's Envirovac's 800-watt motor uses less power than the 1200-watt vacuums now quite common on the market. We've had a long run of vacuum cleaners that have served us well using well under 800 watts for many years. So what's the difference?

Is it possible that an efficient 1200-watt vacuum may help get my work finished faster and even out the power consumption question by way of shorter use time? Also keep in mind that the whole issue of a vacuum cleaner's power consumption is highly debatable. Over a year, power used for vacuuming no where near matches the amount of draw by refrigerators, electric ranges and high heat producing appliances within the same span of time.

Better bagged and bagless vacuums do use final filtering medium that may prove a noticeable hit on the wallet if not our ecology. Dumping a dirt bin or water-pan in some ways may lend to saving on what you'd pay for bags although the variable there may hang upon size and price. We use far more paper and plastic by way of other household disposables like diapers and personal paper goods.

The few matters mentioned are just the tip of the iceberg when considering the total question. Maybe an ecologically beneficial vacuum cleaner, or any other appliance for that matter, can be more "green" by way of potential longevity and easy repairability. Biodegradable, recyclable, whatever -- brands and models we've seen endure and provide useful service over long periods of time may be the greenest cleaning machines we'll know by reason of less need for replacement. How do we keep that in the mix while moving ahead?

Venson

PS on my post:  It would behoove dyson to enter into such agreements with disposal sites to reduce the number of used [these are clearly not eligible for refurb] dysons and dyson parts on the vacuum market which ultimately compete with the new dyson vacuum and parts prices.

Carmine D.

Venson wrote:
Hi Venson,
There certainty has been a trend over the years away from repairing appliances toward a 'dump and replace' mentality. Often it's more cost effective and easier to throw something out in the trash and have a replacement selected on the internet and sent direct to your door. Many people have precious free time in this day and age, but this rash consumerism isn't so great for its impact on the environment.

My dad being an engineer, virtually everything around our house was repaired by him. When the Dyson DC04 stopped working a few years back, he took it apart, found the problem and ordered a replacement motor which he fitted himself. Naturally, he's in the small minority of people who can and would actually do this.

The refurb market certainly appears healthy for Dyson cleaners. My granddad could have easily budgeted for a brand new Dyson, as the inheritance he left my family was to show. But he was more than happy with a refurbed DC04. As you state, it's down to the perceived appeal of the brand, but also the value added through unique design features that make the cleaners retain a lot of their value.

Interestingly, there's a reverse trend to this in IT. If you're fitting out a small office with a workgroup server you can spend in the region of 1,200 GBP on a Microsoft server licence and 1,500 GBP on the hardware. The Microsoft-based solution is very comprehensive, but if your needs are basic (as most small businesses are) it is possible to acquire an old desktop PC for say 150 GBP and use 'free' open source server software to offer much the same service. This is same type of open source software that gave Google their huge advantage over the internet search market. They converted 'free' software to their requirements and used commodity hardware to achieve massive growth at a low cost.

CarmineD wrote:
Hi Carmine,
The disposal site in question is run by the local authority, so if a supplier was looking to acquire the used appliances to prevent them ending up as refurbs, they would have to contact each local authority individually. Personally, I think it's unlikely that a company would go to this much trouble, partially as it could generate a lot of negative publicity if they were being seen to use underhand tactics.

The Dyson collection service is positive environmentally speaking, but also commercially. They're already dispatching a new cleaner to an address, so it doesn't cost a great deal more to collect the old one. It helps maintain their obligations under the WEEE directive. As mentioned, any Dyson's vacs collected will likely be recycled, rather than going to refurb. It's also a convenient value-added service for the customer, which allows Dyson to compete with their resellers, without discounting their recommended selling prices - hence why they have to use 'free' accessory kits for promotional offers on current lines.

Hello M00seUK:

In my view it is very easy to do.  The local disposals need only a dyson contact name and number to call after X number of dysons are accumulated at the dump.  Then a pick up is made.  Or, a set day every month for a pick up at each of the dumps.  Quite simple.  The positive spin of course would be recycling not artificially keeping the prices high on new products and parts. 

In their infancy, several of the big vacuum sellers in the US routinely bought up their old used/trashed/traded in models from all sources who were agreeable.  And "reconditioned" the old vacuums to original specifications and resold them thru company stores at company set prices.  The companies' reconditioned vacuum programs were especially successful during the great Depression years and the WW 11 years and after.  Eventually there was competition among buyers for the old/used vacuums and the sources sold to the highest paying bidders, not always the original companies.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
I dunno if it differs in the US, but in Europe there's ever increasing taxes levied on landfill to encourage the local authorities to recycle items wherever possible. For example the CRT TVs that are disposed of, they have the option of either paying a landfill tax to bury them or to sell them for a small amount to a recycling company who will break down all the glass and metal for resale. So it's a fair assumption to make in this case that all the vacuums are being recycled, but that the Dyson's are being separated out for some reason.

If someone like Dyson was to offer a price to collect their machines from the disposal site to prevent refurbs entering the market, how could they use the recycling defence if all the machines were destined for recycling in the first place? I think it's likely that the local authority can say sell vacuums on for recycling at say 5 GBP, but can pass on the Dysons for spare parts / refurbs at say 25 GBP per unit.

M00seUK:

If you're inclined to think/believe that dyson would only pay 5 GBP to buy its vacuums to recycle and not 25 then you might have a valid point.  However, knowing dyson has the most to lose and the least to gain by offering 5 if the market is paying more, I suspect local disposal officials would sell to the highest bidder.  The question becomes who is willing to pay more and why?

Carmine D.

 

"So it's a fair assumption to make in this case that all the vacuums are being recycled, but that the Dyson's are being separated out for some reason."
 M00seUK

Agree.  There are buyers willing to pay for these dysons rather than see them get dumped/disposed like the other brands.  My question is as I said: Who is willing to pay/bid the price up and why?  More than likely the price paid per dyson fluctuates from site to site depending on the supply and demand.  And more than likely dyson, if it does sanction buying these from the sites, allocates an amount in total for the purpose/program rather than establishing an amount for each one bought.  The expense would more than likely be categorized by dyson as recycling costs regardless of the final use and disposition of old dysons.

Carmine D. 

As a related talking point, it was common knolwedge for many years, and perhaps still, that the US government spent more in recycling costs to collect and dispose properly of old paper and metals than it actually was able to recoup in funds for usage.  But the expense was long justified as being environmentally and politically correct as opposed to profitable.

Carmine D.

Deleted.

CarmineD wrote:
Not quite. My point was that a dumped vacuum might be sold on for a nominal price, like 5 GBP, for recycling but clearly there's a reason that the Dyson's are kept separate, because they are can actively be sold on for a better price. Usually, items left will instantly become the property of the site owner and if anyone wants to remove them, they will have to agree on a price.

Dyson would have little justifiable reason for uplifting the vacuums, other than to discourage after sales of machines and parts. It's like if you need a replacement car door, you might call a junk yard to see if they have the same model as a write off... and Ford, say, actively going around buying up all the car doors off their scrapped cars to prevent lost sales through their authorised repairers. It's a lot of work and most people would find it desperately underhand if it was exposed.

In this case, being a local authority is would be fairly simple for anyone to put in a FoI request and find out if the disposed vacs are sold to single person / company or not.