5 ms·

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

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.
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  No. The complexity does not make anything break. You only have to engineer something once, and coordinating the failure rates of the different subsystems is part of the engineering. If anything, managing the additional complexity by skimping on the engineering work is what causes the failures--that is, engineering a more complex device with the same or smaller engineering effort. The ideal situation when engineering a new device is that every part of it is likely to break simultaneously, the day after the warranty runs out. If that happens, you know that your device was made as cheaply as possible, but no cheaper, and that you will never need to repair such a device, because buying a new one will always be cheaper. Repairs are only an issue when different parts are likely to break at different times.
0xffff2 9y ago
>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 Huh? I have owned the same stainless steel cheese grater for probably at least a decade, and it's not going anywhere anytime soon. It is also just sheet metal after all. It's totally beyond me how you think you're going to break a "shiny stainless solid steel..." grater like this [1]. [1] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00LHBF1VE/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00LHBF1VE/
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  Based on the images, I'd imagine those soft formed parts around the base and handle would become brittle, crack, and either peel off in one piece or crumble away bit by bit. The point grandparent was making is that the "deluxe" models often use the visible metal parts to provide the appearance of durability, when the internals are identical between models. It applies more to refrigerator doors than to box graters. That stainless steel fridge is going to have the same crappy plastic blower fan as one with a painted door, but may sell at a higher price, because it looks more durable to anyone who doesn't own a screwdriver. The usual implication is that that the manufacturer didn't cut that specific corner, so there may be other corners that were not cut. It's like replacing the hood ornament of your VW beetle with one made from solid gold. It will then be the only part that doesn't rust all the way through.

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.
logfromblammo 9y ago
No. The complexity does not make anything break. You only have to engineer something once, and coordinating the failure rates of the different subsystems is part of the engineering. If anything, managing the additional complexity by skimping on the engineering work is what causes the failures--that is, engineering a more complex device with the same or smaller engineering effort. The ideal situation when engineering a new device is that every part of it is likely to break simultaneously, the day after the warranty runs out. If that happens, you know that your device was made as cheaply as possible, but no cheaper, and that you will never need to repair such a device, because buying a new one will always be cheaper. Repairs are only an issue when different parts are likely to break at different times.

0xffff2 9y ago

>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 Huh? I have owned the same stainless steel cheese grater for probably at least a decade, and it's not going anywhere anytime soon. It is also just sheet metal after all. It's totally beyond me how you think you're going to break a "shiny stainless solid steel..." grater like this [1]. [1] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00LHBF1VE/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00LHBF1VE/

logfromblammo 9y ago
Based on the images, I'd imagine those soft formed parts around the base and handle would become brittle, crack, and either peel off in one piece or crumble away bit by bit. The point grandparent was making is that the "deluxe" models often use the visible metal parts to provide the appearance of durability, when the internals are identical between models. It applies more to refrigerator doors than to box graters. That stainless steel fridge is going to have the same crappy plastic blower fan as one with a painted door, but may sell at a higher price, because it looks more durable to anyone who doesn't own a screwdriver. The usual implication is that that the manufacturer didn't cut that specific corner, so there may be other corners that were not cut. It's like replacing the hood ornament of your VW beetle with one made from solid gold. It will then be the only part that doesn't rust all the way through.