EU energy efficiency regulations

Oh, don't I know how lucky we were. We had boots for winter. One pair between us three brothers. My days were Monday and Thursday. It made the 6 mile walk to school in the snow a real delight. And we had a coat as well…………….

Offsetting is a valid argument IMO.

I make as many reasonable steps to reduce my carbon footprint as I can:

I have bought a smaller, more fuel efficient car.

I cycle to work.

I have changed to lower wattage energy saving light bulbs (except in the listening room, though I am using lower wattage bulbs there too).

I switch off at the wall every piece of electrical equipment except for the Naim system, the Sky+ box, the alarm clock and the fridge and freezer.

I recycle plastic, glass and paper in the boxes provided by the LA and also use the local facilities for recycling clothes, shoes and electrical items. I even donate old spectacles to charities.

I grow fruit and vegetables and compost food waste. 

I have just replaced all my windows and had cavity wall insulation.

I will look at solar panels at some point when my savings have recovered.

However, until Naim can provide me with equipment that hits top form as soon as the power hits the circuitry then I shall keep my kit powered up. Brussels and anyone who does not approve can kiss my backside.

Dear Steve,

In my view it is indeed fortunate that before long all new electronic equipment will be designed to turn itself off when not in use.

Then it will not be a question of moral somersaults to justify the unjustifiable. Waste is never justifiable. It may be accidental, such as leaving a light on all day while at work, but intentional waste is simply wrong.

Of course there is the existing stock of electronic equipment and it will be many years till it all reaches the end of its service life, and people are free to waste finite resources as much as they like with this old style equipment. No law could be framed that could prevent that at a practice level, even if it would be a good idea if the such a law could be implemented effectively.

ATB from George

George, I enjoy your posts and admire your enthusiasm but in your last para I can't agree with what you are saying for two reasons  - I don't believe that the state, and especially the European state, should have the power to tell members of the public when to turn off their own equipment to save electricity for which they are paying and, also, if an adult believes, as many do, that leaving their equipment switched on has an audible benefit for which they are willing to pay, then this isn't waste anyway, it is the cunsumption of electricity for a reason and, as paying consumers, we have the right to make our own decisions on what we spend on money, and use our electricity, on.   Best wishes, David

In that case doing anything that gives a person pleasure is actually justified. Certainly it is justified to the person doing it!

That is the inescapable conclusion of that logic. 

Many morally depraved and criminal people try to justify their predilections and activities by saying what they are doing is not wrong. And truth to tell these people believe it!

ATB from George

But who draws the line George?  If the government decides that music is a frivolous waste of resources does the use of hifi equipment and recording equipment then become a selfish waste leading to it being banned?  Allowing an unelected body (or an elected one for that matter) decide what is waste and what is valuable use of resources within our own homes, whether agree or not is a dangerous route to go down.   I'm a grown adult paying my own bills and I think its up to me and my family to decide what is a good use of electricity and what isn't in our home and not the state - it's all about informed choice

The inescapable result of your logic is that anything that that gives a person pleasure should be banned to save resources.

Absolutely not.

There is harmless pleasure and harmful! This harm will be found in its effects on others ...

Knowing the difference is the trick.

If a person cannot see that wasting electricity by leaving unused electrical/electronic equipment on when not in use is wasteful and morally reprehensible then we have a problem!

The honest solution is either to buy something that works properly without the need for waste or accept a certain limitation on what the equipment can do from cold and so cut out reprehensible waste ...

ATB from George

It is a shame that your reduce the point to the absurd, but there it is!

ATB from George

I used to have a car that consumed resources when I used it. And then it was decided that cars should use less resources.

If I put a solar panel on my roof to keep my equipment powered then can I keep it on?

An interesting question. Not one with a clear cut answer I would think, beyond the question over the resources that went into installing and making a solar panel so as to waste the benefits. I would have to think that one through quite hard to really know what i thought about it! Ask me again in a week, if you like, when I have thought about it!

Another example of this is the widespread use of incandescent lamps for lighting in Norway where almost all the electricity is Hydro-generated. Is it wasteful to do so?

In absolute terms it certainly is, as the spare that might result result from using more efficient light might be sold to Sweden, thus allowing the saving of un-renewable energy.

ATB from George

That was where I was going next

If it is ok for me to have a solar panel then is it ok for the electricity company to have a solar panel and for me to buy its electricity?

If I normally listen to my stereo with the wif then am I being more wasteful if I listen when she is out?

I think that the issue with electricity almost everywhere in the World is that it is generated using finite [un-renewable] resources.

If electricity were entirely or almost entirely - more than perhaps 98 pre cent - generated from renewable sources, then the argument would be different. But possibly uncomfortably, as a race, we must husband resources that are finite, both in terms of climate change and consumption of the Earth's one off resources.

We should be careful that waste is not justified to the detriment of future generations for the two reasons mentioned.

Fair enough that none of us were in on the decision to be born, and as such we may reasonably expect that if we can afford to live comfortably through our own enterprise and effort then we should and without undue conscience, but this does not, in my opinion, exonerate us from responsibility for easily avoided waste, such as leaving on unused electrical and electronic equipment. 

ATB from George

So you draw the line in a different place to me, which is my point. Forcing others to power down their kit to the detriment of their enjoyment is drawing the line at a point I disagree with. We have different views on what is acceptable use and what is waste, the only difference is that I don't think my view should be forced onto others. I agree btw that ideally powering down shouldn't have any impact and we should be able to switch off

Dear Dayjay,

Nothing wrong with probing differences of opinion.

It is cicvil and free. It costs nothing to be civil whilst not in precise accord!

All the best from George

I agree completely George, and I hope you don't find my comments uncivil, they're certainly not intended to be, just debate on an interesting subject on which we have different views.  As I said, I enjoy your posts and admire your enthusiasm and commitment to see something you clearly believe in. I just have a different view on what is and isn't waste.

Best wishes,  David

I have come to the conclusion that many people on this forum agree that leaving Naim equipment powered 24/7 is not waste, but simply part of the cost of ownership required to enjoy reproduced music to its maximum potential.

The financial cost and environmental impact of changing to other equipment, Naim or otherwise in order to avoid this 24/7 energy cost, would outweigh any possible saving in operating costs/impact.

There are far more important things in life to address. The BBC currently has a diagram listing a number of issues that people have real concerns about - things like soil erosion, disease, alien invasion and unknown unknowns. It indicates the probability of annihilation and potential time scales from within a decade to billions of years.

Leaving Naim equipment powered up 24/7, doesn't feature, even within a billion years.

I will enjoy a full night's sleep tonight, the first since this thread started.  

The biggest issue is the proliferation of devices we all have in our homes and the need to power them.  California will be the first place to implement curbs on ‘vampire devices’ that trickle charge power while not in use, it will then be pushed out to the rest of the US/Canada, then the EU and then the world.  But it will be a long while before these are built into devices and are the norm.

The other issue with electricity is lack of localised storage potential, and it’s on demand supply model, until these are resolved demand will keep eating into the supply limitations. Unfortunately solar, wind and hydro while unpredictable might be fine for small areas can’t output enough for high population cities.

My utility has sophisticated consumption monitoring via cellular connection with my meter, offers the option to buy into a Carbon Balance Program, and gives me "credit" for using power in off-hours. We try to run the dryer just before bed and use the delay function on the dishwasher (although I haven't taken to vacuuming at midnight) . Makes me wonder if I'm getting any "credit" for leaving my gear powered 24/7, but I suspect continuous draws are cancelled out of the equation. Still, I wonder whether I'd be penalized under their scheme for powering down my gear at night.

BC derives 90% of its electricity from hydro installations. Its very predictable. And the area is a lot bigger than the UK.

Hydro power is not inherently predictable unless adequate storage capacity is built into the system, typically involving a series of dams used to buffer for peak power consumption and regulate long-term supply during low flow periods as well as non-productive discharge and flood control during high flows. Each dam has an environmental effect within the reservoir it regulates. Animals and vegetation within zones of reservoir fluctuation are affected by power demands in real time, as are their access and egress above and below dams. Salmon are at the forefront of concerns regulating dams in the Pacific Northwest, as is irrigation for crops, and barge transportation. Fortunately, folks here have shown a willingness to pay for the costs associated with mitigating for salmon around dams. But it all comes at a cost and there is no free lunch. When I moved to the Seattle area 20 years ago, hydroelectric was a third the cost of natural gas. Now the two are on par and there is ample natural gas in Alaska begging for use. Construction of a pipeline would be required to tap the natural gas reserves in Alaska.

Don understood, but its only serving 4.6 million people in BC, not the 64 million the UK has. Vancouver as the biggest city only has 2m people, then it drops to 300k for Victoria as the next biggest city.  

Yes, I know. I only provided the information because you originally said hydro can't output enough for high-population cities. Vancouver, with a population of 2m is quite a large city - I flew back today from Vancouver and have spent the past month, hiking, skiing and flying around BC. I accept that BC is sort of unique, but felt it deserved a mention.

The UK is one of the most densly populated nations on earth, so is also unique, and your assessment certainly applies here.

Joe, i agree with much of what you say, especially the lack of a free lunch, however......

Most forms of electricity generation involve changes to the environment, it isn't unique to hydro schemes. So, for example, even wind farms such as those in SW Alberta and throughout the UK, invoke visual intrusion which is diabolicle (IMHO). Their power supply is intermittent, but useful in that it reduces the overall dependency on coal, oil and gas.

Base-load, coal-fired power stations, require deep mining or open-cast mining. Being brought up in the NE of England in the 40's and 50's I was surrounded by subsidence and open-cast mines. Not a delightful environment.

The UK has three (I think, - Foyers, Dinorwig and another) pumped storage hdro-power schemes which do provide a degree of power storage and they are quick to bring on line to cope with peak demands.

In other words, hydro isn't the panacea for all electricity generation, but neither is it a totally unpredictable, environmental disaterous option.

The UK (currently) has a reliable, diverse source of power generation, coal, oil, gas and nuclear. Its primarily the dickhead politicians who agreed to unrealistic carbon reductions, without a properly structured and budgeted replacement plan that is leading us to the brink of power shortages in the comming decade as we start to close down the fosil fuel plants,