3 ms·

Yeah I did some math on that too but it's a bit more complicated than that. First of all, I don't trust a new fridge these days to last 10 years but I can easi

by barnacs 10y ago

Yeah I did some math on that too but it's a bit more complicated than that. First of all, I don't trust a new fridge these days to last 10 years but I can easily see this one purring for another 20 with minor repairs. Secondly, this is a combo fridge+freezer unit, with 2 compressors. New ones only seem to have one compressor, which makes them somewhat more efficient but if it dies, both my freezer and fridge die with it. And lastly, it's not my fault we're still burning coal :/ I'm planning to invest in personal solar...

brianwawok 10y ago
Perhaps.. but lets say in 10 years efficiency goes up another 30%. So yes even if your current fridge COULD last 20 more years, with efficiency gains the best thing for the environment COULD be to melt it down for scrap and get a newer model. To me this is the really interesting part in all of this. If there was no efficiency gains generation to generation.. say a piece of clothing.. seems pretty obvious to make slightly better if it can last 100% longer for 20% more material/energy/cost. Things like cars/ fridges / AC units? The math is complex. Think of all the cars on the road right now where 30 year old cars. The air in LA and SF would be like the air in Beijing or Mexico City. It is in fact both good AND bad for the environment at the same time that things are slowly retired and replaced with newer models. But for example gas furnaces have slowly improved from 50%??? efficient to 99.9% efficient. Clearly they can't get better. But for example, heat pumps can get > 100% efficient.
- barnacs 10y ago
  On the other hand, clean energy is getting cheaper and more widespread globally so power efficiency probably matters less for electric appliances. At the same time, I'm not sure how efficiently humanity is dealing with waste and if we can expect any significant improvement any time soon. But yeah, it's definitely an interesting balance to think about.
  - brianwawok 10y ago
    On the other other other hand, there is no such thing as "clean" power. Wind power takes up land that could be better used for nature or growing food, and kills birds. The turbines are made out of materials that have the same problems as other things. Clearly reducing demand for power is still a good thing, even if we got to 100% renewable power. (And at current low renewable power levels, 1 extra KW of electricity is directly coming from oil or coal or something nasty)
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  The problem is that the insulated cabinet portion of the fridge could easily last 100 years, just by replacing the door seals every now and then. Why would you want to throw that out with the parts that should be upgraded every 10 years for energy efficiency reasons? Those old cars could be made as efficient as new ones by replacing every part in them other than the chassis. That's prohibitively expensive now, but mostly because there's no standard for engine compartment size and mount point locations. If I could order a "Type 2A" replacement engine instead of a "year T brand X model Y" replacement engine--or even get a 5-years-used-and-refurbished "Type 2A" engine from someone upgrading their "2011 Brand M Model N" commuter sedan, and put it in my "2001 Brand X Model Y" commuter sedan--that would solve a lot of the vehicle obsolescence problems. Moving mechanical parts wear out a lot faster than fixed structural parts. Why throw them all out at the same time?
  - brianwawok 10y ago
    For arguments like this, it is easier to look backwards than forwards. So let's take a 20 year old car, and pretend it was future proofed to take more upgrades. Would you want it today? * The style wouldn't be right at all. So let's pretend that we are globally willing to accept out of style things for the sake of the environment. Which is a big if, but let's go with it. * The steering wheel may or may not have airbags. The doors and seats would certainly not have side impact airbags. The doors and seats would not be designed to take these advances. You would need to basically replace the doors and seats to upgrade these new safety features. But what if these new safety features made the door 2 inches thicker? Since you aren't replacing the frame, you now lost 2 inches of internal space. Maybe the driver would still fit, maybe it wouldn't. * Engines were much much less efficient 20 years ago. New engines have all kinds of things that a mechanic can better explain. Things like carburetors are gone, things like computer controller ignition are in. Would the upgradable car have known about all these future changes? Maybe, maybe not. * Frames have gotten much stronger / more crash proof in the last 20 years. Think of better crumple zones. So if you wanted to upgrade that 20 year old car to be as safe as a modern car, how would you change the crumple zones within the frame itself? * Metal itself rusts over time. Things can slow it, but there will always be some rust. What do you do if the frame has rusted in ways that can't be fixed? * Crashes can permanently damage cars. Say your frame is bent in a crash. Insurance companies write this car off as totaled, and declare it no longer safe to drive. Can you always fix this kind of thing? Perhaps sometimes. Would you want to drive a frame that has been welded back together after a crash? I would not. This is not an exhaustive list but it partially proves a point. In a field where innovation is happening, it is VERY hard to future proof your hardware. If you disagree and are a programmer, show me an active codebase that has never had a refactor. By going down this path, you are basically saying the contents of a given method can be swapped out, but we can never refactor the codebase. So show me a 20 year old C++ project with no refactor ever done, just methods being swapped out like your replaceable car analogy.
Grishnakh 10y ago
More efficient? It should be the opposite: two compressors should be more efficient than one. Yes, smaller compressors are a little less efficient than bigger ones, however unless you always open both the fridge and freezer doors, it's more efficient to cool them separately. The big downside to dual compressors is cost and complexity.

by barnacs 10y ago

brianwawok 10y ago

Perhaps.. but lets say in 10 years efficiency goes up another 30%. So yes even if your current fridge COULD last 20 more years, with efficiency gains the best thing for the environment COULD be to melt it down for scrap and get a newer model. To me this is the really interesting part in all of this. If there was no efficiency gains generation to generation.. say a piece of clothing.. seems pretty obvious to make slightly better if it can last 100% longer for 20% more material/energy/cost. Things like cars/ fridges / AC units? The math is complex. Think of all the cars on the road right now where 30 year old cars. The air in LA and SF would be like the air in Beijing or Mexico City. It is in fact both good AND bad for the environment at the same time that things are slowly retired and replaced with newer models. But for example gas furnaces have slowly improved from 50%??? efficient to 99.9% efficient. Clearly they can't get better. But for example, heat pumps can get > 100% efficient.

barnacs 10y ago
On the other hand, clean energy is getting cheaper and more widespread globally so power efficiency probably matters less for electric appliances. At the same time, I'm not sure how efficiently humanity is dealing with waste and if we can expect any significant improvement any time soon. But yeah, it's definitely an interesting balance to think about.
- brianwawok 10y ago
  On the other other other hand, there is no such thing as "clean" power. Wind power takes up land that could be better used for nature or growing food, and kills birds. The turbines are made out of materials that have the same problems as other things. Clearly reducing demand for power is still a good thing, even if we got to 100% renewable power. (And at current low renewable power levels, 1 extra KW of electricity is directly coming from oil or coal or something nasty)
logfromblammo 10y ago
The problem is that the insulated cabinet portion of the fridge could easily last 100 years, just by replacing the door seals every now and then. Why would you want to throw that out with the parts that should be upgraded every 10 years for energy efficiency reasons? Those old cars could be made as efficient as new ones by replacing every part in them other than the chassis. That's prohibitively expensive now, but mostly because there's no standard for engine compartment size and mount point locations. If I could order a "Type 2A" replacement engine instead of a "year T brand X model Y" replacement engine--or even get a 5-years-used-and-refurbished "Type 2A" engine from someone upgrading their "2011 Brand M Model N" commuter sedan, and put it in my "2001 Brand X Model Y" commuter sedan--that would solve a lot of the vehicle obsolescence problems. Moving mechanical parts wear out a lot faster than fixed structural parts. Why throw them all out at the same time?
- brianwawok 10y ago
  For arguments like this, it is easier to look backwards than forwards. So let's take a 20 year old car, and pretend it was future proofed to take more upgrades. Would you want it today? * The style wouldn't be right at all. So let's pretend that we are globally willing to accept out of style things for the sake of the environment. Which is a big if, but let's go with it. * The steering wheel may or may not have airbags. The doors and seats would certainly not have side impact airbags. The doors and seats would not be designed to take these advances. You would need to basically replace the doors and seats to upgrade these new safety features. But what if these new safety features made the door 2 inches thicker? Since you aren't replacing the frame, you now lost 2 inches of internal space. Maybe the driver would still fit, maybe it wouldn't. * Engines were much much less efficient 20 years ago. New engines have all kinds of things that a mechanic can better explain. Things like carburetors are gone, things like computer controller ignition are in. Would the upgradable car have known about all these future changes? Maybe, maybe not. * Frames have gotten much stronger / more crash proof in the last 20 years. Think of better crumple zones. So if you wanted to upgrade that 20 year old car to be as safe as a modern car, how would you change the crumple zones within the frame itself? * Metal itself rusts over time. Things can slow it, but there will always be some rust. What do you do if the frame has rusted in ways that can't be fixed? * Crashes can permanently damage cars. Say your frame is bent in a crash. Insurance companies write this car off as totaled, and declare it no longer safe to drive. Can you always fix this kind of thing? Perhaps sometimes. Would you want to drive a frame that has been welded back together after a crash? I would not. This is not an exhaustive list but it partially proves a point. In a field where innovation is happening, it is VERY hard to future proof your hardware. If you disagree and are a programmer, show me an active codebase that has never had a refactor. By going down this path, you are basically saying the contents of a given method can be swapped out, but we can never refactor the codebase. So show me a 20 year old C++ project with no refactor ever done, just methods being swapped out like your replaceable car analogy.

Grishnakh 10y ago

More efficient? It should be the opposite: two compressors should be more efficient than one. Yes, smaller compressors are a little less efficient than bigger ones, however unless you always open both the fridge and freezer doors, it's more efficient to cool them separately. The big downside to dual compressors is cost and complexity.