4 ms·

His article https://musingsonentropy.com/2013/01/26/i-caught-the-refrigerator-bug/ https://musingsonentropy.com/2013/01/26/i-caught-the-refrige... is an informe

His article https://musingsonentropy.com/2013/01/26/i-caught-the-refrigerator-bug/ https://musingsonentropy.com/2013/01/26/i-caught-the-refrige... is an informed summary of issues with current refrigerator designs. Full of toxic plastic, insufficient insulation, energy wasting door construction, poor compressor and condenser placement, almost no thermal mass, highly toxic and expensive refrigerant gas, uneconomic to service generally. Basically, they’re cheap boxes of toxins designed to be discarded and replaced!

jeffbee 6y ago
Very cool series of articles. I wish there was more variety in household refrigerators, too! The one thing I always wished was on the market was a refrigerator where all the moving, noise-making bits could be mounted under the floor, in the crawlspace, with the connection to the box being plumbed up through the floor. They market these for commercial use but I couldn't find anyone who would install one in a house when I was building my house.
- contingencies 6y ago
  My company just designed a from-scratch refrigeration circuit over the 12 months pre-COVID in China. It was more interesting than you would think. Our need was high density (no wasted space). Due to the need, I visited a bunch of fridge factories. The guy is right. Most of them are insulated with blown foam, which is terrible stuff both during production and afterwards (for the environment). Also, most of them are still filled with toxic refrigerants.
tfvlrue 6y ago
Hmm, there could be some context I'm missing, but his comments on this come across to me as a bit ill-informed. But I'm just an avid DIYer who has taken apart and repaired many appliances, so take as you will. > toxic plastic I'm not sure what this is referring to. You don't normally eat (or eat off of) the plastic components of a refrigerator. Maybe this is more an environmental concern than a health one? > almost no thermal mass Isn't this a desirable property of a highly-insulated box? Ideally, the most thermal mass should come from its contents, not the appliance itself. > highly toxic and expensive refrigerant gas R134a is the most common refrigerant used in residential refrigerators these days, which is not particularly toxic to humans. It's the primary ingredient in canned air dusters and no one seems to have a problem with that. 30lb tanks of this can be had for a little over $100, and a refrigerator would hold less than a pound of it. It does have a very high GWP though--an environmental concern, not a health one. (Side note -- I've also noticed propane (R-290) is becoming more common in commercial refrigerators.) > energy hogging To be fair, modern refrigerator compressors have become much more energy efficient than they used to be. Additionally, a variable speed compressor would have previously been unheard of in a residential appliance, but are now becoming relatively common in middle-to-high-end refrigerators. > uneconomic to service generally Well, this is hard to refute :) The problem is definitely broader than refrigerators, but residential appliances do seem particularly prone to it. One issue here is that refrigeration work in particular requires special equipment and expertise. From my experience, parts are often the least expensive aspect of repairing an appliance.
- contingencies 6y ago
  The concerns he expresses are environmental, both in terms of energy efficiency (wasted fossil fuel energy) and in terms of lifecycle (component disposal). There are many refrigerants in active use, not just R134a. The positive trend in developed countries (particularly Europe) is towards R744 (high pressure CO2) for commercial use. However, most refrigerants are still a long way from clean, including R134a. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane
- userbinator 6y ago
  I mostly agree, although as an owner of a late 30s refrigerator I personally restored, I'd say there hasn't been much improvements on the mechanical side of things --- the increased efficiency largely comes from better insulation (I reinsulated mine qhen I restored it.) The only refrigerants I'd consider "toxic" are things like SO2 and ammonia, both of which haven't been used in domestic machines for a long time (mine uses the original R114); and in fact the biggest selling point of CFCs and HFCs is that they're both nontoxic and nonflammable, while offering comparable efficiency. We might still be using CFCs today, if people hadn't been so cavalier with releasing them into the atmosphere.
- Spooky23 6y ago
  As someone dealing with a failed fridge right now, I’d beg to differ. Most modern fridges rely on controllers that are vulnerable to fail in high heat conditions, which are common given the awful placement of the coils and motors of fridges. The pursuit of energy efficiency replaced easily serviced, long lasting gear with “efficient” junk with a MTBF of ~60 months. I have a garage fridge that my dad pulled out of the garbage 35 years ago.
  - redshirtrob 6y ago
    > given the awful placement of the coils and motors of fridges. Oh, man. So much this. The refrigerator that came with my house, a circa 2006 Samsung, has coils that grow ice. The (evaporator?) fan is positioned in such a way that the ice eventually grows into the fan blades. First it makes a super-annoying scraping sound, then the temperature in the fridge slowly creeps up to unsafe levels. The fix only takes about an hour. You have to remove the back panel and defrost the coils with a hair dryer. I've done it a couple times now. It boggles my mind that we can't have nicer appliances. I'd certainly be willing to pay more at this point in my life, but I have zero confidence I wouldn't just be paying more for the same trash.
Shivetya 6y ago
That article is a just a bunch of rambling drivel. There is no supporting document or links to back his claims. I guess if you feel the same way its a great article but if you are looking for validation you will not find it there. Regardless of how they are built they must meet government standards for energy efficiency which is expressed in the simplest terms for most people, as in kWh/Year and how much that will cost you per year to run. Seeing that some brands highlight their efficiency its pretty easy to shoot down his rant because that is all it is.
- tinus_hn 6y ago
  The key word of course is ‘toxins’, the staple of pseudo scientists.
- bluntfang 6y ago
  >That article is a just a bunch of rambling drivel. I've been noticing a lot of high-level comments that lambast the author or the content of the article. This doesn't seem very HN
- contingencies 6y ago
  I disagree. I think the article is one in a long series which show clearly that the guy is investigating some different aspects of refrigeration systems and has an appreciation for the historical development of the technology plus current issues. He's briefly summarizing current issues in an opinionated way, and I think he does a pretty good job. I think he perhaps has less insight in to other areas such as manufacturing costs and consumer appliance supply chain and logistics concerns. Government energy efficiency metrics can be gamed and do not tell the full story.

jeffbee 6y ago

Very cool series of articles. I wish there was more variety in household refrigerators, too! The one thing I always wished was on the market was a refrigerator where all the moving, noise-making bits could be mounted under the floor, in the crawlspace, with the connection to the box being plumbed up through the floor. They market these for commercial use but I couldn't find anyone who would install one in a house when I was building my house.

contingencies 6y ago
My company just designed a from-scratch refrigeration circuit over the 12 months pre-COVID in China. It was more interesting than you would think. Our need was high density (no wasted space). Due to the need, I visited a bunch of fridge factories. The guy is right. Most of them are insulated with blown foam, which is terrible stuff both during production and afterwards (for the environment). Also, most of them are still filled with toxic refrigerants.

tfvlrue 6y ago

Hmm, there could be some context I'm missing, but his comments on this come across to me as a bit ill-informed. But I'm just an avid DIYer who has taken apart and repaired many appliances, so take as you will. > toxic plastic I'm not sure what this is referring to. You don't normally eat (or eat off of) the plastic components of a refrigerator. Maybe this is more an environmental concern than a health one? > almost no thermal mass Isn't this a desirable property of a highly-insulated box? Ideally, the most thermal mass should come from its contents, not the appliance itself. > highly toxic and expensive refrigerant gas R134a is the most common refrigerant used in residential refrigerators these days, which is not particularly toxic to humans. It's the primary ingredient in canned air dusters and no one seems to have a problem with that. 30lb tanks of this can be had for a little over $100, and a refrigerator would hold less than a pound of it. It does have a very high GWP though--an environmental concern, not a health one. (Side note -- I've also noticed propane (R-290) is becoming more common in commercial refrigerators.) > energy hogging To be fair, modern refrigerator compressors have become much more energy efficient than they used to be. Additionally, a variable speed compressor would have previously been unheard of in a residential appliance, but are now becoming relatively common in middle-to-high-end refrigerators. > uneconomic to service generally Well, this is hard to refute :) The problem is definitely broader than refrigerators, but residential appliances do seem particularly prone to it. One issue here is that refrigeration work in particular requires special equipment and expertise. From my experience, parts are often the least expensive aspect of repairing an appliance.

contingencies 6y ago
The concerns he expresses are environmental, both in terms of energy efficiency (wasted fossil fuel energy) and in terms of lifecycle (component disposal). There are many refrigerants in active use, not just R134a. The positive trend in developed countries (particularly Europe) is towards R744 (high pressure CO2) for commercial use. However, most refrigerants are still a long way from clean, including R134a. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane
userbinator 6y ago
I mostly agree, although as an owner of a late 30s refrigerator I personally restored, I'd say there hasn't been much improvements on the mechanical side of things --- the increased efficiency largely comes from better insulation (I reinsulated mine qhen I restored it.) The only refrigerants I'd consider "toxic" are things like SO2 and ammonia, both of which haven't been used in domestic machines for a long time (mine uses the original R114); and in fact the biggest selling point of CFCs and HFCs is that they're both nontoxic and nonflammable, while offering comparable efficiency. We might still be using CFCs today, if people hadn't been so cavalier with releasing them into the atmosphere.
Spooky23 6y ago
As someone dealing with a failed fridge right now, I’d beg to differ. Most modern fridges rely on controllers that are vulnerable to fail in high heat conditions, which are common given the awful placement of the coils and motors of fridges. The pursuit of energy efficiency replaced easily serviced, long lasting gear with “efficient” junk with a MTBF of ~60 months. I have a garage fridge that my dad pulled out of the garbage 35 years ago.
- redshirtrob 6y ago
  > given the awful placement of the coils and motors of fridges. Oh, man. So much this. The refrigerator that came with my house, a circa 2006 Samsung, has coils that grow ice. The (evaporator?) fan is positioned in such a way that the ice eventually grows into the fan blades. First it makes a super-annoying scraping sound, then the temperature in the fridge slowly creeps up to unsafe levels. The fix only takes about an hour. You have to remove the back panel and defrost the coils with a hair dryer. I've done it a couple times now. It boggles my mind that we can't have nicer appliances. I'd certainly be willing to pay more at this point in my life, but I have zero confidence I wouldn't just be paying more for the same trash.

Shivetya 6y ago

That article is a just a bunch of rambling drivel. There is no supporting document or links to back his claims. I guess if you feel the same way its a great article but if you are looking for validation you will not find it there. Regardless of how they are built they must meet government standards for energy efficiency which is expressed in the simplest terms for most people, as in kWh/Year and how much that will cost you per year to run. Seeing that some brands highlight their efficiency its pretty easy to shoot down his rant because that is all it is.

tinus_hn 6y ago
The key word of course is ‘toxins’, the staple of pseudo scientists.
bluntfang 6y ago
>That article is a just a bunch of rambling drivel. I've been noticing a lot of high-level comments that lambast the author or the content of the article. This doesn't seem very HN
contingencies 6y ago
I disagree. I think the article is one in a long series which show clearly that the guy is investigating some different aspects of refrigeration systems and has an appreciation for the historical development of the technology plus current issues. He's briefly summarizing current issues in an opinionated way, and I think he does a pretty good job. I think he perhaps has less insight in to other areas such as manufacturing costs and consumer appliance supply chain and logistics concerns. Government energy efficiency metrics can be gamed and do not tell the full story.