4 ms·

> Consumers don't want to spend more for appliances. They want cheap. But there is not the consumer alone. The world, other people, the earth wants lasting app

by holri 7y ago

> Consumers don't want to spend more for appliances. They want cheap. But there is not the consumer alone. The world, other people, the earth wants lasting appliances.

mytailorisrich 7y ago
It's not obvious to me that current appliances are not lasting (and/or not repairable) and it's not obvious to me either that longer lasting appliances are necessarily better. Where are the end to end stats that show that this is better than recycling an old appliance to replace it with a new one that is more energy and water efficient? Where are the actual stats that show that breaking down just out of warranty with no parts available is a real issue? Also, there are no "other people" we all are consumers of these appliances.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- baroffoos 7y ago
  In what possible way could using the same fridge for 10 years be worse than buying and dumping a fridge every 3 years?
  - mytailorisrich 7y ago
    Fridges don't break down after 3 years. Please let's have a serious discussion.
    - martin_a 7y ago
      In what possible way could using the same washing machine for 25 years be worse than buying and dumping a washing machine every 8-10 years?
      - mytailorisrich 7y ago
        Greta Thunberg is not always there to tell you what to think... How about energy and water efficiency gains? How about materials used to manufacture? How about ease of recycling? A single use paper cup can be better for the environment than a sturdy glass... I simply do not buy that keeping an appliance for as long as possible is obviously better. This should be backed by numbers. In any case, the reality is that most people do not want to keep an appliance for that long. Manufacturers have adapted to that. Designing something to last 25 years when people will throw it away after 10 is a real waste, including for the environment.
        zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
        > Greta Thunberg is not always there to tell you what to think... Oh, you aren't actually interested in arguments? Why didn't you tell us earlier!
    - hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
      Mine did.
    - baroffoos 7y ago
      Mine did. One of the PCBs was designed in a way that when the fridge light breaks it causes the whole pcb to fry and the fridge stops functioning. Thankfully we were able to get a replacement pcb because the manufacturer still supplied it.
  - benj111 7y ago
    Bad example, it is actually better to replace older fridges (older than 10 years though) with modern low energy designs, obviously with the expectation that they'd last longer than 3 years. Fridges and Freezers are the only appliances I'm aware of where it works out like that though. Edit: Here's a case study for those that don't believe me. http://www.t2c.org.uk/chilling/new-case-study-of-20-yr-old-fridge/ http://www.t2c.org.uk/chilling/new-case-study-of-20-yr-old-f...
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      That's just savings in end-user monetary expenses, which is a proxy for energy use, but not necessarily a good one. I wonder whether this calculation holds once you account for the energy used to develop, construct, market and transport the new fridges that replace the older-but-working fridges. It's a genuine question - I haven't seen such calculation done. My current intuition is that the extra marginal energy used in manufacturing a new fridge dwarfs the energy savings of replacing the old one before it dies.
      - benj111 7y ago
        The link gives a figure of 700kwh saving a year. This [1] gives the embodied energy for a fridge as 5900 Mj which equals 1600 kwh. So broadly speaking you new fridge 'pays' for itself in 2 years. I suspect its worse that, but even if its 5 years, my point still stands. [1] https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Appliance https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Appliance
- swish_bob 7y ago
  If the current appliances are already set to last and be reparable, then the regulation is a NOOP as far as business is concerned. So there's an insignificant cost to the business, and the consumer's get some reassurance. Seems like there's no need to argue against the regs, then.

by holri 7y ago

> Consumers don't want to spend more for appliances. They want cheap. But there is not the consumer alone. The world, other people, the earth wants lasting appliances.

mytailorisrich 7y ago

It's not obvious to me that current appliances are not lasting (and/or not repairable) and it's not obvious to me either that longer lasting appliances are necessarily better. Where are the end to end stats that show that this is better than recycling an old appliance to replace it with a new one that is more energy and water efficient? Where are the actual stats that show that breaking down just out of warranty with no parts available is a real issue? Also, there are no "other people" we all are consumers of these appliances.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
baroffoos 7y ago
In what possible way could using the same fridge for 10 years be worse than buying and dumping a fridge every 3 years?
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  Fridges don't break down after 3 years. Please let's have a serious discussion.
  - martin_a 7y ago
    In what possible way could using the same washing machine for 25 years be worse than buying and dumping a washing machine every 8-10 years?
    - mytailorisrich 7y ago
      Greta Thunberg is not always there to tell you what to think... How about energy and water efficiency gains? How about materials used to manufacture? How about ease of recycling? A single use paper cup can be better for the environment than a sturdy glass... I simply do not buy that keeping an appliance for as long as possible is obviously better. This should be backed by numbers. In any case, the reality is that most people do not want to keep an appliance for that long. Manufacturers have adapted to that. Designing something to last 25 years when people will throw it away after 10 is a real waste, including for the environment.
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
        > Greta Thunberg is not always there to tell you what to think... Oh, you aren't actually interested in arguments? Why didn't you tell us earlier!
  - hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
    Mine did.
  - baroffoos 7y ago
    Mine did. One of the PCBs was designed in a way that when the fridge light breaks it causes the whole pcb to fry and the fridge stops functioning. Thankfully we were able to get a replacement pcb because the manufacturer still supplied it.
- benj111 7y ago
  Bad example, it is actually better to replace older fridges (older than 10 years though) with modern low energy designs, obviously with the expectation that they'd last longer than 3 years. Fridges and Freezers are the only appliances I'm aware of where it works out like that though. Edit: Here's a case study for those that don't believe me. http://www.t2c.org.uk/chilling/new-case-study-of-20-yr-old-fridge/ http://www.t2c.org.uk/chilling/new-case-study-of-20-yr-old-f...
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    That's just savings in end-user monetary expenses, which is a proxy for energy use, but not necessarily a good one. I wonder whether this calculation holds once you account for the energy used to develop, construct, market and transport the new fridges that replace the older-but-working fridges. It's a genuine question - I haven't seen such calculation done. My current intuition is that the extra marginal energy used in manufacturing a new fridge dwarfs the energy savings of replacing the old one before it dies.
    - benj111 7y ago
      The link gives a figure of 700kwh saving a year. This [1] gives the embodied energy for a fridge as 5900 Mj which equals 1600 kwh. So broadly speaking you new fridge 'pays' for itself in 2 years. I suspect its worse that, but even if its 5 years, my point still stands. [1] https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Appliance https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Appliance
swish_bob 7y ago
If the current appliances are already set to last and be reparable, then the regulation is a NOOP as far as business is concerned. So there's an insignificant cost to the business, and the consumer's get some reassurance. Seems like there's no need to argue against the regs, then.