4 ms·

> New dishwashers take a long time because they can be more energy and water efficient if they leave more time for detergents to degrade grease and the other st

by timr 1y ago

> New dishwashers take a long time because they can be more energy and water efficient if they leave more time for detergents to degrade grease and the other stuff on dishes. Yes, I know the reason, but now say it in a way that doesn't make the assumption that the rule is rational: EnergyStar continued to increase the efficiency requirements to the point where the only option manufacturers had was to make the default cycles much longer in order to get the same performance [1]. Every dishwasher therefore has a button that reverts to the pre-regulation mode, but it's usually named in doublespeak. Somehow I doubt that dishwashers are driving the power consumption curve in the US in 2025. But this is what bureaucracies do, unless given a self-destruct date. [1] for example, what's preventing EnergyStar from requiring that the water be cold? That would use way less energy!

cjaackie 1y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
LeafItAlone 1y ago
I’m completely missing your point. Your original comment has been flagged so I don’t see it, so I’m missing context. I, and I would guess most consumers, are perfectly fine with the trade off of taking longer at lower cost (energy and water). I run mine overnight so it doesn’t matter. This is what I want as the default. On the few occasions I need it to run faster and am fine with the trade off of higher cost, I press a button and it’s there. What’s the problem?
- timr 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - LeafItAlone 1y ago
    > getting rid of government agencies that do X rarely means that we get less X. Do you have any examples where that has been the case? >The fact that you would be perfectly happy choosing a more annoying appliance for lower overall energy consumption is merely validation of my belief that I have re-read my own comment multiple times and I am not seeing where I said that I would be an annoying appliance at all. In fact, I say the exact opposite that the appliance is doing exactly what I would want it to do for trade offs. Are you replying to the wrong comment?
    - timr 1y ago
      > Do you have any examples where that has been the case? I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, but the department of education comes to mind as a bureaucracy that has no net influence on the amount of education occurring. (not totally fair, since the department of education is little more than an inefficient way of allocating block grants, but it's a particularly amusing example.)
  - Muromec 1y ago
    It's not either or. The market being comptutational device needs information inputs to run, which government mandates are very helpful for. This coming from the administration that uses tariffs to force production to be happening in one place over another doesn't seem to be motivated by free market absolutist position either.
  - malfist 1y ago
    Where do you see energy star mandating anything besides disclosure? If you want to be certified, sure, but that's voluntary. The only thing energy star is going is mandating companies inform their customer so the customer can decide and compare products. The free market is making you dishwashers use less energy, not energy star
    - timr 1y ago
      [flagged]
542354234235 1y ago
So dishwashers can get the same performance for less water and energy usage, and you easily can push a button to trade energy and water efficiency for speed, and your problem is what? The idea that manufacturers wouldn’t just make energy and water hogging dishwashers now is naive at best. Making something run well using less resources costs more money up front, even though the total cost of ownership is lower. If you don’t have to make them efficient and you don’t have to display how much energy or water they use and how much that would cost, then you can massively undercut anyone that does those things, even though the consumer would end up paying more over time. > Somehow I doubt that dishwashers are driving the power consumption curve in the US in 2025. But of course it isn’t just dishwashers, it is practically every home appliance. If every house was using 10% more energy, that adds up to a lot. It doesn’t mean that data centers aren’t also a problem, but abandoning a program that saves energy doesn’t fix either problem. >for example, what's preventing EnergyStar from requiring that the water be cold? That would use way less energy! Is that something you are worried about or was discussed? Or is that just a ridiculous made-up scenario trying to paint a reasonable regulation for nonsense?
- timr 1y ago
  > The idea that manufacturers wouldn’t just make energy and water hogging dishwashers now is naive at best. Making something run well using less resources costs more money up front, even though the total cost of ownership is lower. Really? You sound like someone who would pay for such a thing. I bet there are more of you! > If you don’t have to make them efficient and you don’t have to display how much energy or water they use and how much that would cost, then you can massively undercut anyone that does those things, even though the consumer would end up paying more over time. Nobody said anything about getting rid of the stickers. We can still require stickers, just like we require food has labels on it. We don't need a sprawling certification system encompassing everything from telephones (sigh) to roofing materials and the government bureaucracy that defines it.
  - 542354234235 1y ago
    I just do not agree with the libertarian mindset. It is a “tragedy of the commons” situation for me. We live in a complex society and share/use the same resources and infrastructure, and the net effect of individual use can be huge. Power grid capacity is a perfect example, where each individual using a bit more energy doesn’t cost them much directly and there is little market pressure one way or the other. The overall effect requires higher infrastructure spending, that everyone pays regardless of if you use a bit more or less energy. Never mind how much pollution comes from energy production, and we all breath the same air. “The market” is absolutely terrible at solving for indirect effects like that. I also don’t have the time, energy, and knowledge to be an expert on every single thing I buy or use. I know nothing about roofing materials, so having some bare minimum standards and left and right limits balancing societal harm/good and individual choice is perfectly reasonable to me. Natural resources and infrastructure are a shared resource “owned” by everyone, collectively known as the nation. Protecting that value is what the government should be doing.

by timr 1y ago

cjaackie 1y ago

[flagged]

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

LeafItAlone 1y ago

I’m completely missing your point. Your original comment has been flagged so I don’t see it, so I’m missing context. I, and I would guess most consumers, are perfectly fine with the trade off of taking longer at lower cost (energy and water). I run mine overnight so it doesn’t matter. This is what I want as the default. On the few occasions I need it to run faster and am fine with the trade off of higher cost, I press a button and it’s there. What’s the problem?

timr 1y ago
[flagged]
- LeafItAlone 1y ago
  > getting rid of government agencies that do X rarely means that we get less X. Do you have any examples where that has been the case? >The fact that you would be perfectly happy choosing a more annoying appliance for lower overall energy consumption is merely validation of my belief that I have re-read my own comment multiple times and I am not seeing where I said that I would be an annoying appliance at all. In fact, I say the exact opposite that the appliance is doing exactly what I would want it to do for trade offs. Are you replying to the wrong comment?
  - timr 1y ago
    > Do you have any examples where that has been the case? I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, but the department of education comes to mind as a bureaucracy that has no net influence on the amount of education occurring. (not totally fair, since the department of education is little more than an inefficient way of allocating block grants, but it's a particularly amusing example.)
- Muromec 1y ago
  It's not either or. The market being comptutational device needs information inputs to run, which government mandates are very helpful for. This coming from the administration that uses tariffs to force production to be happening in one place over another doesn't seem to be motivated by free market absolutist position either.
- malfist 1y ago
  Where do you see energy star mandating anything besides disclosure? If you want to be certified, sure, but that's voluntary. The only thing energy star is going is mandating companies inform their customer so the customer can decide and compare products. The free market is making you dishwashers use less energy, not energy star
  - timr 1y ago
    [flagged]

542354234235 1y ago

So dishwashers can get the same performance for less water and energy usage, and you easily can push a button to trade energy and water efficiency for speed, and your problem is what? The idea that manufacturers wouldn’t just make energy and water hogging dishwashers now is naive at best. Making something run well using less resources costs more money up front, even though the total cost of ownership is lower. If you don’t have to make them efficient and you don’t have to display how much energy or water they use and how much that would cost, then you can massively undercut anyone that does those things, even though the consumer would end up paying more over time. > Somehow I doubt that dishwashers are driving the power consumption curve in the US in 2025. But of course it isn’t just dishwashers, it is practically every home appliance. If every house was using 10% more energy, that adds up to a lot. It doesn’t mean that data centers aren’t also a problem, but abandoning a program that saves energy doesn’t fix either problem. >for example, what's preventing EnergyStar from requiring that the water be cold? That would use way less energy! Is that something you are worried about or was discussed? Or is that just a ridiculous made-up scenario trying to paint a reasonable regulation for nonsense?

timr 1y ago
> The idea that manufacturers wouldn’t just make energy and water hogging dishwashers now is naive at best. Making something run well using less resources costs more money up front, even though the total cost of ownership is lower. Really? You sound like someone who would pay for such a thing. I bet there are more of you! > If you don’t have to make them efficient and you don’t have to display how much energy or water they use and how much that would cost, then you can massively undercut anyone that does those things, even though the consumer would end up paying more over time. Nobody said anything about getting rid of the stickers. We can still require stickers, just like we require food has labels on it. We don't need a sprawling certification system encompassing everything from telephones (sigh) to roofing materials and the government bureaucracy that defines it.
- 542354234235 1y ago
  I just do not agree with the libertarian mindset. It is a “tragedy of the commons” situation for me. We live in a complex society and share/use the same resources and infrastructure, and the net effect of individual use can be huge. Power grid capacity is a perfect example, where each individual using a bit more energy doesn’t cost them much directly and there is little market pressure one way or the other. The overall effect requires higher infrastructure spending, that everyone pays regardless of if you use a bit more or less energy. Never mind how much pollution comes from energy production, and we all breath the same air. “The market” is absolutely terrible at solving for indirect effects like that. I also don’t have the time, energy, and knowledge to be an expert on every single thing I buy or use. I know nothing about roofing materials, so having some bare minimum standards and left and right limits balancing societal harm/good and individual choice is perfectly reasonable to me. Natural resources and infrastructure are a shared resource “owned” by everyone, collectively known as the nation. Protecting that value is what the government should be doing.