3 ms·
Rather than seeing this as a conspiracy, it’s worth considering that the cause of shorter lifespan is simply our improved ability to build cheaply. For mechanic
by IAmEveryone 7y ago
Rather than seeing this as a conspiracy, it’s worth considering that the cause of shorter lifespan is simply our improved ability to build cheaply. For mechanical products with many parts (any one of which breaking would break the machine) variability of lifespan is extremely sensitive to variability of lifespan of each individual part.
So to reach a certain reliability, i. e. „less than 10% failure rate in the first five years“ you needed to overprovision to such a degree that the 90% remaining after five years would tend to life on indefinitely.
Material science has radically improved. Every part comes with precise expected lifetime. That allows building „crap“ where everything fails after exactly five years (or whatever you plan for).
While shorter lifetimes may well be in the manufactures‘ interest, it isn’t clear that they aren’t also in the consumers‘ and public interest, at least some of the time. Use of material and energy can be drastically reduced. Prices have come done way more than lifetimes have. And at least in the current moment, energy efficiency is improving at a pace where running 20-year old appliances is wrong both financially as well as ecologically.
- TheCraiggers 7y agoI recently replaced a freezer. (Yes, this is purely anecdotal.) Comparing the Energy Star rating from my old freezer to the new one, I'm saving just a dollar a month. Now, I have no idea what the calculations would be to figure out the carbon cost of that electricity versus what it cost to actually make and ship that freezer. But I'm guessing it's close to a wash. According to Energy Star's own website, "replacing your old freezer with one that has earned the ENERGY STAR could save you $195 over the next 5 years." I'm guessing the figures they're using are on the extreme ends of the spectrum, but that still doesn't seem that impressive when you consider the production costs. Which, admittedly, I have no idea of, but assume are not great because refrigerant and insulation are involved.
- donmcronald 7y agoYeah. The environmental cost of manufacturing a new appliance and disposing of an old one needs to be considered. I just don't see how replacing could be more environmentally friendly than repairing. I wonder if the whole ENERGY STAR thing is just an industry wide marketing gimmick to change the public's perception so we can sell ourselves on the idea of throwing so much waste into a landfill.
- craftinator 7y agoOn top of the disposal aspect... Well what about after they are "disposed of"? They are not recycled. Nearly anything wrapped in consumer grade plastic or stainless steel sheeting isn't. It just goes to a landfill. This is fine in the very, very long term (1000+ years), but as of now, pollution is a pretty bad thing, and will be worse for progeny.
- dreamcompiler 7y agoMy 23-year-old refrigerators were made to run on solar power. Compared to them, Energy Star appliances look like wasteful energy hogs.