8 ms·

Modern fridges use roughly 25% as much energy as fridges from the 70s according to this page though: http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/refrigerators.html ht

by zelos 9y ago

Modern fridges use roughly 25% as much energy as fridges from the 70s according to this page though: http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/refrigerators.html http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/refrigerators.html I doubt keeping a 60 year old fridge running is the cheapest option.

agumonkey 9y ago
1/4 of consumption but 1/10 of lifespan, does this balance ?
- Freak_NL 9y ago
  If the total cost of energy exceeds the purchase cost, yes. A rough indication of the annual running cost of a refrigerator with freezer for a new model from that year¹: 1990 €110 (500kWh) 2000 €77 (350kWh) 2010 €46 (210kWh) 2015 €32 (145kWh) Replacing a fridge from the nineties is cost-neutral after three to ten years, depending on the model chosen. 1 (Dutch): http://www.greenem.nl/wat-kost-een-koel-vriescombinatie-per-jaar/ http://www.greenem.nl/wat-kost-een-koel-vriescombinatie-per-...
  - tonyedgecombe 9y ago
    Uhm, I think I'm going to stick a meter on my fridge and see how much energy it's using.
  - hedora 9y ago
    All else being equal (i.e., in steady state, low-innovation, markets with healthy competition), the purchase price of something is just labor + energy costs of mining/recycling the raw materials, and manufacturing, with a small profit margin tacked on top. This makes "do the cheapest thing possible" a surprisingly good proxy for "do the most energy efficient thing". Of course, if you know something about the manufacturing chain, you can use that knowledge to do something better, but that is usually taking second order effects into account. Taking cars as an example: buying a $100,000 Model S Tesla instead of a $35K gas guzzler to save $10K on gas is probably bad for the environment, if you only look at the marginal effect of that one car (and ignore subsidizing Tesla R&D, etc). If the Tesla is only $35K, then you saved $10K of gas and the Tesla manufacturing process had a much lower energy footprint, so it is probably a huge win.
    - baq 9y ago
      Friendly reminder that energy footprint is measured in joules and not dollars :)
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      > All else being equal (i.e., in steady state, low-innovation, markets with healthy competition), the purchase price of something is just labor + energy costs of mining/recycling the raw materials, and manufacturing, with a small profit margin tacked on top. That would be if markets were efficient :). As it is, the costs of goods are still dominated by middle men - people who have nothing to do with neither manufacturing nor selling the thing to the end customer. Prices today aren't good signals, because they're pretty arbitrary - shaped by supply/demand in long term, yes, but in short term directed by various business tricks (like market segmentation, brand value, contracts, etc.). Your Tesla example actually shows it pretty well - in order to quantify its environment impact, you need to know at least that a) Tesla is electric, b) where your energy comes from. Price would be a good proxy for a lot of things, if it wasn't so messed up by various parties trying to profit at each level of the supply chain.
      - agumonkey 9y ago
        Do you think we could design a distribution system that would enforce price nearing cost instead of submitting to market demand bias ?
remcob 9y ago
When I bought a fridge some years ago, the capital cost of a new fridge was about €100, the annual operating cost was about €50. Investing in a more efficient fridge pays of quickly. Second hand fridges (€50 capital, €80 operating) made no sense. And this is not a mere frugality argument. The economics more or less reflects environmental impact as well. There is a point where discarding a perfectly functioning but inefficient appliance for a newer is the environmental choice.
- agumonkey 9y ago
  Interesting, a €100 fridge is good enough ? I had to buy an expensive one for idiotic reasons, but I thought that cheap ones were probably innefficient.
  - remcob 9y ago
    Ikea, at least at the time, had very affordable fridges with A++ and A+++ energy certification. I trusted the energy certification, and assumed name-brands had no significant advantage over white-labeled (since it's all Chinese import anyway). It lasted a at least decade till I sold it to the next tenant (at a profit ;)).
    - baq 9y ago
      actually big appliances don't make that much sense to build in China and import... because they're big. there are quite a few factories on EU territory for this reason. always worth checking.
      - emn13 9y ago
        The cost of moving things like fridges is almost entirely in the last few miles. Shipping heavy things is really, really cheap (in bulk).
        baq 9y ago
        i understand that it's not about weight but volume/footprint and by correlation time from factory to warehouse to shop/customer. having factory on the same continent cuts your supply chain response time by months which means you can allocate floor area better. OTOH i don't sell fridges, so that's all just thinking aloud :)
xexers 9y ago
The question is, why do modern fridges seem to break more frequently after a few years than older fridges. Is it: 1. modern fridges are more complicated, thus more things can break 2. The manufacturer wants it to break after about 5 years so you buy a new one (planned obsolescence) 3. Old fridges did indeed break as much as the ones today... and the ones we see now are just the survivors (Survivor bias)
- agumonkey 9y ago
  I don't believe in full fledged Survivor Bias here. Too many people were naturally angry at recent devices. They all noticed a substantial regression. Especially since you also naturally expect companies to have mastered and made progress and provide something better. In my electronics/audio experience, the market twist the design toward shittier components that provide acceptable function with a few marketing buzzwords (HD audio, 24 bit audio) that will make people buy something; where their old gear was clearly superior in terms of quality. It's a reflex to think economies of scale provide improvements and progress.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- emn13 9y ago
  There are at least a few additional options to those three to consider here: - The manufacturer doesn't so much want it to break, but rather, they expend no effort avoiding short lifespans, even where trivial. With enough components the chances then of including one or an interaction of two that happen to last not much beyond your guarantee grows rapidly. - smaller/lighter/simpler or in some other way less durable components are cheaper (due to lower waste), or possibly more efficient (due to less unnecessary mass to move/cool/heat/whatever), so there's a tradeoff that leads to more easily visible and testable attributes being prioritized even if the tradeoff wouldn't be worth it were everything transparent and all customers completely informed. - throwaway items actually are more efficient, because small savings accrue from not worrying about longevity, and repair has costs and wastes of its own (i.e. the premise is misleading) - some combination of all of the above. Personally, I suspect the difference between planned obsolescence and unplanned is in practice nil - you need quite the dysfunctional organisation (and possibly planned dysfunction ;-) ) to get everyone involved to so completely disregard longevity.
beeforpork 9y ago
That a new fridge is more energy efficient than an old one is not the point, because, of course, you can always choose to have a new one while the old one still works, for whatever reason. The point it: that things was built in a way that it lasted 60 years. This is not only about electrical stuff, but also, say, simple mechanical kitchen tools: they break easily today. Like a cheese grater. The one my mom has is 50 years old and almost as good as new. Stained a bit, maybe, but works perfectly. She got it from her mom as a present. It's sheet metal, relatively cheap stuff, but still decent enough quality made to last long. They tried to make it simple, durable, and affordable. Today, you can choose between cheap things from plastic, which will break soon, or fancy polished shiny stainless solid steel with bells and whistles, which are really expensive and which may last a wee bit longer than their plastic siblings, but these things are still made to look good, not to last long. You can bet there are small plastic pins hidden somewhere that break off soon, probably due to some unnecessary bell or whistle. This is the pain of today's products. [edit: language]
- Paul-ish 9y ago
  > That a new fridge is more energy efficient than an old one is not the point, because, of course, you can always choose to have a new one while the old one still works, for whatever reason. The point it: that things was built in a way that it lasted 60 years. Isn't it possible that the complexity that makes something energy efficient also causes it break sooner?
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    It is. For instance, if elements that move under power are changed from metal (heavy) to plastic (light), you need less power to move them. However if making something more energy efficient causes it to break more often, you have to expand the scope to include the energy costs of manufacturing a replacement copy. Even if the marginal costs of manufacturing an appliance are so low repairs no longer make sense, I still doubt that e.g. more efficient washing machine that you have to replace 3 times over 10 years uses, in total, more energy than one less efficient washing machine that doesn't break for 10 years.
  - 9y ago

by zelos 9y ago

agumonkey 9y ago

1/4 of consumption but 1/10 of lifespan, does this balance ?

Freak_NL 9y ago
If the total cost of energy exceeds the purchase cost, yes. A rough indication of the annual running cost of a refrigerator with freezer for a new model from that year¹: 1990 €110 (500kWh) 2000 €77 (350kWh) 2010 €46 (210kWh) 2015 €32 (145kWh) Replacing a fridge from the nineties is cost-neutral after three to ten years, depending on the model chosen. 1 (Dutch): http://www.greenem.nl/wat-kost-een-koel-vriescombinatie-per-jaar/ http://www.greenem.nl/wat-kost-een-koel-vriescombinatie-per-...
- tonyedgecombe 9y ago
  Uhm, I think I'm going to stick a meter on my fridge and see how much energy it's using.
- hedora 9y ago
  All else being equal (i.e., in steady state, low-innovation, markets with healthy competition), the purchase price of something is just labor + energy costs of mining/recycling the raw materials, and manufacturing, with a small profit margin tacked on top. This makes "do the cheapest thing possible" a surprisingly good proxy for "do the most energy efficient thing". Of course, if you know something about the manufacturing chain, you can use that knowledge to do something better, but that is usually taking second order effects into account. Taking cars as an example: buying a $100,000 Model S Tesla instead of a $35K gas guzzler to save $10K on gas is probably bad for the environment, if you only look at the marginal effect of that one car (and ignore subsidizing Tesla R&D, etc). If the Tesla is only $35K, then you saved $10K of gas and the Tesla manufacturing process had a much lower energy footprint, so it is probably a huge win.
  - baq 9y ago
    Friendly reminder that energy footprint is measured in joules and not dollars :)
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    > All else being equal (i.e., in steady state, low-innovation, markets with healthy competition), the purchase price of something is just labor + energy costs of mining/recycling the raw materials, and manufacturing, with a small profit margin tacked on top. That would be if markets were efficient :). As it is, the costs of goods are still dominated by middle men - people who have nothing to do with neither manufacturing nor selling the thing to the end customer. Prices today aren't good signals, because they're pretty arbitrary - shaped by supply/demand in long term, yes, but in short term directed by various business tricks (like market segmentation, brand value, contracts, etc.). Your Tesla example actually shows it pretty well - in order to quantify its environment impact, you need to know at least that a) Tesla is electric, b) where your energy comes from. Price would be a good proxy for a lot of things, if it wasn't so messed up by various parties trying to profit at each level of the supply chain.
    - agumonkey 9y ago
      Do you think we could design a distribution system that would enforce price nearing cost instead of submitting to market demand bias ?

remcob 9y ago

When I bought a fridge some years ago, the capital cost of a new fridge was about €100, the annual operating cost was about €50. Investing in a more efficient fridge pays of quickly. Second hand fridges (€50 capital, €80 operating) made no sense. And this is not a mere frugality argument. The economics more or less reflects environmental impact as well. There is a point where discarding a perfectly functioning but inefficient appliance for a newer is the environmental choice.

agumonkey 9y ago
Interesting, a €100 fridge is good enough ? I had to buy an expensive one for idiotic reasons, but I thought that cheap ones were probably innefficient.
- remcob 9y ago
  Ikea, at least at the time, had very affordable fridges with A++ and A+++ energy certification. I trusted the energy certification, and assumed name-brands had no significant advantage over white-labeled (since it's all Chinese import anyway). It lasted a at least decade till I sold it to the next tenant (at a profit ;)).
  - baq 9y ago
    actually big appliances don't make that much sense to build in China and import... because they're big. there are quite a few factories on EU territory for this reason. always worth checking.
    - emn13 9y ago
      The cost of moving things like fridges is almost entirely in the last few miles. Shipping heavy things is really, really cheap (in bulk).
      - baq 9y ago
        i understand that it's not about weight but volume/footprint and by correlation time from factory to warehouse to shop/customer. having factory on the same continent cuts your supply chain response time by months which means you can allocate floor area better. OTOH i don't sell fridges, so that's all just thinking aloud :)

xexers 9y ago

The question is, why do modern fridges seem to break more frequently after a few years than older fridges. Is it: 1. modern fridges are more complicated, thus more things can break 2. The manufacturer wants it to break after about 5 years so you buy a new one (planned obsolescence) 3. Old fridges did indeed break as much as the ones today... and the ones we see now are just the survivors (Survivor bias)

agumonkey 9y ago
I don't believe in full fledged Survivor Bias here. Too many people were naturally angry at recent devices. They all noticed a substantial regression. Especially since you also naturally expect companies to have mastered and made progress and provide something better. In my electronics/audio experience, the market twist the design toward shittier components that provide acceptable function with a few marketing buzzwords (HD audio, 24 bit audio) that will make people buy something; where their old gear was clearly superior in terms of quality. It's a reflex to think economies of scale provide improvements and progress.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
emn13 9y ago
There are at least a few additional options to those three to consider here: - The manufacturer doesn't so much want it to break, but rather, they expend no effort avoiding short lifespans, even where trivial. With enough components the chances then of including one or an interaction of two that happen to last not much beyond your guarantee grows rapidly. - smaller/lighter/simpler or in some other way less durable components are cheaper (due to lower waste), or possibly more efficient (due to less unnecessary mass to move/cool/heat/whatever), so there's a tradeoff that leads to more easily visible and testable attributes being prioritized even if the tradeoff wouldn't be worth it were everything transparent and all customers completely informed. - throwaway items actually are more efficient, because small savings accrue from not worrying about longevity, and repair has costs and wastes of its own (i.e. the premise is misleading) - some combination of all of the above. Personally, I suspect the difference between planned obsolescence and unplanned is in practice nil - you need quite the dysfunctional organisation (and possibly planned dysfunction ;-) ) to get everyone involved to so completely disregard longevity.

beeforpork 9y ago

That a new fridge is more energy efficient than an old one is not the point, because, of course, you can always choose to have a new one while the old one still works, for whatever reason. The point it: that things was built in a way that it lasted 60 years. This is not only about electrical stuff, but also, say, simple mechanical kitchen tools: they break easily today. Like a cheese grater. The one my mom has is 50 years old and almost as good as new. Stained a bit, maybe, but works perfectly. She got it from her mom as a present. It's sheet metal, relatively cheap stuff, but still decent enough quality made to last long. They tried to make it simple, durable, and affordable. Today, you can choose between cheap things from plastic, which will break soon, or fancy polished shiny stainless solid steel with bells and whistles, which are really expensive and which may last a wee bit longer than their plastic siblings, but these things are still made to look good, not to last long. You can bet there are small plastic pins hidden somewhere that break off soon, probably due to some unnecessary bell or whistle. This is the pain of today's products. [edit: language]

Paul-ish 9y ago
> That a new fridge is more energy efficient than an old one is not the point, because, of course, you can always choose to have a new one while the old one still works, for whatever reason. The point it: that things was built in a way that it lasted 60 years. Isn't it possible that the complexity that makes something energy efficient also causes it break sooner?
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  It is. For instance, if elements that move under power are changed from metal (heavy) to plastic (light), you need less power to move them. However if making something more energy efficient causes it to break more often, you have to expand the scope to include the energy costs of manufacturing a replacement copy. Even if the marginal costs of manufacturing an appliance are so low repairs no longer make sense, I still doubt that e.g. more efficient washing machine that you have to replace 3 times over 10 years uses, in total, more energy than one less efficient washing machine that doesn't break for 10 years.
- 9y ago