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

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.

M00seUK:

Not quite [back at you].  Salvage and junk yards are in the used car parts business for the profit motive.  Dumps/disposals are not in the business to resell garbage for profit.  They charge recycling/dumping fees to defray the expenses of operation which are funded by local taxing authorities.  I agree with you that there is something more done with dysons.  You opine that independent vacuum dealers/persons are buying up the dumped dysons and reselling either in whole or for parts.  You may well be right.  I opine that dyson may be doing the very same.  More than likely both may be in competition and bidding the prices up.  I stated that this is not uncommon.  Several very successful vacuum companies, in their infancy and before recycling was an issue, did this in the USA with huge success in reselling the old vacuums as reconditioned to factory specs.  And set the prices.

The dumps are indifferent to who buys the dysons and why.  They will sell most likely to the highest bidder.  Who has the most to gain as the highest bidder.  Independents acting willy nilly at the whim of after market buyers and/or dyson with the ability to write off the expenses as business related? 

Carmine D.   

CarmineD wrote:

Hi Carmine

  I agree.....money talks and CASH is king......and dyson as i see it has the most to lose by not buying them up. this would be a way to control the market on used/refurb parts...allowing him to keep all dyson prices high......overpriced. ....all is fair in war......and im suprised all dont do it. Cant say i blame dyson for it tho..... id do it also in all honesty. .youll try anything when your in a sinking ship....desperate times call for desperate measures.

turtle1

Hi 'turtle1'

CASH, or in this case, GBP.  On the barrel head.  Cash and carry for junked dysons.  No checks, no receipts.  In theory, the dump has rules and regulations on how these funds should be collected, reported and used to defray the costs of dump/disposal operations.  In theory.  In practice, what really happens? 

Carmine D.

Oh boy.  Idle hands...

Between [so-called] Severus’ Boycott Dyson theory, Carmine’s and Retardturtle’s Dyson’s conspiracy theories, I’d say you guys could use some much needed down time.

Hey, I hear the next Star Trek convention is just around the corner.  Pace yourselves and stay focused on what really matters....  the prize... the convention, and being with others who are like-minded.  Phasers off.


DIB