3 ms·
> which sacrificed its life span in the name of some modicum of energy savings. These marginal design choices are not the only way to get an efficient unit, si
by iforgotpassword 4y ago
> which sacrificed its life span in the name of some modicum of energy savings. These marginal design choices are not the only way to get an efficient unit, since the fridge compressors from the 1940's and 1950's era were very efficient.
This one surprised me. I need to do some digging. Did they get worse after the 50s? I know that an old fridge I had in the basement, probably from the 80s/90s, was horrible in that regard. It pulled 300W when the compressor was running, and about 20W when idle (why!?). I threw it out a long time ago, so I don't have the exact figures anymore, but over a day it consumed at least 3 to 5 times as much as the bigger one in my kitchen that was new at that time. And it was notably cooler in the basement too, so that should've worked in favor of the old one.
- touch_abs 4y agoOld ones did a few things really well; they typically have the hot radiator coils on top, or better separated from the internals (at the cost of space) better insulation (at the cost of internal space), and didnt have built in defrosters (or air circulation). They also used a somewhat more effective (but worse for the environment) refrigerant, freon. After the 50s, we demanded a larger volume, not just being larger but also sacrificing insulation and ideal hot-side placement. And we had to change the refrigerant used (and get rid of latching doors). Several features that were poor from an energy standpoint became standard (auto-defrost, air circulation).
- alliao 4y agoi'm quite interested in Vacuum Insulation Panel (VIP) used in some fridges nowadays, it seems the edges and punctures would be their down fall, but it does make for some strikingly thin fridge walls...