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

A few of my thoughts on 'green' issues and vacuum cleaners...

Certain vacuum cleaners have long been sold on having a powerful motor. The introduction of bagless vacuum cleaners gave this a new angle as with an efferent filtration system, a bagless cleaner can demonstrate a comparable, consistent airwatts figure to that of a bagged cleaner, while using a less power motor, as measure by air watts. Hence Dyson's objection recently with Electrolux marketing a 'green' cleaner:-

http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/news.phtml/23245/dyson-slams-electrolux-claims.phtml

'The Ultra Silencer has a 1250W motor. Dyson compares this to its DC24 Dyson Ball with a 650W motor, that in a recent Which? report was said to perform as well as a machine with a motor twice the size.'

In defining which vacuum clearer might be 'greener' than others for energy use, we'd also have to take in to account overall efficiency; how well does it clean to a certain standard in a defined time period - if it takes twice as long with a motor at half the watts, it's generally no better in the power use stakes. Now we're back in the category of how aggressive does a brushroll need to be to do am effective job, while not wearing down the carpet, etc.

Another angle you might measure for bagless cleaners over bagged cleaner is the 'carbon footprint' in the manufacturing, delivering and disposing of bags and filters.

The Dyson 'Recylone' cleaner was mentioned in James Dyson's book, but by all accounts was only on the market for a limited time.  The idea was that once your Dyson clearer was at the end of its working life, you could phone up Dyson and get them to pick it up from your house, free of charge. They'd take the machine apart, sand blast and melt down the components, which would then be used in the manufacture of a new 'Recyclone' cleaner featuring green coloured styling.

Presumably, a number of factors prevented the Recyclone idea taking off. Moving production overseas wouldn't have helped, as loading up a shipping container with old vacuum parts and sending it halfway around the world can't be that efficient. Dyson still offer to collect your old vacuum (any make) for recycling, when you order direct. Primarily due to initiatives under the European Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) legislation which makes manufacturers and retailers responsible for recycling equipment at the end of its working life.

However, I noticed something interesting the other week. I was talking some items to the local disposal site. There, I found a separate container for vacuum cleaners, full of the usual brands - however all the Dyson cleaners were kept away from the container, in a separate pile. I can only suppose that rather than being dumped, the Dyson's are sold on for cash, to anyone who's in the market of refurbing them with new motors or for spare parts, etc. Dyson clearers make up the majority of domestic vacuum cleaners in the UK that have a viable resell value on the second hand market.

So, Dyson earns some 'green' points here by having vacuums that can be reused in this way and hence why the Recyclone proposition was short lived ...but no wonder they're keen to collect their old cleaners for recycling, 'lest there be too many refurbs floating around, depriving them of new sales!

Electrolux Launches New Lean, Green Cleaning Machine

MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO--(Marketwire - July 2, 2009) -

Editors Note: There is a photo associated with this Press Release.

Green by Electrolux, introduced across Canada today, is the first central vacuum system made with recycled resources. With 93 per cent of the system's plastic parts made from recycled CD and DVD cases, and 77 per cent of the system's parts recyclable, Green by Electrolux is the most eco-friendly central vacuum system on the market.

Green by Electrolux is designed to improve indoor air quality and deliver whole-home cleaning power, while conserving household energy and reducing our carbon footprint. Homeowners can keep both a clean home and clear conscience knowing all aspects of this central vacuum system deliver quality cleaning power, while minimizing the environmental impact on the earth.

"We continually strive to bring consumers innovative homecare solutions," says Scott Ride, President, Electrolux Central Vacuum Systems. "Our Green by Electrolux combines environmentally friendly manufacturing technology with high-efficiency operating functions, placing this central vacuum in a class of its own."

Green by Electrolux offers a greener clean from start to finish:

- The unit and its packaging is made of 75 per cent recycled materials, including 93 per cent of the system's plastic parts. Even the owner's manual is printed on chlorine-free recycled paper.

- 77 per cent of the unit's parts are recyclable, diverting waste from landfills.

- Carbon dioxide emissions are reduced by 183 kg, the equivalent of driving 1,096 kms.

- A powerful flow-through motor delivers high-efficiency cleaning power, requiring 10 per cent less electricity to operate than competitive systems.

- Noise pollution is minimized with one of the quietest operational systems on the market.

"Green is ideal for people who are looking to improve their home with eco-smart products, as well as for those looking to improve their indoor air quality, which is often overlooked," adds Ride.

Green by Electrolux's sleek design is built to perform 20 years or longer - three times the life span of a typical upright vacuum, saving energy and reducing waste in landfills.

Green by Electrolux uses a self-cleaning HEPA filtration system to create a healthier indoor living environment. In addition, this central vacuum system comes equipped with a complete attachment set including an air-powered Active Pickup Brush for use on both hard and carpeted floor surfaces, along with a complete set of ergonomically designed, lighted Premier Tools for cleaning multiple household surfaces.

- - - - - - - - - - -

This vacuum is nothing more than a Eureka CV100A with some recycled plastic content... 

Hi MOOseUK/

Thanks. Nonetheless I would like to say that we have many "ultimate" vacuum brands, which usually means high-priced, including Dyson being sold here in the U.S.

Vacuums like Kirby, Rainbow, Filter Queen, Oreck, Aerus, Electrolux, Miracle Mate, Dyson, Miele, Sebo and more are to be found in abundance on eBay either new, used or as refurbs. They sell mostly because they are well-known and specific buyers have been made to believe they are better.

Even the theft rate of vacuum cleaners in department and big box stores has increased to who knows what fold merely due to names, claims and prices.

Regardless, there are many practical-minded people who will settle for used and refurb "name" vacuums than be soaked for the price of the same brand new. I've done this myself and have been quite happy with the result.

Also, biodegradability may be outweighed by length of use potential. The ability to suffer and endure bumps, bangs and the odd tumble downs the stairs means a lot to a lot of people. There are still plenty of all-metal vacuums that provide wonderful service and durability and that for which parts will be available for yet years to come. Some are already 30 years or more old. Though older, many of these can be refitted to up the filtration ante as well.

You and I of course, come from a different points in time. In the past I was quite accustomed to seeing vacuums made by manufacturers of just about any brand that were easily repairable. Matter of fact a lot of vacuums and small appliances got tucked away in the attic as either Mom or Pop was going to get around to either having them fixed or fixing it themselves. If a vacuum's motor merely required new carbon brushes they usually were easily available. A relatively handy owner could find them cheaply and install a new set himself. Now, carbon brush wear usually means replacement of the entire motor.

One of the other issues about "green" is that it seems that less and less of us know what to do any more when it comes to executing simple fixes and more and more of us are denied that possibility by way of device design. My grandfather wasn't a TV repairman but he could identify a burnt out tube, go to our local hardware store and buy a replacement that made us good to go. Only an expert has an idea of which transistor it is that may not be functioning.

It would be great if appliances were composed in a more modular fashion so that malfunctioning components could be discovered, removed and replaced.

Makes me think that getting to be an old geezer has its bright side after all though it's sad to see a younger generation being rendered helpless by "smart" business people.

Venson

M00seUK wrote:

Hello M00seUK:

Perhaps dyson has an agreement with the disposal sites to pick up all the old trashed dysons for dyson's own recycling program.  Thereby saving the disposal sites the added costs of dumping/disposal/wreckage of the trashed dysons and/or paying the sites a nominal fee for the old dysons.

Carmine D.

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.