BF2S Forums low energy electronics: are they pointless?

Low energy electronics = lower power bill.

[PTG]shogun wrote:

who is going to replace something that isnt broken or very old?

That's not the point. When the time comes where people need to buy new appliances, better ones will be available. Technology does not remain stagnant.

Last edited by Cerpin_Taxt (2007-06-09 05:39:26)

Low energy electronics are obviously better. They are more efficient, produce less heat, consume less power (obviously) and are a natural progression.

Saying they are pointless is really, purely and simply, idiotic.

For a start the additional cost of such devices is typically offset by savings in energy bills very quickly and it's not a pretence that they help the environment, they do, obviously. They also reduce strain on the national power system and reduce global consumption of limited fuels. Of course they're not pointless - to suggest so is ridiculous.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-06-09 06:25:34)

mcminty wrote:

Using them may be all good and well, but unless the actual generation of electricity is stepped down, it won't make one bit of difference.


Mcminty.

Less demand = less energy generated. Any way of slowing the increase in demand is a very good thing.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-06-09 06:41:29)

[PTG]shogun wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Low energy electronics are obviously better. They are more efficient, produce less heat, consume less power (obviously) and are a natural progression.

Saying they are pointless is really, purely and simply, idiotic.

For a start the additional cost of such devices is typically offset by savings in energy bills very quickly and it's not a pretence that they help the environment, they do, obviously. They also reduce strain on the national power system and reduce global consumption of limited fuels. Of course they're not pointless - to suggest so is ridiculous.

my point it that A) nothing is built to last anymore
B) saying that they are good for the environment is pointless
C) by the time there are used we wont be using limited fuels

im not saying that they are by nature pointless (i probably did but im not too good at getting my point across and that's not what i meant) but SOME of the reasoning behind them is

A) That's because everthing is built more cheaply, typically at lower quality in China. It leads to cheaper electronic goods than have ever been available. For a washing machine (for example) to be profitable, it must be manufactured for less than £10, due to all the other costs incurred and the competetiveness of the marketplace.

B) They are good for the environment. How is saying it pointless?

C) They are used currently. Last time I checked fossil fuels were still the main form of energy generation.


Take low energy light bulbs, they cost a minute amount more to manufacture, which is passed on to the consumer, who saves money over the life span of the device.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-06-09 06:55:30)

DeathHasDualPistols wrote:

Last time you checked. He's talking about the future.

No he isn't. He said "C) by the time there are used we wont be using limited fuels". They are used now, now is not the future. We still use fossil fuels.

Low energy devices are in use all over the place. Not just by a few eco-freaks.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-06-09 06:58:46)

If nothing else, they keep the electric bill down, and ComEd (the electric company) is talking about a massive rate hike, so energy efficient appliances are certainly a plus.

DeathHasDualPistols wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

DeathHasDualPistols wrote:

Last time you checked. He's talking about the future.

No he isn't. He said "C) by the time there are used we wont be using limited fuels". They are used now, now is not the future. We still use fossil fuels.

Read the edit.

The edit is nonsense. Loads of people use low energy devices. It is a major sales point from a marketing perspective.

For your sake, I will write the important words in capitals.
Loads of People. That isn't EVERYONE. The only way to get EVERYONE to use products that are more electrically effective is if the government forces EVERYONE to use something 5 or more stars.

[PTG]shogun wrote:

its not that they use less electricity its that they cost a lot more AND use the pretences of helping the environment

and people may feel like they are doing a good thing buying this product

and people feeling good will sell your product, doesnt matter if its any good or not

Bertster7 wrote:

Low energy electronics are obviously better. They are more efficient, produce less heat, consume less power (obviously) and are a natural progression.

Saying they are pointless is really, purely and simply, idiotic.

For a start the additional cost of such devices is typically offset by savings in energy bills very quickly and it's not a pretence that they help the environment, they do, obviously. They also reduce strain on the national power system and reduce global consumption of limited fuels. Of course they're not pointless - to suggest so is ridiculous.

nah solar energy's over rated, unless you live somewhere where there's huge amounts of natural light, e.g. nevada then you don't always have enough light to generate useable amounts of electricity, many solar power panels are better off used as battery chargers on sunny days as you can't run a house with them. they also take 10 years or more to actually start being energy efficient as they take huge amounts of power and plastics etc... to make so to actually get environmentally friendly energy from them it takes 10 years to offset the carbon footprint thats made by making them (sorry its long winded i forgot the word i meant, it was carbon footprint)

wind turbines generally taek about 7 years or more (depending on where they're situated ) to offset there carbon footprint and they don't generate enough energy alot of the time,  there's an offshore field of them about 7-8 miles from me and whenever you walk along hte beach you can see that msot of the blades on them aren't moving therefore they're not generating electricity. so they're even worse.

nucleur fusion is the best principle but we don't have that at the moment and the amount of radioactive material on earth limits its use as well, but they think that there's huge amounts of helium -3 on the moon and that stuffs so radioactive that a single space shuttle full of the stuff could power the world through fission for a year, at the planets current energy requirements moment anyway

untill we get nucleur fusion there's always nucleur fission but that is relatively safe although relatively's still not too good a thing, and the sheer amount of popular protest in the uk means that there are few of them. Although the new laws that will be brought out about building planning are probably because of this (instead of people being able to complain about the building of something like a nucleur power plant or a new supermarket and get it cancelled, large scale projects can go straight to a local or national (depending on the size of the object) council vote so if they want a new nucleur power plant people can't complain and they can build it anyway. ) thats really the reason for the proposed new planning laws.

Anyway untill there's fusion one of hte best ways to generate power is through geothermal energy which is when you dig a large boar hole (about 30-100 meters deep, depending on your geographic area) and pour cold water into it, if its dug properly then the earths natural heat will heat up the water and pump it back upwards as its expanding ang due to the curve at the bottom of the hole that means the water doesn't just hit the bottom with a splash and lose all its kinetic (movement) energy. so you pour cold water down and hot water or even steam depending on the depth comes up which can be used to generate electricity or heat a house. sadly though for the average house geothermal energy would cost about £30,000 + to use and although you would get your money back through not having to pay for energy its still a large amount for people who are building the house or just want clean energy.

so untill any good methods become widespread we need low energy items so we use less energy so less energy needs to be created at power plants.

also clean energy and low energy objects are alot more popular and supported by the eu governments than in the us. you just need to think of all the trouble thats happened with the kyoto treaty with china and the us where europe quickly and unanimously agreed upon it straight away unlike america.

god i ramble on sometimes.