END of conventional Amps in the EU? |
Post Reply | Page 123 9> |
Author | ||
snowflake
Old Croc Joined: 29 December 2004 Location: Bristol Status: Offline Points: 3118 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: 19 March 2013 at 4:15pm |
|
shameless plug
there will be plenty of debate on the environment, energy sustainability, capitalism, government, the EU and lots more at
http://www.bristolanarchistbookfair.org/ if anyone one here is up for helping set up and engineer the sound in our main meeting room that would free others up to do all the other stewarding roles on the day. also looking to hire/borrow four lapel mics. PM if you can help. Capitalism is chaos - organise for Anarchy! |
||
Saturnus
Old Croc Joined: 13 July 2010 Location: Copenhagen Status: Offline Points: 2025 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Given that it took 10 years to implement the ban on light bulbs, I'd say it'd take at least 4-5 years for this as well so there's going to be plenty of time for those that want to buy these products. I have no idea why anyone would not prefer an equivalent or better performing lower energy product though. |
||
jagoreedjones
Registered User Joined: 31 January 2013 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 14 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Staying non speaker related the energy providers in the uk, to be blunt, have the government's balls in a vice. Almost proven to be price fixing yet can wriggle it off claiming 'high costs are caused by green energy quotas'. The suppliers aren't going to voluntarily increase R&D into green energy any time soon.
(I agree with the rest.) Speaker related: Are there not enough amps already in circulation to suit needs should the embargo come into place? Resitrictions shouldn't be tight enough that we'll be ringing up the shady neighbourhood amp dealer. |
||
Battered
Registered User Joined: 19 January 2013 Location: S.W. LONDON Status: Offline Points: 461 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
FFS, double posts galore
Edited by Battered - 19 March 2013 at 10:00am |
||
Battered
Registered User Joined: 19 January 2013 Location: S.W. LONDON Status: Offline Points: 461 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Yes mate, we don't figure that high on their list of priorities
e2a pi$$ poor speeling yet again Edited by Battered - 19 March 2013 at 10:01am |
||
darkmatter
Old Croc Joined: 26 February 2005 Location: LDN Status: Offline Points: 2425 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
wayward and battered - sounds like we have very similar views on this. I'm saying it would only work if taxes for the poorer were reduced in paralle. you're saying it wouldnt work at the moment as redistribution of wealth is at the bottom of the priority list for the current government - I agree!
|
||
wayward91
Young Croc Joined: 15 July 2010 Location: Leeds/Mancester Status: Offline Points: 676 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I think
you've only thought of one side of it - by increasing taxes on inefficient
energy production, you'd: -
Increase tax revenue, allowing cuts elsewhere or investment in
key services -
Encourage suppliers to invest in greener power (save the trees maaaan) -
Encourage consumers to be aware of efficiency issues - without dictating
where they should make their cuts -
Encourage manufacturers to design and advertise for efficiency - without
dictating how they should do this And you'd
also avoid the costly, unfair and often ineffective bureaucratic bullshit
that inevitably comes from politicians legislating on issues they can't fully
understand. The idea
is that the net effect on the average person would be slightly lower taxes
overall, and that the 0.01% of people who use loads of power would cough
up. The assumption being those few people own a disproportionate amount of
the wealth already, so can afford it. Not very
speaker related I quite like it when threads go off topic (sometimes) ... but I’m not so sure about the above. - Increase tax revenue, allowing cuts elsewhere or investment in key services --at the minute id say any increase in government revenue would go straight to deficit reduction (back to the banks or abroad/ to wealthy people who can afford to buy lots of government debt)with little benefit to the public. It may be able to slightly offset the severity of cuts elsewhere but would be passed on through a higher energy bill to customers. - Encourage suppliers to invest in greener power (save the trees maaaan) --perhaps so but they would pass on the cost rather than absorbing any cost. I think the cost to consumers passed on from higher a loss in profit by higher taxes would be greater than the benefit of increased tax revenue for the public , energy bills are a necessity for people to pay, warmth is one of the needs for human survival. The wealthier you are as an individual it is reasonable to presume you would spend a lesser proportion of your income in heating / energy costs, so energy cost increases effect the majority more than the minority, so a small increase in bills would be like taxing the poor.. . Pluss big mulit nationals only pay tax if they feel like it . look at google starbucks ect, they all have very low tax rates well below 5%, not the 27%? That corporation tax should be . - Encourage consumers to be aware of efficiency issues - without dictating where they should make their cuts.
- Encourage manufacturers to design and advertise for efficiency - without dictating how they should do this
And you'd also avoid the costly, unfair and often ineffective bureaucratic bullshit that inevitably comes from politicians legislating on issues they can't fully understand. .. i do however think that we should invest more in greener energy , and inevitably there will be some cost to us, wherever the money comes from it will be from our taxes or our energy bills in some form or another, even if the government “magic” some fiat currency for investment ;) .. im no expert in the area im looking at things from a fairly general point of view. Edited by wayward91 - 19 March 2013 at 9:45am |
||
Battered
Registered User Joined: 19 January 2013 Location: S.W. LONDON Status: Offline Points: 461 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Darkmatter, the energy companies aren't in it to make things cheaper for us, and those that can afford to pay more, actually pay less. We've got no chance of anybody cutting us some slack, and doing the right thing regarding the heavy users paying more.
It's the way of the world, all the little people running round like headless chickens whille those at the top and their cronies, are sitting pretty and milking it. We need to......... But seriously, mate, those at the top pulling the strings have no intention of making things better for us. If anything, it wouldn't surprise me to find some of those people on the Board of the companies providing new technology that everybody will be forced to use. rm -f -r {tinfoil-hat} e2a bad speeling Edited by Battered - 19 March 2013 at 6:51am |
||
darkmatter
Old Croc Joined: 26 February 2005 Location: LDN Status: Offline Points: 2425 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
- Increase tax revenue, allowing cuts elsewhere or investment in key services - Encourage suppliers to invest in greener power (save the trees maaaan) - Encourage consumers to be aware of efficiency issues - without dictating where they should make their cuts - Encourage manufacturers to design and advertise for efficiency - without dictating how they should do this And you'd also avoid the costly, unfair and often ineffective bureaucratic bullshit that inevitably comes from politicians legislating on issues they can't fully understand. The idea is that the net effect on the average person would be slightly lower taxes overall, and that the 0.01% of people who use loads of power would cough up. The assumption being those few people own a disproportionate amount of the wealth already, so can afford it. Not very speaker related
Edited by darkmatter - 18 March 2013 at 11:59pm |
||
Plaguesguitarist
Old Croc Joined: 30 April 2009 Location: Lincoln, Earth Status: Offline Points: 2238 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Well, this should do something to put the Prosound end of the market out...
They blow up after one use. How inefficient is that?
|
||
Why did the lampy cross the road?
To steal MY sharpie. |
||
_djk_
Old Croc Joined: 23 November 2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 6002 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
"Only large part of professional amplifiers remained energy wasting linear, Maybe this is what the regulators want to change."
The three-rail Carver designs were 87.5% efficient. The PM2.0 was a four-rail design with a switching supply, weighed about 10 lbs. The B&O ICEpower amplifiers claim 90% at full power. |
||
djk
|
||
Earplug
Old Croc Joined: 03 January 2012 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 7199 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Maybe - but all the Illuminati use them, so not likely to be banned...
|
||
Earplugs Are For Wimps!
|
||
Post Reply | Page 123 9> |
Tweet |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |