Dion's "Liberal Green Shift" carbon tax Plan

[stevoh]

What a retarded statement... really, it is.

First of all, I notice that you've totally ignored the fact that your claims of 'efficiency' are basically due to you misusing energy use statistics. I suggest you actually spend some time researching the links I provided. Having a lower kwh/yr rating does NOT mean an item is more efficient in real life usage. Even the government admits that. Educate yourself.

It certainly indicates a general trend. In other words, if you by a washer that has half the energy rating of another washer, you can reasonably be assured that it will be more efficient.

Secondly, while your mid range washer may have 'features'... they may not have the features you require. Compare apples to apples, not apples to turds. Having a really energy efficient washer is not going to be of any benefit if it's not big enough to wash the clothes that I have.

Then its the features you require that are costing more, not the energy efficiency rating.

You can buy a mid level appliance that is as energy efficient as the high end models.

[segnosaur]

It certainly indicates a general trend. In other words, if you by a washer that has half the energy rating of another washer, you can reasonably be assured that it will be more efficient.

Actually, no, it doesn't indicate a trend.

I've already pointed out the flaw in the way the energy usages is tested... they use a standard load that doesn't take into account greater efficiencies that occur when appliances with larger capacities are used with more than the 'standard load'.

Please... go to the government website. Educate yourself. Please. Doesn't take too much effort. And I gave you a link right to the pages that explain everything.

Then its the features you require that are costing more, not the energy efficiency rating.

You can buy a mid level appliance that is as energy efficient as the high end models.

Retarded statement, and it doesn't get any less retarded the more you repeat it. If the appliance you are purchasing does not have the feature you require, then why even bother buying it?

Heck, if the washer/dryer you buy won't fit the clothes you need to wash, then its energy usage is 0 kwh/yr.

Hey, look! I need to haul a load of freight across the country! Instead of using an 18 wheeler, I'll use a Honda Civic because its more fuel efficient! Weee!!!!

[jdobbin]

Retarded statement, and it doesn't get any less retarded the more you repeat it.

Why do you continue to use one of the most offensive disability related words there is? Don't you know how offensive it is every time you use it?

Edited July 21, 2008 by jdobbin

[Wilber]

It certainly indicates a general trend. In other words, if you by a washer that has half the energy rating of another washer, you can reasonably be assured that it will be more efficient.

Not if it only washes half as much. An energy rating tells you how much energy the appliance uses per year. It doesn't tell you how much work it does per year. For a real rating of efficiency you need a number that reflects the number of units of energy used per unit of useful work.

[stevoh]

Actually, no, it doesn't indicate a trend.

I've already pointed out the flaw in the way the energy usages is tested... they use a standard load that doesn't take into account greater efficiencies that occur when appliances with larger capacities are used with more than the 'standard load'.

Please... go to the government website. Educate yourself. Please. Doesn't take too much effort. And I gave you a link right to the pages that explain everything.

I did, I understand, I still see the energy ratings as a good indicator of efficiency, even if there are other factors.

Retarded statement, and it doesn't get any less retarded the more you repeat it. If the appliance you are purchasing does not have the feature you require, then why even bother buying it?

Heck, if the washer/dryer you buy won't fit the clothes you need to wash, then its energy usage is 0 kwh/yr.

Hey, look! I need to haul a load of freight across the country! Instead of using an 18 wheeler, I'll use a Honda Civic because its more fuel efficient! Weee!!!!

I always know when I am getting a point across when the other side resorts to name calling and ridicule. When you can't rely on your intelligence, the insults come out.

If you can't figure out the difference between features influencing cost, and energy efficiency influencing costs I can't help you. I am arguing that features influence cost far more than energy efficiency. Try and understand that.

[White Doors]

Why do you continue to use one of the most offensive disability related words there is? Don't you know how offensive it is every time you use it?

what a retarded post.

[madmax]

what a retarded post.

Obviously time to kill this thread. All discusion has gone down the sewer.

[segnosaur]

Actually, no, it doesn't indicate a trend.

I've already pointed out the flaw in the way the energy usages is tested... they use a standard load that doesn't take into account greater efficiencies that occur when appliances with larger capacities are used with more than the 'standard load'.

Please... go to the government website. Educate yourself. Please. Doesn't take too much effort. And I gave you a link right to the pages that explain everything.

I did, I understand, I still see the energy ratings as a good indicator of efficiency...

In that case, you don't understand.

The government itself said that the energy ratings are only useful in comparing efficiency of items of the same size. Do you really need me to go find the quote and point it out to you again?

...even if there are other factors.

What you don't seem to understand is that those other factors (mainly capacity) so greatly affect the overall energy use that the given energy efficiency is basically a non-factor.

Face it... you made a bogus claim, you got your ass handed to you by real evidence, and you're just trying to make it seem like you actually had some idea that you knew what you were talking about.

I always know when I am getting a point across when the other side resorts to name calling and ridicule. When you can't rely on your intelligence, the insults come out.

And when you can't rely on actual facts and logic, you resort to bogus claims and repeated statements like a retarded parrot on crack.

If you can't figure out the difference between features influencing cost, and energy efficiency influencing costs I can't help you. I am arguing that features influence cost far more than energy efficiency. Try and understand that.

Yes, I understand... you're willing to take a flawed argument and apply it to a situation that is irrelevant.

Personally, I like to actually look at things logically... you need to look at overall energy usage of the item when actually functioning.

Tell me, the next time you buy a fridge, are you going to buy the Kenmore 1.7 cubic foot fridge? After all, it has an energy usage of 298kwh/year. That's much better than the more full-sized 9.1 cubic foot fridge with a usage of 376 kwh/yr. But wait, you actually have a family and need something bigger than 1.7 cubic feet? Well, I guess you're screwed then. After all, if a little thing like, oh, capacity isn't important, you should be happy with the smaller fridge.

Edited July 21, 2008 by segnosaur

[Wilber]

There seems to be some confusion between efficiency and consumption, not necessarily related. In fact, larger machines that have greater capacity are invariably more efficient than smaller ones when it comes to work done per unit of fuel even though their fuel consumption per hour/day/year may be far greater. This only applies if both machines are used to their capacity so if you want to save energy, don't buy any bigger than you need, whatever it is.

[stevoh]

I did, I understand, I still see the energy ratings as a good indicator of efficiency...

In that case, you don't understand.

The government itself said that the energy ratings are only useful in comparing efficiency of items of the same size. Do you really need me to go find the quote and point it out to you again?

What you don't seem to understand is that those other factors (mainly capacity) so greatly affect the overall energy use that the given energy efficiency is basically a non-factor.

Face it... you made a bogus claim, you got your ass handed to you by real evidence, and you're just trying to make it seem like you actually had some idea that you knew what you were talking about.

And when you can't rely on actual facts and logic, you resort to bogus claims and repeated statements like a retarded parrot on crack.

Yes, I understand... you're willing to take a flawed argument and apply it to a situation that is irrelevant.

Personally, I like to actually look at things logically... you need to look at overall energy usage of the item when actually functioning.

Tell me, the next time you buy a fridge, are you going to buy the Kenmore 1.7 cubic foot fridge? After all, it has an energy usage of 298kwh/year. That's much better than the more full-sized 9.1 cubic foot fridge with a usage of 376 kwh/yr. But wait, you actually have a family and need something bigger than 1.7 cubic feet? Well, I guess you're screwed then. After all, if a little thing like, oh, capacity isn't important, you should be happy with the smaller fridge.

Ah, I see the source of your confusion. I compared two washer with similar energy ratings, one had a 1 cubic foot higher capacity, and cost 2000 dollars more. I explained in that post (sorry if it wasn't clear) that I did not feel the extra cubic foot of capacity was worth over 2 grand.

I can find numerous examples of washers with the same capacity that have similar prices but quite different efficiency ratings. Let me know if you have trouble finding this same information, if you do, I can post more links for you.

[Wilber]

The point was also made that natural gas driers were more efficient. Maybe yes, maybe no. If you live in an area where electrical power is hydro generated, probably not and hydro-electric is also zero emission. If you live in an area where electricity is generated by fossil fuels, gas should be much more efficient. Burning gas, to heat water, to make steam, to drive a turbine, to run a generator, to produce electricity, to be sent to your house, to heat air, to dry your clothes, doesn't strike me as being nearly as efficient as just burning gas to heat the air to dry your clothes. Much more to consider than just a number.

[segnosaur]

Ah, I see the source of your confusion. I compared two washer with similar energy ratings, one had a 1 cubic foot higher capacity, and cost 2000 dollars more. I explained in that post (sorry if it wasn't clear) that I did not feel the extra cubic foot of capacity was worth over 2 grand.

Hey, I knew what you were doing... it just didn't make any sense.

For the 2 washers you gave:

- Washer 1, cost $699, energy rating 142 kwh/yr, capacity 3.1 c.f.

- Washer 2, cost $2999, energy rating 142 kwh/yr, capacity 4.2 c.f.

Both washers have the same 'efficiency', but washer 2 has the capability to wash 35% more clothing per wash. If you had to wash (for example) 100 cubic feet of clothing per year, washer 1 would require you to do 32 loads... washer 2 would only require you to do 23 loads. This would mean you'd end up with a 28% energy savings by buying the more expensive washer. (Not only that, but by requiring fewer washes, you'd extend the life of your washing machine and wouldn't require a replacement as soon, along with any energy consumption that would be required.)

Would that be worth the extra costs? Maybe, maybe not... but it still demonstrates the fact that:

- When dealing with energy efficiency, capacity is often as important (if not more so) than actual efficiency ratings

- Higher capacity machines are often more expensive, but save energy

Now, would the extra $2000 be worth the 28% energy savings? Guess it depends on how much you want to save the environment.

I can find numerous examples of washers with the same capacity that have similar prices but quite different efficiency ratings.

Define what you mean by 'different efficiency ratings'.

When I talk about how higher efficiency designs tend to cost more, I'm talking about major design changes along with major efficiency changes... I'm not talking about just a 1 or 2% change... I'm talking about savings like > 10%, along with fairly significant design changes (e.g. front load washer vs. top load washer, bottom-freezer fridge vs. top-freezer fridge, etc.)

I'm sure you can find plenty of cases where item X may save you 1% over item Y, but those types of changes are swamped when comparing items where designs have radically changed to achieve efficiency.

Let me know if you have trouble finding this same information, if you do, I can post more links for you.

Actually, I've already looked at many examples. I've even posted some for you.

And what I've found is that in pretty much any case I've seen where the features (especially capacity) and manufacturer are the same, the more energy efficient design is always more expensive than the less efficient design.

[segnosaur]

The point was also made that natural gas driers were more efficient. Maybe yes, maybe no.

That was me that made the point. And I was referring to overall energy consumption rather than just carbon emissions.

If you live in an area where electrical power is hydro generated, probably not and hydro-electric is also zero emission. If you live in an area where electricity is generated by fossil fuels, gas should be much more efficient.

Ah, but remember electricity is a fungible product... a kwh generated by hydro works just the same as a kwh generated by burning coal or natural gas.

True, an electric dryer powered by hydro-electric power may be zero emissions, but the optimum use of energy would have you to use a gas dryer (even in places with lots of hydro, like in Quebec), and then take any excess hydro not used to power the dryer and use it to offset the coal/gas electrical plants in other parts of the country.

[stevoh]

And what I've found is that in pretty much any case I've seen where the features (especially capacity) and manufacturer are the same, the more energy efficient design is always more expensive than the less efficient design.

How does that counter my original point that it is possible to buy an energy efficient appliance in the middle price range?

[segnosaur]

And what I've found is that in pretty much any case I've seen where the features (especially capacity) and manufacturer are the same, the more energy efficient design is always more expensive than the less efficient design.

How does that counter my original point that it is possible to buy an energy efficient appliance in the middle price range?

How exactly are you defining "energy efficient"? Certainly not with any definition I've seen.

This whole issue started with an argument (I believe it was by you) that the carbon tax would encourage people to buy newer more efficient appliances.

The problem with your argument is that those 'mid price range' appliances are not necessarily any more efficient than the older appliances that many people already had. In order to get something that will significantly decrease your energy usage, you will have to spend money, and in some cases a lot more money. I've also illustrated how the Liberal plan would not give enough money back to people in the form of tax cuts to allow them to afford those new appliances.

At one point, you suggested it might encourage people to replace their old 75% efficient gas furnaces with newer ones... except you didn't seem to realize that the new ones that are mid-range price are not really any more efficient (only by a few percent)... and to get a high efficiency furnace you have to spend hundreds of dollars more. (I even provided references for that.)

Any example you gave was bogus... you tried to claim that a 'mid price range' washer/dryer was just as good as a more expensive one; however, all you did was demonstrate your ignorance about how energy ratings are actually calculated. Your 'mid price range' washer, in reality, was using 20-30% more energy than the more expensive one. (And I provided the actual calculations for that.)

Now, if you want to actually demonstrate how people will actually be able to afford all those wonderful appliances, by all means do so. But frankly, trying to claim you can get lower cost appliances that are just as good as more expensive ones is a waste of time... Not only are you assuming that they can afford even those cheaper appliances (not necessarily true), but time and time again I've shown how cheaper is almost never more efficient. Even your examples showed that.

[stevoh]

How does that counter my original point that it is possible to buy an energy efficient appliance in the middle price range?

How exactly are you defining "energy efficient"? Certainly not with any definition I've seen.

This whole issue started with an argument (I believe it was by you) that the carbon tax would encourage people to buy newer more efficient appliances.

The problem with your argument is that those 'mid price range' appliances are not necessarily any more efficient than the older appliances that many people already had. In order to get something that will significantly decrease your energy usage, you will have to spend money, and in some cases a lot more money. I've also illustrated how the Liberal plan would not give enough money back to people in the form of tax cuts to allow them to afford those new appliances.

At one point, you suggested it might encourage people to replace their old 75% efficient gas furnaces with newer ones... except you didn't seem to realize that the new ones that are mid-range price are not really any more efficient (only by a few percent)... and to get a high efficiency furnace you have to spend hundreds of dollars more. (I even provided references for that.)

Any example you gave was bogus... you tried to claim that a 'mid price range' washer/dryer was just as good as a more expensive one; however, all you did was demonstrate your ignorance about how energy ratings are actually calculated. Your 'mid price range' washer, in reality, was using 20-30% more energy than the more expensive one. (And I provided the actual calculations for that.)

Now, if you want to actually demonstrate how people will actually be able to afford all those wonderful appliances, by all means do so. But frankly, trying to claim you can get lower cost appliances that are just as good as more expensive ones is a waste of time... Not only are you assuming that they can afford even those cheaper appliances (not necessarily true), but time and time again I've shown how cheaper is almost never more efficient. Even your examples showed that.

You know, if you weren't such a jerk about the whole thing, calling me retarded, ignorant, other pointless jabs, I might be interested in continuing this discussion with you. You obviously have some interesting points that I would like to examine further, but you surround them with such garbage that it mutes any valid points you may have. I am interested in debate, not name calling.

[segnosaur]

You know, if you weren't such a jerk about the whole thing, calling me retarded, ignorant, other pointless jabs, I might be interested in continuing this discussion with you. You obviously have some interesting points that I would like to examine further, but you surround them with such garbage that it mutes any valid points you may have. I am interested in debate, not name calling.

First of all, technically I never actually called you 'retarded'. I claimed the way people like you repeated statements over and over again without actually providing anything substantial was "like a retarded parrot repeating something". It was the repeating statements I was criticizing with that statement, not you. (My apologies to any avian posters on this board.) You could be the most intelligent person in the world. But if you're not actually providing any real clear logical argument and simply repeating the word "efficiency" over and over again, there's no real way to debate.

As for considering you 'ignorant'... well, considering I gave so much evidence that your interpretation of the energuide figures was wrong, aren't I at least justified? After all, the smart thing to do would have been to say "You know, you're right, I misunderstood the math behind it".

As for you being "interested in debate"... to be honest, I find that rather, ahem, unlikely. In the beginning it seemed promising... you actually put forward actual points that haven't been addressed before. But then, rather than actually advancing those points, you feel back into the old trap of repeating falsehoods that had already been proven wrong.

I'm quote interested in debate, and I respect people that have opinions that differ from mine, if they are able to articulate those opinions and actually provide something useful. Sometimes I end up actually changing my opinions based on facts others may present in a debate. Even if I don't change my opinions, I can still respect a good debater (and I always respect someone of that quality). Unfortunately, having someone repeat stuff that has been debunked over and over again isn't really convincing or useful. Hopefully some day you'll actually understand the difference between debate and rote repetition.

[stevoh]

First of all, technically I never actually called you 'retarded'. I claimed the way people like you repeated statements over and over again without actually providing anything substantial was "like a retarded parrot repeating something". It was the repeating statements I was criticizing with that statement, not you. (My apologies to any avian posters on this board.) You could be the most intelligent person in the world. But if you're not actually providing any real clear logical argument and simply repeating the word "efficiency" over and over again, there's no real way to debate.

As for considering you 'ignorant'... well, considering I gave so much evidence that your interpretation of the energuide figures was wrong, aren't I at least justified? After all, the smart thing to do would have been to say "You know, you're right, I misunderstood the math behind it".

I never did misunderstand the math behind it, that is why in my original post (look again) I specifically mention the capacity difference. I did not believe a tripling of price was worth a 28% increase in efficiency. But, you see, rather than pound you and call you names for you missing that, I attempted to discuss the matter in detail and explain. And no, name calling and condescention has no place in real debate, regardless of what you think of the other person.

As for you being "interested in debate"... to be honest, I find that rather, ahem, unlikely. In the beginning it seemed promising... you actually put forward actual points that haven't been addressed before. But then, rather than actually advancing those points, you feel back into the old trap of repeating falsehoods that had already been proven wrong.

A mid range appliance with equivalent efficiency to top end appliances is available. I don't need to review that point any further. If you look at the range of washing machines available, with identical capacity, there is a significant price range. That price range is based more on features and brand than efficiency. Just look at the 4.2 cubic foot washing machines. They range in price from 3499:

http://www.sears.ca/gp/product/B001AFZT6O/...odeid=398507011

142 Kw/yr

To 1399:

http://www.sears.ca/gp/product/B0018MBUG2/...odeid=398507011

159 Kw/yr

Yes, the more expensive model is slightly more efficient, but, is it worth more than twice the price? A person looking to replace their old top loading washing machine, who is interesting in a front loader, does not have to spend 3500 dollars to get an efficient machine, they can buy a mid level front end loader for 1399 with an efficiency within 12% of the higher priced model.

So, I don't and never did feel I was proven wrong, as you can obviously buy efficient models in the mid price range.

I'm quote interested in debate, and I respect people that have opinions that differ from mine, if they are able to articulate those opinions and actually provide something useful. Sometimes I end up actually changing my opinions based on facts others may present in a debate. Even if I don't change my opinions, I can still respect a good debater (and I always respect someone of that quality). Unfortunately, having someone repeat stuff that has been debunked over and over again isn't really convincing or useful. Hopefully some day you'll actually understand the difference between debate and rote repetition.

Hopefully you will understand someday the difference between rote repetition and someone remaining unconvinced by your arguments.

[segnosaur]

I never did misunderstand the math behind it, that is why in my original post (look again) I specifically mention the capacity difference. I did not believe a tripling of price was worth a 28% increase in efficiency.

But that wasn't the argument you were making.

When you first posted your 'examples', you were looking only at the energy ratings. You did not claim that the larger one was more efficient. (In fact, just the opposite, in an earlier post on Jul 18 2008, 01:32 PM you even claimed that a smaller dryer was more efficient, based only on the energy guide.) And when you did finally mention capacity, (in your post on Jul 21 2008, 12:26 PM) you did not refer to the efficiency of the larger design, but only to it being a 'feature'.

But, you see, rather than pound you and call you names for you missing that, I attempted to discuss the matter in detail and explain.

But you didn't explain. Maybe you just weren't communicating properly, but when you just keep chanting "efficient", you're not really providing anything useful.

A mid range appliance with equivalent efficiency to top end appliances is available. I don't need to review that point any further. If you look at the range of washing machines available, with identical capacity, there is a significant price range. That price range is based more on features and brand than efficiency. Just look at the 4.2 cubic foot washing machines. They range in price from 3499:

To 1399:

Wait a second....

Earlier on, you were claiming that a 'mid range' price was under $700. Now you're saying that an item that costs twice as much is also 'mid range'? What exactly are you classifying as mid range right now?

Oh, and by the way, just wondering... how does the total energy usage (including capacity) of that 'cheaper' washer compare to that $700 model you mentioned earlier?

Frankly, I think the problem is you seem to be willing to stretch the phrase 'mid level' and 'efficient' so much that the terms loose all meaning. Anything that you think is 'good enough' to justify your argument becomes mid-level.

Yes, the more expensive model is slightly more efficient, but, is it worth more than twice the price?

Well, lets see... if you currently have the 1399 model, and all of a sudden the carbon tax drives up the cost of your electricity, then what are you going to do? You'll either have to suck it up and buy the more expensive model (for the small efficiency advantage it provides), or get stuck paying more due to the carbon tax. Either way, you get screwed. And unfortunately for a large number of people the Liberal plan doesn't cut taxes enough to justify the purchase of more expensive products.

Which was the whole point of my argument.

A person looking to replace their old top loading washing machine, who is interesting in a front loader, does not have to spend 3500 dollars to get an efficient machine, they can buy a mid level front end loader for 1399 with an efficiency within 12% of the higher priced model.

Or they could replace it with an equivalent top load washer at exactly the same efficiency as their old one for even less money.

Hopefully you will understand someday the difference between rote repetition and someone remaining unconvinced by your arguments.

If you are actually unconvinced, then try actually demonstrating that you

[stevoh]

Wait a second....

Earlier on, you were claiming that a 'mid range' price was under $700. Now you're saying that an item that costs twice as much is also 'mid range'? What exactly are you classifying as mid range right now?

Mid range, as in middle price range. So, for a 4.2 cu foot capacity front load washer, the mid range price is around 1400.

Frankly, I think the problem is you seem to be willing to stretch the phrase 'mid level' and 'efficient' so much that the terms loose all meaning. Anything that you think is 'good enough' to justify your argument becomes mid-level.

It is you that is insisting we compare apples to apples. Now that I am, all of a sudden that isn't good enough either? Of course, if I am comparing washers with the same capacity, 4.2 cu/ft, a mid range model is in the mid price range. Actually, the middle price range of these models is 2250, so the 1400 dollar one is a good deal for this capacity of washer (and for its efficiency level).

Well, lets see... if you currently have the 1399 model, and all of a sudden the carbon tax drives up the cost of your electricity, then what are you going to do? You'll either have to suck it up and buy the more expensive model (for the small efficiency advantage it provides), or get stuck paying more due to the carbon tax. Either way, you get screwed. And unfortunately for a large number of people the Liberal plan doesn't cut taxes enough to justify the purchase of more expensive products. Which was the whole point of my argument.

Anyone who already has the 1399 model has obviously recently upgraded and would not see a return on their investment by going for an even more expensive model. That is hardly the majority of Canadians however.

We don't even need to go into specifics. Basic math will tell you when you would see a return on your investment as energy prices continue to rise.

Or they could replace it with an equivalent top load washer at exactly the same efficiency as their old one for even less money.

Thats a good idea as well, I also have noticed the top load washer efficiency has improved greatly for some models. Not so impossible to get a more efficient washer for a reasonable sum of money, is it?

[segnosaur]

Mid range, as in middle price range. So, for a 4.2 cu foot capacity front load washer, the mid range price is around 1400.

It is you that is insisting we compare apples to apples. Now that I am, all of a sudden that isn't good enough either?

Well, you'll have to excuse me if you keep changing the nature of your arguments without warning me.

I'm still amazed at how some family who before had to consider a small washing machine is now able to afford this nice big 4.2 cubic foot model, when before you seemed so sure they didn't need the bigger model.

Of course, if I am comparing washers with the same capacity, 4.2 cu/ft, a mid range model is in the mid price range. Actually, the middle price range of these models is 2250, so the 1400 dollar one is a good deal for this capacity of washer (and for its efficiency level).

Why is it a 'good deal'? What are you defining as a 'good deal'?

The expensive one uses less energy. It would cost less to operate over the course of its life. So where are you drawing the line between 'good deal' and 'not a good deal'? Or are you just tossing around random unquantifiable terms around because you think they support your argument?

Anyone who already has the 1399 model has obviously recently upgraded...

Why are you assuming that? Appliance manufacturers don't change models every year. And even when they do update models, they aren't necessarily more efficient.

If I buy my $1399 model now, and the Liberals manage to bring their plan in, I end up paying more to run that washer, even if it takes a few years for the plan to be implemented. The only way I can avoid paying more for the Liberal carbon tax is to buy the more expensive model. How do I do that if the proposed tax cuts don't give me enough of a rebate to afford the new washer?

Earlier on, you suggested people could save money because gas furnaces are more efficient than they were a decade or two ago. Yet today, the efficiency of a 'mid range' furnace is not significantly different than the efficiency of furnaces from a few decades ago.

... and would not see a return on their investment by going for an even more expensive model.

Why not? You use less electricity, you save money on a year by year basis.

We don't even need to go into specifics. Basic math will tell you when you would see a return on your investment as energy prices continue to rise.

But you just said you would not se a return on their investment. So which is it? Are we going to save energy and money going for the more expensive model or not?

[segnosaur]

Earlier on in this thread, I pointed out a flaw in the Liberal plan... if taxing the use of fossil fuels is good way to discourage use, then why are they not directing tax increases at areas (such as transportation) where there is a certain amount of discretionary use, as opposed to things like home heating (where its rather a requirement for people to heat their homes).

Of course, liberal supporters started criticizing me, questioning why I considered driving to be 'discretionary' rather than mandatory. The following exchange was typical...

I already explained that in an earlier post.

Its because gas usage is more discretionary than many other forms of fossil fuel usage, and unlike taxes on industrial uses cannot be passed on to others.

Discretionary? In what way? Our economy is now completely linked to gas usage for transportation. You think that is optional now?

Here is a survey (done in the U.S.) which shows that people do indeed drive less as gas prices increase...

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idU...=22&sp=true

Nearly half of respondents to a Reuters/Zogby poll of likely voters ...said they are driving less to compensate for record U.S. gasoline prices

So, if people are able to 'drive less', then their use is, at least in part, discretionary, is it not? Not that all such use is optional, but at least some of it is. And here's the proof.

[stevoh]

Well, you'll have to excuse me if you keep changing the nature of your arguments without warning me.

Warn you that I am adhering to your constructs? I would have thought you would be the first one to recognize them.

I'm still amazed at how some family who before had to consider a small washing machine is now able to afford this nice big 4.2 cubic foot model, when before you seemed so sure they didn't need the bigger model.

The only reason the larger washing machine was brought up is because of your points about comparing apples to apples, equivalent efficiency to equivalent efficiency.

Why is it a 'good deal'? What are you defining as a 'good deal'?

Because it is almost 1/3 the cost and only slightly less efficient. And the same capacity.

The expensive one uses less energy. It would cost less to operate over the course of its life. So where are you drawing the line between 'good deal' and 'not a good deal'? Or are you just tossing around random unquantifiable terms around because you think they support your argument?

Based on the average life of a washing machine you would not see any savings by buying this model over the less expensive one.

Why are you assuming that? Appliance manufacturers don't change models every year. And even when they do update models, they aren't necessarily more efficient.

Because in a previous post that you stated " if you currently have the 1399 model", and that model is linked to the current sears site, then yes, I assume it is current.

If I buy my $1399 model now, and the Liberals manage to bring their plan in, I end up paying more to run that washer, even if it takes a few years for the plan to be implemented. The only way I can avoid paying more for the Liberal carbon tax is to buy the more expensive model. How do I do that if the proposed tax cuts don't give me enough of a rebate to afford the new washer?

Then I would suggest one of two things. Don't buy the 1399 model now and wait until the tax comes in to see if it makes sense to buy it. Or buy it now if it already makes good sense (energy prices are rising quite well without liberal influence) due to eventual energy savings.

Earlier on, you suggested people could save money because gas furnaces are more efficient than they were a decade or two ago. Yet today, the efficiency of a 'mid range' furnace is not significantly different than the efficiency of furnaces from a few decades ago.

Further investigation revealed I was wrong about that. Its true, when it comes to furnaces, efficiency is very related to price. The same does not hold true for washers however.

Why not? You use less electricity, you save money on a year by year basis.

Because, if the amount you spend on a more efficient model is not equivalent to eventual energy savings, then the purchase does not make good financial sense.

But you just said you would not se a return on their investment. So which is it? Are we going to save energy and money going for the more expensive model or not?

Thats right, if the more efficient model over time saves more money on energy usage than it costs for that energy efficiency, then you see good return on your investment.

I don't understand why this is so hard to understand. As energy costs increase (government intervention or not), then, at a certain point, spending money on a new washer will save money in the long term over running an older less efficient model. Since the price of washing machines is only loosely coupled with their efficiency ratings (as opposed to furnaces), you can find a model with the capacity and features you need in the mid price range. You may see a small increase in efficiency by buying the highest price models, but that would not end up paying for itself in the long term.

[segnosaur]

Warn you that I am adhering to your constructs? I would have thought you would be the first one to recognize them.

Given the way many people tend to bring up random, unsupported claims, I'm not about to make any assumptions.

Based on the average life of a washing machine you would not see any savings by buying this model over the less expensive one.

Really? And where are your calculations on that? Or are you just making an assumption.

And if it is true that you wouldn't see any savings, then what does that say about the usefulness of the Green Plan? You made the assumption earlier that the green plan would get people to save energy by getting 'efficient' appliances. But if people aren't going to actually purchase the more expensive models (or if they can't afford to given the small nature of the tax cuts) then how exactly are you going to get them to be more efficient?

Further investigation revealed I was wrong about that. Its true, when it comes to furnaces, efficiency is very related to price. The same does not hold true for washers however.

Actually, yes it does. Top load washers are cheaper than front load washers. But they cost less.

Also also applies to dryers. And Fridges. I've shown example after example of it.

I don't understand why this is so hard to understand. As energy costs increase (government intervention or not), then, at a certain point, spending money on a new washer will save money in the long term over running an older less efficient model.

Hey, I understand the concept. Just have to see how people will be able to afford that 'new' washer (regardless of its efficiency) given the size of the proposed Liberal tax cuts. If people can't afford the new high efficiency appliances now, why can they afford them when they're only getting tiny tax cuts, and still have to pay higher energy costs?

[stevoh]

Given the way many people tend to bring up random, unsupported claims, I'm not about to make any assumptions.

So you just made an assumption about my claims, and then says its not an assumption?

Really? And where are your calculations on that? Or are you just making an assumption.

I am assuming that over the life of a washing machine you will not see an energy savings of more than 2000 dollars from one that is slightly less efficient. Yes, I am making an assumption. If that number seems out to you, go ahead and calculate it out.

And if it is true that you wouldn't see any savings, then what does that say about the usefulness of the Green Plan? You made the assumption earlier that the green plan would get people to save energy by getting 'efficient' appliances. But if people aren't going to actually purchase the more expensive models (or if they can't afford to given the small nature of the tax cuts) then how exactly are you going to get them to be more efficient?

By buying a mid priced model that is close in efficiency to a top end model but considerably cheaper.

Actually, yes it does. Top load washers are cheaper than front load washers. But they cost less.

Some top load washers are now approaching front load in efficiency ratings. So, back to my original premise, you can buy a mid priced model with good energy efficiency, even if you buy top load.

http://products.howstuffworks.com/fisher-p...wl16-review.htm

Edited July 28, 2008 by stevoh