On Tuesday, January 1, 2019 at 3:04:41 PM UTC-5, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jan 2019 00:45:53 -0000, trader_4 wrote:

On Monday, December 31, 2018 at 7:35:36 PM UTC-5, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jan 2019 00:05:09 -0000, Roger Wilco wrote:

On 12/31/18 4:07 PM, William Gothberg wrote:
I thought modern freezers were meant to have better insulation, so why is mine always running? It doesn't seem to have a lower duty cycle than the old ones of 30 years ago. Sure, the power consumption (according to the label) is less, but shouldn't
they have better insulation nowadays? Or was all that banned by the greenies for that ozone nonsense?

The really high R-value foams are much more expensive...which adds cost to the unit. And some of the high-performance foam out-gasses which upsets the environmental whackos.

Truth be told, most people ignore the Energy Guide label and just buy the shiny stainless steel model. Energy Star? What's that?

Maybe if the energy guide label had actual numbers people would take notice. A to G is not useful. But 50kWh per year is, people can quickly establish how much it will save them per year, and if it's worth buying the more expensive model. When you buy a car, it doesn't have a rating from A to G, it has miles per gallon, so you can work out how much petrol it will cost you.

HEre in the US the label shows the estimate of what it costs per year to
run, assuming electric is some average cost of electric, and they give
that cost per kwh they use too, whatever it is. From that you can
extrapolate.

Ours is most likely EU bull****. They never get anything right, which is why we tried to leave, but our current ****wit government is ignoring our request.

However I bet not many are buying based on that anyway.

Depends if you want to save money or have something of the correct colour or size for your needs. But I would think most people care about either "the environment" [1], or their budget.

[1] I put that in quotes because it's usually due to morons thinking that giving off CO2 kills the planet, despite it being raw materials for plants to grow.

The last comment is incredibly stupid. Just because normal amounts of something
are beneficial doesn't mean that excessive amounts can't have serious effects.
You can die from drinking too much water. And in the case of CO2, plants
obviously are not absorbing the excess CO2 being produced by man, as evidenced
by the simple fact that CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up by a third in just
the last 100 years and is now as high as it was 700,000 years ago. And
those previous up cycles took tens or hundreds of thousands of years, not
just 100 years. That extra CO2 traps heat.