5 ms·

The fetishization of "energy efficiency" in this context is weird, like the old joke about a machine whose only specification is that it should run noiselessly.

The fetishization of "energy efficiency" in this context is weird, like the old joke about a machine whose only specification is that it should run noiselessly. Houses don't exist to be energy efficient; they exist so that people can live in them. If those people want big houses and can pay for them -- as well as the additional energy they require to operate, of course -- why shouldn't they have them? If there's an argument here at all it's for having energy prices take into account whatever externality Vox is specifically concerned about, not for forcing people to live in smaller homes.

Spooky23 11y ago
I agree. Energy efficiency is a big scam -- I had the bad fortune of buying Maytag appliances in 2006. The company was going bankrupt, and their strategy to meet energy quotas was to undersize motors... Leading to dead appliances. Ditto with things like boilers who routine service requirements eat up most of the efficiency savings. Light bulbs are worse. Shopping for a bulb is like buying a car. And the focus on stupid efficiency gimmicks that save minimal resources (an efficient washing machine saves $30/year) distracts from more useful retrofits like insulation, windows, solar hot water, etc.
- DanBC 11y ago
  > Energy efficiency is a big scam It works both ways. Some vacuum cleaners had higher power rating labels to make buyers think the machines were more powerful. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29021886 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29021886 Disposable washing machines are definitely bad for the environment though.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    White goods are pretty well recycled in the US. I took a little refrigerator and dehumidifier, which both contained freon, to the scrap yard in a small town. They have their accepting set up so that they charge a recovery fee on the freon (which then they sell, but whatever). The scrap value of those appliances was less than the freon fees, but the paymaster worked it out so that I got 50 cents back or whatever. That doesn't explain what they will do with a washer, but it demonstrates that even a small operation is relatively sophisticated in what it is up to, and appliances are generally worth enough for them to deal with.
    - Spooky23 11y ago
      The lifecycle of a durable good should be more durable. I'm on my 3rd or 4th fridge since 2004. My parents still have the fridge they installed when their house was built in the late 80's.
    - DanBC 11y ago
      Yes, recycling is pretty good in EU too. (There's a law for it - WEEE Regulations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Electrical_and_Electronic_Equipment_Directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Electrical_and_Electroni... ) Still, a washing machine should last 10 years not 5. And many of them would, if manufacturers didn't build in obsolescence. Washing machines often have a bearing in the drum that fails. That bearing can be replaced if the drum is contained in a shell - "tub" - that opens. Many of the tubs on the drums are now molded shut, which means this cheap bearing can't be replaced, the whole tub needs to be replaced, which means the machine gets scrapped. http://www.washerhelp.co.uk/forums/topic/1178-whats-wrong-with-sealed-tubs/ http://www.washerhelp.co.uk/forums/topic/1178-whats-wrong-wi... http://www.ukwhitegoods.co.uk/help/buying-advice/washing-machine/2974-washing-machine-washing-machine-sealed-tubs-a-why-you-should-care/ http://www.ukwhitegoods.co.uk/help/buying-advice/washing-mac...
- jschwartzi 11y ago
  My favorite efficiency gimmick is the low flow faucet. The flows are cut in half, yes, so you have to run the faucet four times longer to clean the same amount of stuff, and because the flows are not strong enough to move debris out of the sink, you also have to run the faucet to clean the sink after you finish cleaning other stuff.
  - Frondo 11y ago
    Most low-flow faucets are just awful. Twenty years ago, I was lucky enough to find my favorite showerhead ever, for $5, and it's an extremely low-water-use showerhead. It's just a simple hunk of metal, but it forces a very small amount of water out at a high velocity, mixed with enough air to give it a really vigorous-feeling cleaning action. I've been hauling that from apartment to apartment for two decades. Love it, and it uses so little water!
  - ars 11y ago
    Most low flow faucets have rubber flow restrictors inside them. They are designed to be removable for places with low water pressure. So just remove them even if you have normal water pressure.
- stuaxo 11y ago
  The dyson vacuum cleaner uses a lot less power than others on sale at the same time, but works a lot better.
ZeroFries 11y ago
What about the environmental cost? I suppose you believe these factors are accurately represented in the free market?
- jdminhbg 11y ago
  Re-read the second paragraph.
intopieces 11y ago
>not for forcing people to live in smaller homes. Could you point to the part of the article that gave you this impression? You picked up on something I can't find in the either the content or the tone. That is, I can't find any part of the article that suggests people should be "forced to live in smaller homes" or even shaming people for choosing larger homes.
grecy 11y ago
>why shouldn't they have them? It's not only about the energy the house uses once built, but also about the energy and materials used to build it, the energy and materials used to fill it with stuff, the encouragement a larger space has on consumption, the using up of valuable space selfishly so other people can't use it, etc. etc. etc. >having energy prices take into account whatever externality Vox is specifically concerned about You can't fix everything with money. At some point, people are going to have to use vastly less resources, and simply making it more expensive is not the solution.
- duncan_bayne 11y ago
  > At some point, people are going to have to use vastly less resources That's some claim. Care to back it up?
  - grecy 11y ago
    > That's some claim. Care to back it up? Ah, humans have deforested vast swaths of the earth, hunted hundreds of species of animals to extinction, severely over fished the oceans, polluted a huge amount of fresh water, just to name a few. Is it even a discussion that humans need to use less resources? I thought this was all widely accepted basic stuff.
    - duncan_bayne 11y ago
      ... while at the same time tapping into vast new resources, and making great strides to end poverty and disease, while sending life expectancy and living conditions soaring in most of the world. World population is trending towards stable, and population growth in developed countries is trending downwards. tl;dr: Malthus was wrong. Slightly more detailed explanation of the cultural phenomenon behind the assumption you're citing: http://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/hicks-ep-chart-56-evolution-of-socialist-strategies.gif http://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/hicks... Edited: to clarify, I think the 'need to use less resources' meme originates from the bottom-left of the flowchart, left-environmentalism. It's wrong. Edited: here come the downvotes ... can we at least make an attempt to discuss this, instead of just disagreeing by downvoting???
zurn 11y ago
> If there's an argument here at all it's for having energy prices take into account whatever externality Vox is specifically concerned about, not for forcing people to live in smaller homes So this concern hasn't translated to fixing the situation despite environmentally conscious people being all for it for decades. Fixing the pricing would make people live in smaller homes. Time for more regulation?
- nradov 11y ago
  No it's time for a carbon tax. Price in the externalities and let the free market work.

Spooky23 11y ago

I agree. Energy efficiency is a big scam -- I had the bad fortune of buying Maytag appliances in 2006. The company was going bankrupt, and their strategy to meet energy quotas was to undersize motors... Leading to dead appliances. Ditto with things like boilers who routine service requirements eat up most of the efficiency savings. Light bulbs are worse. Shopping for a bulb is like buying a car. And the focus on stupid efficiency gimmicks that save minimal resources (an efficient washing machine saves $30/year) distracts from more useful retrofits like insulation, windows, solar hot water, etc.

DanBC 11y ago
> Energy efficiency is a big scam It works both ways. Some vacuum cleaners had higher power rating labels to make buyers think the machines were more powerful. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29021886 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29021886 Disposable washing machines are definitely bad for the environment though.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  White goods are pretty well recycled in the US. I took a little refrigerator and dehumidifier, which both contained freon, to the scrap yard in a small town. They have their accepting set up so that they charge a recovery fee on the freon (which then they sell, but whatever). The scrap value of those appliances was less than the freon fees, but the paymaster worked it out so that I got 50 cents back or whatever. That doesn't explain what they will do with a washer, but it demonstrates that even a small operation is relatively sophisticated in what it is up to, and appliances are generally worth enough for them to deal with.
  - Spooky23 11y ago
    The lifecycle of a durable good should be more durable. I'm on my 3rd or 4th fridge since 2004. My parents still have the fridge they installed when their house was built in the late 80's.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    Yes, recycling is pretty good in EU too. (There's a law for it - WEEE Regulations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Electrical_and_Electronic_Equipment_Directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Electrical_and_Electroni... ) Still, a washing machine should last 10 years not 5. And many of them would, if manufacturers didn't build in obsolescence. Washing machines often have a bearing in the drum that fails. That bearing can be replaced if the drum is contained in a shell - "tub" - that opens. Many of the tubs on the drums are now molded shut, which means this cheap bearing can't be replaced, the whole tub needs to be replaced, which means the machine gets scrapped. http://www.washerhelp.co.uk/forums/topic/1178-whats-wrong-with-sealed-tubs/ http://www.washerhelp.co.uk/forums/topic/1178-whats-wrong-wi... http://www.ukwhitegoods.co.uk/help/buying-advice/washing-machine/2974-washing-machine-washing-machine-sealed-tubs-a-why-you-should-care/ http://www.ukwhitegoods.co.uk/help/buying-advice/washing-mac...
jschwartzi 11y ago
My favorite efficiency gimmick is the low flow faucet. The flows are cut in half, yes, so you have to run the faucet four times longer to clean the same amount of stuff, and because the flows are not strong enough to move debris out of the sink, you also have to run the faucet to clean the sink after you finish cleaning other stuff.
- Frondo 11y ago
  Most low-flow faucets are just awful. Twenty years ago, I was lucky enough to find my favorite showerhead ever, for $5, and it's an extremely low-water-use showerhead. It's just a simple hunk of metal, but it forces a very small amount of water out at a high velocity, mixed with enough air to give it a really vigorous-feeling cleaning action. I've been hauling that from apartment to apartment for two decades. Love it, and it uses so little water!
- ars 11y ago
  Most low flow faucets have rubber flow restrictors inside them. They are designed to be removable for places with low water pressure. So just remove them even if you have normal water pressure.
stuaxo 11y ago
The dyson vacuum cleaner uses a lot less power than others on sale at the same time, but works a lot better.

ZeroFries 11y ago

What about the environmental cost? I suppose you believe these factors are accurately represented in the free market?

jdminhbg 11y ago
Re-read the second paragraph.

intopieces 11y ago

>not for forcing people to live in smaller homes. Could you point to the part of the article that gave you this impression? You picked up on something I can't find in the either the content or the tone. That is, I can't find any part of the article that suggests people should be "forced to live in smaller homes" or even shaming people for choosing larger homes.

grecy 11y ago

>why shouldn't they have them? It's not only about the energy the house uses once built, but also about the energy and materials used to build it, the energy and materials used to fill it with stuff, the encouragement a larger space has on consumption, the using up of valuable space selfishly so other people can't use it, etc. etc. etc. >having energy prices take into account whatever externality Vox is specifically concerned about You can't fix everything with money. At some point, people are going to have to use vastly less resources, and simply making it more expensive is not the solution.

duncan_bayne 11y ago
> At some point, people are going to have to use vastly less resources That's some claim. Care to back it up?
- grecy 11y ago
  > That's some claim. Care to back it up? Ah, humans have deforested vast swaths of the earth, hunted hundreds of species of animals to extinction, severely over fished the oceans, polluted a huge amount of fresh water, just to name a few. Is it even a discussion that humans need to use less resources? I thought this was all widely accepted basic stuff.
  - duncan_bayne 11y ago
    ... while at the same time tapping into vast new resources, and making great strides to end poverty and disease, while sending life expectancy and living conditions soaring in most of the world. World population is trending towards stable, and population growth in developed countries is trending downwards. tl;dr: Malthus was wrong. Slightly more detailed explanation of the cultural phenomenon behind the assumption you're citing: http://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/hicks-ep-chart-56-evolution-of-socialist-strategies.gif http://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/hicks... Edited: to clarify, I think the 'need to use less resources' meme originates from the bottom-left of the flowchart, left-environmentalism. It's wrong. Edited: here come the downvotes ... can we at least make an attempt to discuss this, instead of just disagreeing by downvoting???

zurn 11y ago

> If there's an argument here at all it's for having energy prices take into account whatever externality Vox is specifically concerned about, not for forcing people to live in smaller homes So this concern hasn't translated to fixing the situation despite environmentally conscious people being all for it for decades. Fixing the pricing would make people live in smaller homes. Time for more regulation?

nradov 11y ago
No it's time for a carbon tax. Price in the externalities and let the free market work.