On Apr 10, 5:26*pm, aemeijers wrote:
ransley wrote:
On Apr 8, 8:41 pm, "C & E" wrote:
I just saw an Energy Star commercial which stated that a 'fridge built ten
years ago uses twice as much electricity as a new one. *Does that sound like
a logical stat to you? *I'll have to spend some time researching that when I
get time but it sounds a bit inflated to me.

My new unit uses about 4-5$ a month, my old unit maybe 15$ a month,
yes its true but I thought new standards were adopted in maybe 93,
www.energystar.govhas ratings on all units and a full lowdown on when
new mandates took place. Get a Kill-A-Watt meter and find out what
your frige consumes. Payback can be 4 years on new units.

Not in my case, according to their website. According to them, my old
old fridge costs $82 a year to run, and a new one would cost $30. Call
it 50 bucks a year savings. What does a new entry-level 22 cu
side-by-side cost these days?

(google google google)

Hmm- looks like about a thousand bucks.
That works out to a 20 year payback?

Even if I downgrade to a smaller fridge, for say $500, that is still a
10-year payback.

Think I'll keep this one till it craps out.

I probably oughta vacum the coils, and maybe turn off the icemaker,
since I never use the ice, though.

--
aem sends....

$52 a year savings, thats at todays electric price, in 5-10 years it
will be double the way oil is at over 100 a barrell . Its really do
you want to fix an old unit, or get one more efficient.

On Apr 9, 11:06*pm, Richard J Kinch wrote:
Richard J Kinch writes:
So it's made quite a few thermodynamic trips ALL AT YOUR EXPENSE.

And I should add, that the later trips are not even measured by the government
tricked-up efficiency numbers.

"Energy Star" and government refrigerator efficiency numbers are bogus.
They measure empty freezers when most of the cost of running a
freezer is making (and unmaking) ice. *They don't measure the cost of
air-conditioning to remove the heat your refrigerator generates inside
your house (or conversely the value of that heat when you're heating).
The dollar numbers are based on fantasy prices for electricity. *It's
just a huge joke of technical boob-bait designed to sell appliances
you don't really need.

Just read the test methods if you don't believe this.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...l=/ecfrbrowse/....

See "Appendix A1 to Subpart B of Part 430, Uniform Test Method for
Measuring the Energy Consumption of Electric Refrigerators and
Electric Refrigerator-Freezers"

No ice making.

No opening/closing doors.

Empty freezer.

Puh-leeze.

It worked for me, with a KAW meter, 30$ a month household is it, the
KAW meter showed under 5$ a month at 0.125 kwh single use on a Sears
19.5cu ft frige, you cant diffute that, its fact. Pay as you wish,
pay now or continue at high kwh consumption

On Apr 10, 5:40*pm, Richard J Kinch wrote:
Most frozen food is contained in vapor barrier packages. How much energy
would we save if we kept ice trays in a baggie?

A significant amount compared to the bogus Energy Star efficiency ratings,
butat about $1/day total to run a real refrigerator in a real household
environment, I don't know that it is enough to justify the nuisance. *I do
know it is enough to demonstrate the absurdity of Energy Star.

The tested refrigerators are not the refrigerators people want. *The doors
stay closed, they have nothing in them, then make no ice. *The
refrigerators people want (with doors, actual food contents, and making
ice) just do not perform anything like the tests. *It's like the
government-industry promotion of "efficiency" in cars, where the fleet
mileage is based on subcompacts nobody wants and driven like nobody drives,
versus the reality of SUVs with optional engines and leadfooted lady
drivers.

Polyethylene bags, by the way, are not very effective vapor barriers, which
is why they're aren't used for things like potato chips that are sensitive
to humidity instrusion.

Gees then why is my bill 30$ or so a month in winter , when you
educated folks cant save a penny and pay near 100 bucks a month in
winter!

On Apr 11, 3:25*pm, wrote:
On Apr 11, 1:24*pm, "cshenk" wrote:

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote

The methods may not be "real life" but as long as they test all brands the
same way, it is a way of noting that Brand A is half the cost to operate
compared to Brand B.

Correct.

I have to agree with Richard on this one. * There is no way anyone can
say that, because the EPA test standards as Richard provided, do not
test the refrigerators anywhere near to how they are actually used.
Rkichard noted that one big and obvious issue is the refrigerators are
tested with THE DOORS CLOSED AND NEVER OPENED.

I think we can all agree that opening the doors is a big factor in how
much energy is going to be used. * So, per your example, let's say
model A according to the EPA test uses $200 a year to operate and unit
B uses $100. *But that's without opening the doors. * Now we don't
know exactly how opening and closing the doors is going to affect both
refrigerators. * It could very well be that model A now uses $275 to
operate, while unit B uses $150. *So, model A is actually only a
factor of 1.8 better.

And I think this only gets worse when you're trying to figure out the
virtues of one with a sticker that says it uses $150 vs another one
that says $175. * *I would think the unknown effects of ice makers,
opening and closing the doors, having it actually loaded with food,
etc, could skew that quite a bit. *In other words, it seems a bit of
stretch to think that because of this labeling, the unit with the
alleged $150 energy cost is worth much more than the unit with the
$175 cost.

Ask yourself this. * If you were trying to determing how much energy a
refrigerator actually uses, would you test it with the doors kept
closed during the test, no food inside, and no ice maker? * And why
exactly does the govt test call for them to be tested this way?
These tests were not arbitrarily made by the govt, but were done in
collaboration with the industries involved. * There may not be some
ulterior motive involved, but it is a bit suspicious as to how they
don't test them anywhere near to how they are used.





I needed a new window AC this past summer. *In our state, there is no
sales tax on Energy Star models so I set out to find one. Found them I
did. *They were about $300 more than the non-compliant. *Guess what I
bought for $199?

Grin, I had to get 2 windows and a patio door replaced due to rental damage
and now just found another big window that has to go. *I went energy star.
2 reasons: *1- calculated heat loss best I could and the difference in cost
should pay for itself in 4 years (these are picture windows and a double
sliding glass patio door so significant when looking at a 7ft window-wall).
2- I get also a tax write off which gives back a little bit more.

I assure you, doing my taxes this year was interesting! *I'm getting 2/3's
back though so that's paid for most of the sunroom addition (repair of old
'enclosed porch, rated as 'sun room' in my area). *Next year, the sun room
can be written off as an energy star deduction because it's a repair to an
existing structure to a more energy efficient one. *Neat huh!

It may sound silly at first to pay more for a window or a patio door, but I
watched my neighbors pay double the heating cost this past winter. *Part of
that is they havent got a fireplace (or if they do, they arent aware of how
to use one effectively to augment heat) and part is they keep the temp at 75
or higher but a portion is also those same windows and patio doors where
they have actual drafts and some are not even double paned! *I have one
window remaining that isnt double paned but this is in the garage. *I have 3
remaining windows that are not energy star but were decent double paned
efficiency units of their day.

My combined electric/gas bill was 200$ a month less than my neighbors except
for one. *That one fellow? *He's had all of his windows done (uses same
fellow I do for this) and had his attic reinsulated. *He has no fireplace
but ran 50$ cheaper than me. *I'm highly considering rolling out an extra
layer of insulation up there.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I looked at the gov tests years ago, I fell they are real life set. I
did not follow his link, but looked at the Test. My cost is Lower than
the test, as low as a super the super efficient Sunfrost. What we are
dealing with here is people who have no concept of Energy Conservancy
and upgrading anything. Saving Energy costs money, and to many are
ignorant of this and costs 10 years out into the future or 30 years.
its called shortsightnesses

wrote

I think we can all agree that opening the doors is a big factor in how
much energy is going to be used. So, per your example, let's say
model A according to the EPA test uses $200 a year to operate and unit
B uses $100. But that's without opening the doors. Now we don't
know exactly how opening and closing the doors is going to affect both
refrigerators. It could very well be that model A now uses $275 to
operate, while unit B uses $150. So, model A is actually only a
factor of 1.8 better.

I think based on my web page reading they do in fact test door openings etc
on all of them as a standard.

wrote in message

I have to agree with Richard on this one. There is no way anyone can
say that, because the EPA test standards as Richard provided, do not
test the refrigerators anywhere near to how they are actually used.
Rkichard noted that one big and obvious issue is the refrigerators are
tested with THE DOORS CLOSED AND NEVER OPENED.

I think we can all agree that opening the doors is a big factor in how
much energy is going to be used. So, per your example, let's say
model A according to the EPA test uses $200 a year to operate and unit
B uses $100. But that's without opening the doors. Now we don't
know exactly how opening and closing the doors is going to affect both
refrigerators. It could very well be that model A now uses $275 to
operate, while unit B uses $150. So, model A is actually only a
factor of 1.8 better.

*********************************************

Richard makes good point, but I'm not in total agreement. No matter how
(in)efficient a refrigerator is, opening the same size door is going to
result in about the same heat gain. Making ice in one over the other is not
going to vary a hell of a lot. You still have to remove the same amount of
heat from the water. The energy consumption may not be totally linear, but
so what? Comparing a unit that is $100 a year versus one that is $200 by
EPS testing will still be within a reasonable range under

The yellow stickers are guide lines, not absolute facts. Consumers still
need to think and use some brain power. Besides, I'm still going to buy the
model I want no matter what the sticker says.

On Apr 11, 9:15*pm, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:
wrote in message

I have to agree with Richard on this one. * There is no way anyone can
say that, because the EPA test standards as Richard provided, do not
test the refrigerators anywhere near to how they are actually used.
Rkichard noted that one big and obvious issue is the refrigerators are
tested with THE DOORS CLOSED AND NEVER OPENED.

I think we can all agree that opening the doors is a big factor in how
much energy is going to be used. * So, per your example, let's say
model A according to the EPA test uses $200 a year to operate and unit
B uses $100. *But that's without opening the doors. * Now we don't
know exactly how opening and closing the doors is going to affect both
refrigerators. * It could very well be that model A now uses $275 to
operate, while unit B uses $150. *So, model A is actually only a
factor of 1.8 better.

*********************************************

Richard makes good point, but I'm not in total agreement. *No matter how
(in)efficient a refrigerator is, opening the same size door is going to
result in about the same heat gain. *Making ice in one over the other is not
going to vary a hell of a lot. *You still have to remove the same amount of
heat from the water. *The energy consumption may not be totally linear, but
so what? *Comparing a unit that is $100 a year versus one that is $200 by
EPS testing will still be within a reasonable range under

The yellow stickers are guide lines, not absolute facts. *Consumers still
need to think and use some brain power. *Besides, I'm still going to buy the
model I want no matter what the sticker says.

ENERGY STAR tests do include open door tests...Go to Energy Star.

ransley writes:

Read how the tests are done, they simulate a family of four I think

No. I cited the CFR earlier in the thread: No doors (that is, they're never
opened during the tests), no contents, no ice making or storage. A
thoroughly absurd set of conditions that was chosen to make the testing
easy and way optimistic.

ransley writes:

1$ a day! not for a new unit, Get a Kill a watt meter and test one,

I have actual engineering instrumentation and tests, not that toy.

Typical is $1/day.

On Apr 11, 8:47*pm, ransley wrote:
On Apr 11, 3:25*pm, wrote:





On Apr 11, 1:24*pm, "cshenk" wrote:

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote

The methods may not be "real life" but as long as they test all brands the
same way, it is a way of noting that Brand A is half the cost to operate
compared to Brand B.

Correct.

I have to agree with Richard on this one. * There is no way anyone can
say that, because the EPA test standards as Richard provided, do not
test the refrigerators anywhere near to how they are actually used.
Rkichard noted that one big and obvious issue is the refrigerators are
tested with THE DOORS CLOSED AND NEVER OPENED.

I think we can all agree that opening the doors is a big factor in how
much energy is going to be used. * So, per your example, let's say
model A according to the EPA test uses $200 a year to operate and unit
B uses $100. *But that's without opening the doors. * Now we don't
know exactly how opening and closing the doors is going to affect both
refrigerators. * It could very well be that model A now uses $275 to
operate, while unit B uses $150. *So, model A is actually only a
factor of 1.8 better.

And I think this only gets worse when you're trying to figure out the
virtues of one with a sticker that says it uses $150 vs another one
that says $175. * *I would think the unknown effects of ice makers,
opening and closing the doors, having it actually loaded with food,
etc, could skew that quite a bit. *In other words, it seems a bit of
stretch to think that because of this labeling, the unit with the
alleged $150 energy cost is worth much more than the unit with the
$175 cost.

Ask yourself this. * If you were trying to determing how much energy a
refrigerator actually uses, would you test it with the doors kept
closed during the test, no food inside, and no ice maker? * And why
exactly does the govt test call for them to be tested this way?
These tests were not arbitrarily made by the govt, but were done in
collaboration with the industries involved. * There may not be some
ulterior motive involved, but it is a bit suspicious as to how they
don't test them anywhere near to how they are used.

I needed a new window AC this past summer. *In our state, there is no
sales tax on Energy Star models so I set out to find one. Found them I
did. *They were about $300 more than the non-compliant. *Guess what I
bought for $199?

Grin, I had to get 2 windows and a patio door replaced due to rental damage
and now just found another big window that has to go. *I went energy star.
2 reasons: *1- calculated heat loss best I could and the difference in cost
should pay for itself in 4 years (these are picture windows and a double
sliding glass patio door so significant when looking at a 7ft window-wall).
2- I get also a tax write off which gives back a little bit more.

I assure you, doing my taxes this year was interesting! *I'm getting 2/3's
back though so that's paid for most of the sunroom addition (repair of old
'enclosed porch, rated as 'sun room' in my area). *Next year, the sun room
can be written off as an energy star deduction because it's a repair to an
existing structure to a more energy efficient one. *Neat huh!

It may sound silly at first to pay more for a window or a patio door, but I
watched my neighbors pay double the heating cost this past winter. *Part of
that is they havent got a fireplace (or if they do, they arent aware of how
to use one effectively to augment heat) and part is they keep the temp at 75
or higher but a portion is also those same windows and patio doors where
they have actual drafts and some are not even double paned! *I have one
window remaining that isnt double paned but this is in the garage. *I have 3
remaining windows that are not energy star but were decent double paned
efficiency units of their day.

My combined electric/gas bill was 200$ a month less than my neighbors except
for one. *That one fellow? *He's had all of his windows done (uses same
fellow I do for this) and had his attic reinsulated. *He has no fireplace
but ran 50$ cheaper than me. *I'm highly considering rolling out an extra
layer of insulation up there.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Trader has always been logical here. My old reading of the test was it
was Real Life, My savings are real, my tests of old to new are Real
Time since I own apt Buildings. Get a KAW meter, put it on a new unit
at a store and see for yourself, The mandates were plain and simple as
I reviewed them and they worked for us. Id say 50% savings is easy, I
have a 16 unit building *with *18 cfls, pump , boiler and condensing
boiler *WH, using 32$ a month , and house using the same, it CAN be
done... Cant is BS, we Can save energy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I just had my new fridge delivered today. While I'm hoping to find
some energy savings, I'm happy with it regardless- the fridge that
came with my house was 60 inches tall, probably 20 years old, a bit
rusty and I'm glad to see it gone! I had to have the cupboard above
it cut out to accomodate it, but so be it. The new one is over 18
cubic feet, probably a good three or four cubic feet bigger than the
old one. No coils on the back which is kind of cool, means the new
fridge won't stick out the additional five inches I had anticipated.
But on the not so good side, the cupboard I had my handyman build
above the fridge won't be nearly as useful for proofing bread dough,
since newer fridges don't give off nearly as much heat. The compressor
is on the bottom apparently, so not so toasty up above. New fridge
here, middle of the road freezer on the bottom model sells for just
over $1000 on sale here in Atlantic Canada.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), I
won't be able to measure actual power savings - my new washer and
dryer were also delivered today, also replacing models that were
probably 20 years old. Didn't go for the more energy efficient front
load washer; as much as I wanted to, a mid-priced model here would
have been more than my new washer and dryer combined.

KD

"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message
I have actual engineering instrumentation and tests, not that toy.

Typical is $1/day.

Considering that electric rates can vary from about 5¢ to 18¢ a kWh, your $1
figure is as accurate as the refrigerator testing.

ransley writes:

ENERGY STAR tests do include open door tests...Go to Energy Star.

Where? The CFR I cited sez otherwise.

Edwin Pawlowski writes:

Considering that electric rates can vary from about 5½ to 18½ a kWh,
your $1 figure is as accurate as the refrigerator testing.

Define "accurate". I said $1/day is typical and it is for typical electric
pricing. The DOE figures are way off the low end and not typical of
anywhere. Their 10 cents/day figures are fantasy.

Where do they charge 5 cents for a KWH? Iraq? Our fuel surchage alone is
more than 5 cents.

"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message
...
Edwin Pawlowski writes:

Considering that electric rates can vary from about 5½ to 18½ a kWh,
your $1 figure is as accurate as the refrigerator testing.

Define "accurate". I said $1/day is typical and it is for typical
electric
pricing. The DOE figures are way off the low end and not typical of
anywhere. Their 10 cents/day figures are fantasy.

Define "typical"


Where do they charge 5 cents for a KWH? Iraq? Our fuel surchage alone is
more than 5 cents.

Some places in the Midwest are that cheap. I recently did a check of rates
where our competitors did business and found rates as low as .045. I don't
have the links at home, but I was shocked at the rates available.

Richard J Kinch wrote:

... I said $1/day is typical and it is for typical electric pricing.
The DOE figures are way off the low end and not typical of anywhere.
Their 10 cents/day figures are fantasy.

Like the 1 cent/day Mt. Best chest fridge conversion? :-)

Nick

wrote:

Like the 1 cent/day Mt. Best chest fridge conversion? :-)

Does the above REALLY work as well as they say?

have any real world experience with it?

On Apr 12, 7:09*pm, Richard J Kinch wrote:
ransley writes:
1$ a day! not for a new unit, Get a Kill a watt meter and test one,

I have actual engineering instrumentation and tests, not that toy.

Typical is $1/day.

That "Toy" as you call the KAW meter has quite a few reviews online
stating accuracy is very, very good. I suspect your instrument is off,
or your frige on the bum, since my tests, done on several friges
conform to my utility bill at $0.13 kwh. Even an old unit I have, came
up after a 4 day test at around $11 a month. If yours is really 1$ a
day at near 0.13-$0.16 kwh then something, or a few things are wrong,
Like your defrost timer is locked on defrost sucking an easy extra
600watts all the time, or freon is low so it never shuts off. $5 a
month is an accurate figure a new 19.5 cu ft top freezer uses. I had a
unit stuck on defrost from a broken clock, it took an extra 5-600
watts, those months we wasted maybe 50$ a month.

On Apr 14, 1:18*pm, ransley wrote:
On Apr 12, 7:09*pm, Richard J Kinch wrote:

ransley writes:
1$ a day! not for a new unit, Get a Kill a watt meter and test one,

I have actual engineering instrumentation and tests, not that toy.

Typical is $1/day.

That "Toy" as you call the KAW meter has quite a few reviews online
stating accuracy is very, very good. I suspect your instrument is off,
or your frige on the bum, since my tests, done on several friges
conform to my utility bill at $0.13 kwh. Even an old unit I have, came
up after a 4 day test at around $11 a month. If yours is really 1$ a
day at near 0.13-$0.16 kwh then something, or a few things are wrong,
Like your defrost timer is locked on defrost sucking an easy *extra
600watts all the time, or freon is low so it never shuts off. $5 a
month is an accurate figure a new 19.5 cu ft top freezer uses. I had a
unit stuck on defrost from a broken clock, it took an extra 5-600
watts, those months we wasted maybe 50$ a month.

Lets see, as the **** ignorant naysayers say, Tankless water heaters
save no money, condensing heat units are bs, CFLs you cant live with,
and refrigerators cost $30 dollars a month at $.014 or so kwh, I say
Bull ****, my tenants pay US$ 20 - 25 a month for electric for a one
bedroom apt, with a 19.5 cu ft new HD Maytag frige and computer and
TV games, I pay about US$ 35 for a house with an OLD FRIGE, , thats
all, folks, in Chgo, and at a fairly high kwh cost of about
$0.14kwh. What a bunch of whineing, dumb ass, weeenies you are on how
to save bucks, morons, more like it. Talk about idiots that cant see
through the clouds. My Neighbor, same size house, paid 700 a month to
heat, I paid about 120, but he is too much of a moron to figure it out
also, just like a few of the folks here. Refrigerators on the
mainland, cant cost $30 a month, unless 15 kids keep em open all day.
**** it away, its only to the utility company, Bushes favorite
personal investment.

On Apr 12, 7:09*pm, Richard J Kinch wrote:
ransley writes:
1$ a day! not for a new unit, Get a Kill a watt meter and test one,

I have actual engineering instrumentation and tests, not that toy.

Typical is $1/day.

Typical, ill tell you what typical is mr kinch , in Chicgo Ill at
$0.136 Kwh my tennants pay about Twenty- 22 Dollars a month for all
electric for a 1 br apt. a 19.5 cuft frige and tv, computer,
microwave and all else in a 1 br apt , 3 rooms + bath. Friges are HD
top freezer maytag or whatever. They have computers, cable, Wii,
Xbox, internet, satelite and whatever. At 30 bucks to run a dam frige
id have to lower my rents !!!! 20 bucks a month! to keep tenants! Mr
Kinch you need new test equipment, correct advise, or a new frige! I
think all 12 . Since your utility costs are so ****ed up.

wrote...

Like the 1 cent/day Mt. Best chest fridge conversion? :-)

Does the above REALLY work as well as they say?

I think so. This started when Dr. Chalko (whose day job seems to involve
helicopter aerodynamics) noticed that chest freezers used less electricity
than fridges, despite their larger inside-outside temperature differences.

Then again, it would be nice if his fridge were larger and upright (for
easier access and less floorspace) and had a freezer compartment for ice
and ice cream. With just a few door openings, an upright freezer might
work well as an ultra-low-power fridge.

USDOE tests freezers at 0 F in a 90 F room to make up for no door openings.
The Energy Guide label on Whirlpool's EH151 14.8 ft^3 $369 chest freezer
says it uses 354 kWh/year that way, so it might use 354(70-36)/(90-0)
= 134 at 36 F, ie 0.37 kWh per day, or an average of 15.3 watts.

The A419ABC-1C digital thermostat from Johnson Controls ($62 as part number
L38716 from Jonestone Supply, with a remote thermistor) uses 1.8 VA max.
It could run the freezer when the box temp rises to 36 F.

If this is like Frigidaire's FFC1524 48"x29.5"x35" high chest freezer, with
cold coils inside the left 29.5"x35" side and hot coils under the skin of
the 48"x35" back, we might add an internal foil-foamboard partition parallel
to the left side to make a freezer compartment and add more foamboard over
the top of the chest lid and around the 3 cold sides and let a new stat run
a small fan to circulate air between the freezer and fridge compartments
when the fridge temp rises to 36 F.

Nick

On 2008-04-15, wrote:

I think so. This started when Dr. Chalko (whose day job seems to involve
helicopter aerodynamics) noticed that chest freezers used less electricity
than fridges, despite their larger inside-outside temperature differences.

Hmm, looking at the EPA energy star data, they use about the same
amount of electricity as fridges of comparable size. Which is still
impressive, given the larger difference in temperature difference.

Another data point is to compare upright, freezer only, manual defrost
units with chest freezers (which are all manual defrost, at least the
energy star ones). For 15-17 ft^3, the chest freezers use 350-360
kwh/year. While for 15-18 ft^3, the upright freezers use 409-430
kwh/year. But, I haven't checked the energy star testing procedure to
see whether they are opening the doors or not.

There are also commercially available chest refrigerators (e.g. by
Summit), but they are much more expensive than a chest freezer
conversion. I also couldn't find the usage data on them.

Cheers, Wayne

On Apr 8, 9:41 pm, "C & E" wrote:
I just saw an Energy Star commercial which stated that a 'fridge built ten
years ago uses twice as much electricity as a new one. Does that sound like
a logical stat to you? I'll have to spend some time researching that when I
get time but it sounds a bit inflated to me.

I know I'm late here but what I find unbelievable is that ten years
ago they ran the same ads. That means a new energy star fridge of
today uses 1/4 the energy of a twenty year old fridge.

I did have one of those "watt wizards" on an old fridge long ago and
you could actually hear the motor make less noise as it was reducing
the energy to it. I think it worked by sensing the speed of the motor
and slowly cut back the power until it sensed the motor slowing down.
Todays motors are just barely strong enough to operate the
compressor. If you try to use a watt wizard on a newer fridge the
compressor motor will stall.

Tony

ransley writes:

That "Toy" as you call the KAW meter has quite a few reviews online
stating accuracy is very, very good. I suspect your instrument is off,
or your frige on the bum, since my tests, done on several friges
conform to my utility bill at $0.13 kwh. Even an old unit I have, came
up after a 4 day test at around $11 a month.

You claim $11 per month, so that's 11/0.13 = 84 KWH over 30*24 hours, which
would as an always-on average load rate to just over 100 watts. A big
refrigerator does not average 100 watts. It's more like 300 watts when it
runs, and typical duty cycles with an icemaker are mostly running.

And don't forget my little gem of wisdom that your indoor refrigeration
cost is twice as bad as your refrigerator electric cost when you are air
conditioning, because you're pumping that heat twice, not once. Once from
the refrigerator into the kitchen for $1/day, and again from the kitchen to
outdoors for $1.25/day. So the accuracy of your outlet meter is not really
the point, because it doesn't measure the true marginal cost of the
refrigeration per BTU. This is one of the huge holes in the Energy Star
claims.

ransley writes:

my tennants pay about Twenty- 22 Dollars a month for all
electric

Please. $20/month worth of electricity won't run a TV set, much less heat,
lights, or appliances.

I don't think it is even possible to get a $20 bill from our utility. The
fixed charges are more than that.

On Apr 15, 11:36*pm, Richard J Kinch wrote:
ransley writes:
That "Toy" as you call the KAW meter has quite a few reviews online
stating accuracy is very, very good. I suspect your instrument is off,
or your frige on the bum, since my tests, done on several friges
conform to my utility bill at $0.13 kwh. Even an old unit I have, came
up after a 4 day test at around $11 a month.

You claim $11 per month, so that's 11/0.13 = 84 KWH over 30*24 hours, which *
would as an always-on average load rate to just over 100 watts. *A big
refrigerator does not average 100 watts. *It's more like 300 watts when it
runs, and typical duty cycles with an icemaker are mostly running.

And don't forget my little gem of wisdom that your indoor refrigeration
cost is twice as bad as your refrigerator electric cost when you are air
conditioning, because you're pumping that heat twice, not once. *Once from
the refrigerator into the kitchen for $1/day, and again from the kitchen to
outdoors for $1.25/day. *So the accuracy of your outlet meter is not really
the point, because it doesn't measure the true marginal cost of the
refrigeration per BTU. *This is one of the huge holes in the Energy Star
claims.

I just talked to 2 of my tenants, they said they pay about 20 a
month, thats for tv, microwave, lights, video games, computer, FRIGE,
TVs, phones etc, at Chicago ill rates of near 0.14 kwh , so go figure,
your mythical 1$ a day is from a bad frige or inacurate monitoring,
show me a poor review on the Kill-A- Watt meter and its innacuracies,
your monitoring of your frige is suspect, Gee I run a house at 39$ a
month. Yours must be near 100 with 50$ ****ed away in the trash. wake
up and do your own audit old fart.

"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message

And don't forget my little gem of wisdom that your indoor refrigeration
cost is twice as bad as your refrigerator electric cost when you are air
conditioning, because you're pumping that heat twice, not once. Once from
the refrigerator into the kitchen for $1/day, and again from the kitchen
to
outdoors for $1.25/day. So the accuracy of your outlet meter is not
really
the point, because it doesn't measure the true marginal cost of the
refrigeration per BTU. This is one of the huge holes in the Energy Star
claims.

I don't see that as a huge hole. I want a comparison of the appliance uses,
not how my life is or is not affected by secondary functions. In my case, I
only run the AC about 30 days a year, but if I lived in the south it may be
180+ days. Some of my neighbors have no AC, others have central units. it
is impossible to give total energy use for every household in the country.

That tag though, does give me some idea that A is better than B. Perfect?
No, that is why it is called an energy GUIDE, not an energy absolute use
sticker.

ransley writes:

Gee I run a house at 39$ a month.

So you run a house on 300 watts average.

Pardon my skepticism.

Edwin Pawlowski writes:

That tag though, does give me some idea that A is better than B.

Exactly: it gives you that idea. An untested, unproven idea that plausibly
could be the inverse of the truth.

The function of the tag is to sell refrigerators and provide cover for the
government. No doors, no contents, no ice. A schoolboy doing a science
fair project would come up with a better test.

Richard J Kinch wrote:
Edwin Pawlowski writes:

That tag though, does give me some idea that A is better than B.

Exactly: it gives you that idea. An untested, unproven idea that plausibly
could be the inverse of the truth.

The function of the tag is to sell refrigerators and provide cover for the
government. No doors, no contents, no ice. A schoolboy doing a science
fair project would come up with a better test.

Heat loss is heat loss -- all the other factors are simply changing the
amount of same by either the same amount where something can be
controlled well (as in a fixed weight of same items) or not so nearly
the same as in more difficult to control (or at least much more
expensive to develop test environments) of the door-opening that you
seem so hung up over.

Again, it doesn't make any difference. It will change the absolute
values, yes, but have very little bearing on the relatives...

--

dpb writes:

Heat loss is heat loss

That's naive. Performance depends on the design, which varies for cooling
room air, versus wall conduction losses, making ice, defrosting, etc.
Efficiency has more to do with those parameters than any basic heat pump
efficiency. That model A is better than B for the few modes tested by the
DOE, does not mean that A beats B for other modes.

Indeed, the opposite is quite to be expected, since the design will be
optimized to the DOE fantasy test, which appears on a big yellow immunized
sticker, rather than performance under real conditions, which most
consumers never measure. You know, putting stuff inside, making ice,
opening the door. The DOE test forces designs that idle cheaply, rather
than ones that cheaply recover from intrusions, defrost, or chill or freeze
contents.

Quite typically the ultra-efficient designs get the last bit of efficiency
from complex mechanisms that are the first to fail and fall-back, leaving
you worse off.

On Apr 16, 3:17*pm, Richard J Kinch wrote:
ransley writes:
Gee I run a house at 39$ a month.

So you run a house on 300 watts average.

Pardon my skepticism.

Thats the problem you dont believe anything, I dont have any tenants
paying over 20 a month with new friges unless they run space heaters.
Read test reviews on a Kill a Watt and get one. If your frige costs 30
a month it should be junked.

Richard J Kinch wrote:
dpb writes:

Heat loss is heat loss

That's naive. Performance depends on the design, which varies for cooling
room air, versus wall conduction losses, making ice, defrosting, etc.

Not really...heat goes from inside the box to outside and is kept there
at some level.

The same amount of heat has to be transferred to cool N grams of water
to make ice.

Again it would change the absolute numbers; unlikely to change rankings
much at all.

--

"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message
. ..
Edwin Pawlowski writes:

That tag though, does give me some idea that A is better than B.

Exactly: it gives you that idea. An untested, unproven idea that
plausibly
could be the inverse of the truth.

The function of the tag is to sell refrigerators and provide cover for the
government. No doors, no contents, no ice. A schoolboy doing a science
fair project would come up with a better test.

Do you have evidence that it may be the inverse? Have you done any testing?

The test is not perfect, the circumstances are not the same as every
household uses their fridge in a different manner, but overall, heat gain
into a given volume insulated container has to be removed. If two boxes,
one more insulated than the other sit side by side in a 70 degree room,
the better insulated one will have less gain. So, measure it, put it on a
yellow tag and you have some basis for comparison. Real use will vary if
you open the door five times or fifty times a day, but the comparison of A
to BE will still be reasonably close. Add five pounds of water to each and
make ice. You still have to move the same number of calories to get the
water from 50 to 0 or whatever.

If the yellow tag sates $50 per year, my use may be 20% more, but the model
that says $150 per year is still going to be 17% to 22% more and that is all
I need to know. "Look honey, this one is better insulated so we can save a
whale for dinner." That's all I need to know no matter how detailed your
proposed test is.

I bought a car that states 30 mpg on the sticker and I'm happy with the 25
that I get and expected. I knew that difference up front. I do, in fact,
know that it is better than the cars with the 20 mpg sticker and not as good
as the ones with the 35 mpg sticker.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message
. ..

Edwin Pawlowski writes:


That tag though, does give me some idea that A is better than B.

Exactly: it gives you that idea. An untested, unproven idea that
plausibly
could be the inverse of the truth.

The function of the tag is to sell refrigerators and provide cover for the
government. No doors, no contents, no ice. A schoolboy doing a science
fair project would come up with a better test.


Do you have evidence that it may be the inverse? Have you done any testing?

The test is not perfect, the circumstances are not the same as every
household uses their fridge in a different manner, but overall, heat gain
into a given volume insulated container has to be removed. If two boxes,
one more insulated than the other sit side by side in a 70 degree room,
the better insulated one will have less gain. So, measure it, put it on a
yellow tag and you have some basis for comparison. Real use will vary if
you open the door five times or fifty times a day, but the comparison of A
to BE will still be reasonably close. Add five pounds of water to each and
make ice. You still have to move the same number of calories to get the
water from 50 to 0 or whatever.

If the yellow tag sates $50 per year, my use may be 20% more, but the model
that says $150 per year is still going to be 17% to 22% more and that is all
I need to know. "Look honey, this one is better insulated so we can save a
whale for dinner." That's all I need to know no matter how detailed your
proposed test is.

I bought a car that states 30 mpg on the sticker and I'm happy with the 25
that I get and expected. I knew that difference up front. I do, in fact,
know that it is better than the cars with the 20 mpg sticker and not as good
as the ones with the 35 mpg sticker.


Hmmm,
No sense arguing with a person like that. He is never happy with
anything. Typically person like that blame everything/everyone but
himself. That Energuide sticker is a quick reference for comparing
A to B no matter what. If you are so energy concious, look at your life
style first.

On Apr 16, 11:03*pm, Tony Hwang wrote:
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message
...

Edwin Pawlowski writes:

That tag though, does give me some idea that A is better than B.

Exactly: it gives you that idea. *An untested, unproven idea that
plausibly
could be the inverse of the truth.

The function of the tag is to sell refrigerators and provide cover for the
government. No doors, no contents, no ice. *A schoolboy doing a science
fair project would come up with a better test.

Do you have evidence that it may be the inverse? *Have you done any testing?

The test is not perfect, the circumstances are not the same as every
household uses their fridge in a different manner, but overall, heat gain
into a given volume insulated container has to be removed. *If two boxes,
one more insulated than the *other sit side by side in a *70 degree room,
the better insulated one will have less gain. *So, measure it, put it on a
yellow tag and you have some basis for comparison. *Real use will vary if
you open the door five times or fifty times a day, but the comparison of A
to BE will still be reasonably close. Add five pounds of water to each and
make ice. *You still have to move the same number of calories to get the
water from 50 to 0 or whatever.

If the yellow tag sates $50 per year, my use may be 20% more, but the model
that says $150 per year is still going to be 17% to 22% more and that is all
I need to know. "Look honey, this one is better insulated so we can save a
whale for dinner." *That's all I need to know no matter how detailed your
proposed test is.

I bought a car that states 30 mpg on the sticker and I'm happy with the 25
that I get and expected. *I knew that difference up front. *I do, in fact,
know that it is better than the cars with the 20 mpg sticker and not as good
as the ones with the 35 mpg sticker.

Hmmm,
No sense arguing with a person like that. He is never happy with
anything. Typically person like that blame everything/everyone but
himself. That Energuide sticker is a quick reference for comparing
A to B no matter what. If you are so energy concious, look at your life
style first.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


I think both sides of this argument have merit. The bottom line is,
we really don't know how adding ice makers, a reasonably full load of
food and opening and closing doors will affect the overall energy
usage of the units. I would agree it's likely there is some
corelation between the current energy test and how they will perform
under more realistic conditions. I'd be surprised if the most
efficient one suddenly became the most inefficient, but we really
don't know.

I agree with Richard on one thing. That is the way they test them is
not even close to how they are actually used. Unless I'm missing
something, that means the stickers on all the doors showing the
estimated annual energy used is not even close to accurate, as it's
underestimated. And I would have to agree that it sure looks
suspiciously like a way to fool consumers into thinking the new unit
on the showroom floor is going to use less energy than it really does,
which helps sell them. The tests were arrived at jointly between
the EPA and the manufacturers and by having a test that is skewed
helps the manufacturers sell units and helps the EPA by making it look
like the Energy Star program is producing better results that it
actually is.

On Apr 17, 6:59*am, wrote:
On Apr 16, 11:03*pm, Tony Hwang wrote:





Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message
...

Edwin Pawlowski writes:

That tag though, does give me some idea that A is better than B.

Exactly: it gives you that idea. *An untested, unproven idea that
plausibly
could be the inverse of the truth.

The function of the tag is to sell refrigerators and provide cover for the
government. No doors, no contents, no ice. *A schoolboy doing a science
fair project would come up with a better test.

Do you have evidence that it may be the inverse? *Have you done any testing?

The test is not perfect, the circumstances are not the same as every
household uses their fridge in a different manner, but overall, heat gain
into a given volume insulated container has to be removed. *If two boxes,
one more insulated than the *other sit side by side in a *70 degree room,
the better insulated one will have less gain. *So, measure it, put it on a
yellow tag and you have some basis for comparison. *Real use will vary if
you open the door five times or fifty times a day, but the comparison of A
to BE will still be reasonably close. Add five pounds of water to each and
make ice. *You still have to move the same number of calories to get the
water from 50 to 0 or whatever.

If the yellow tag sates $50 per year, my use may be 20% more, but the model
that says $150 per year is still going to be 17% to 22% more and that is all
I need to know. "Look honey, this one is better insulated so we can save a
whale for dinner." *That's all I need to know no matter how detailed your
proposed test is.

I bought a car that states 30 mpg on the sticker and I'm happy with the 25
that I get and expected. *I knew that difference up front. *I do, in fact,
know that it is better than the cars with the 20 mpg sticker and not as good
as the ones with the 35 mpg sticker.

Hmmm,
No sense arguing with a person like that. He is never happy with
anything. Typically person like that blame everything/everyone but
himself. That Energuide sticker is a quick reference for comparing
A to B no matter what. If you are so energy concious, look at your life
style first.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think both sides of this argument have merit. * The bottom line is,
we really don't know how adding ice makers, a reasonably full load of
food and opening and closing doors will affect the overall energy
usage of the units. * I would agree it's likely there is some
corelation between the current energy test and how they will perform
under more realistic conditions. *I'd be surprised if the most
efficient one suddenly became the most inefficient, but we really
don't know.

I agree with Richard on one thing. *That is the way they test them is
not even close to how they are actually used. *Unless I'm missing
something, that means the stickers on all the doors showing the
estimated annual energy used is not even close to accurate, as it's
underestimated. * And I would have to agree that it sure looks
suspiciously like a way to fool consumers into thinking the new unit
on the showroom floor is going to use less energy than it really does,
which helps sell them. * *The tests were arrived at jointly between
the EPA and the manufacturers and by having a test that is skewed
helps the manufacturers sell units and helps the EPA by making it look
like the Energy Star program is producing better results that it
actually is.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Has anybody here read how the Energy Star test is done or what it
tries to achieve. Years ago I found it and if I remember it simulated
a family of 4 with doors opening up to 90f interior temp and doors not
opened over 91f. Simulate it right, and it gets close even without
food as the air must cool. Ive bought quite few 19cu ft friges, last
year about 10, my tenants electric bills dropped about 10$ a month, my
Kill a watt confirms usage on my new and old stuff. Sure you will
likely pay more than ratings but comparing new to old, to the Energy
Star units is pretty dramatic, If you look at all energy star tests
there are 20% better units then gov average. Overall 50-75% savings
over old units is a reality. I found I can beat the Yellow Tag with
carefull use, my frige when tested with a KAW meter is as good as Sun
Frost, which at the time was the most efficent with 6" of foam
insulation, At .125 kwh I was paying under 5$ a month. Whats so hard
to believe, ACs go to 20? seer, cfls save 75%, Boilers are up to
93-98%, 30 years ago few cared. Just 10 years ago my heating co would
not recommend a condensing boiler because they felt there were
reliability issues, now they do. If the tests were so far off it would
be headline news. Doing your own test is easy with a Kill a Watt or
other similar unit

On Apr 17, 9:10*am, ransley wrote:
On Apr 17, 6:59*am, wrote:





On Apr 16, 11:03*pm, Tony Hwang wrote:

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message
...

Edwin Pawlowski writes:

That tag though, does give me some idea that A is better than B.

Exactly: it gives you that idea. *An untested, unproven idea that
plausibly
could be the inverse of the truth.

The function of the tag is to sell refrigerators and provide cover for the
government. No doors, no contents, no ice. *A schoolboy doing a science
fair project would come up with a better test.

Do you have evidence that it may be the inverse? *Have you done any testing?

The test is not perfect, the circumstances are not the same as every
household uses their fridge in a different manner, but overall, heat gain
into a given volume insulated container has to be removed. *If two boxes,
one more insulated than the *other sit side by side in a *70 degree room,
the better insulated one will have less gain. *So, measure it, put it on a
yellow tag and you have some basis for comparison. *Real use will vary if
you open the door five times or fifty times a day, but the comparison of A
to BE will still be reasonably close. Add five pounds of water to each and
make ice. *You still have to move the same number of calories to get the
water from 50 to 0 or whatever.

If the yellow tag sates $50 per year, my use may be 20% more, but the model
that says $150 per year is still going to be 17% to 22% more and that is all
I need to know. "Look honey, this one is better insulated so we can save a
whale for dinner." *That's all I need to know no matter how detailed your
proposed test is.

I bought a car that states 30 mpg on the sticker and I'm happy with the 25
that I get and expected. *I knew that difference up front. *I do, in fact,
know that it is better than the cars with the 20 mpg sticker and not as good
as the ones with the 35 mpg sticker.

Hmmm,
No sense arguing with a person like that. He is never happy with
anything. Typically person like that blame everything/everyone but
himself. That Energuide sticker is a quick reference for comparing
A to B no matter what. If you are so energy concious, look at your life
style first.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think both sides of this argument have merit. * The bottom line is,
we really don't know how adding ice makers, a reasonably full load of
food and opening and closing doors will affect the overall energy
usage of the units. * I would agree it's likely there is some
corelation between the current energy test and how they will perform
under more realistic conditions. *I'd be surprised if the most
efficient one suddenly became the most inefficient, but we really
don't know.

I agree with Richard on one thing. *That is the way they test them is
not even close to how they are actually used. *Unless I'm missing
something, that means the stickers on all the doors showing the
estimated annual energy used is not even close to accurate, as it's
underestimated. * And I would have to agree that it sure looks
suspiciously like a way to fool consumers into thinking the new unit
on the showroom floor is going to use less energy than it really does,
which helps sell them. * *The tests were arrived at jointly between
the EPA and the manufacturers and by having a test that is skewed
helps the manufacturers sell units and helps the EPA by making it look
like the Energy Star program is producing better results that it
actually is.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Has anybody here read how the Energy Star test is done or what it
tries to achieve.

Yes, I did. Richard provided the link several days ago in one of his
posts. That is the basis for most of what has been discussed here
regarding the accuracy of the tests. Go back in his posts, find it
and take a look. It says the tests are done with the doors closed, no
food, no ice maker, etc.



Years ago I found it and if I remember it simulated
a family of 4 with doors opening up to 90f interior temp and doors not
opened over 91f. Simulate it right, and it gets close even without
food as the air must cool. *Ive bought quite few 19cu ft friges, last
year about 10, my tenants electric bills dropped about 10$ a month, my
Kill a watt confirms usage on my new and old stuff. Sure you will
likely pay more than ratings but comparing new to old, to the Energy
Star units is pretty dramatic, If you look at all energy star tests
there are 20% better units then gov average. Overall 50-75% savings
over old units is a reality. I found I can *beat the Yellow Tag with
carefull use, my frige when tested with a KAW meter is as good as *Sun
Frost, which at the time was the most efficent with 6" of foam
insulation, At .125 kwh I was paying under 5$ a month. Whats so hard
to believe, ACs go to 20? seer, cfls save 75%, Boilers are up to
93-98%, 30 years ago few cared. Just 10 years ago my heating co would
not recommend a condensing boiler because they felt there were
reliability issues, now they do. If the tests were so far off it would
be headline news. Doing your own test is easy with a Kill a Watt or
other similar unit- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Apr 17, 8:27*am, wrote:
On Apr 17, 9:10*am, ransley wrote:





On Apr 17, 6:59*am, wrote:

On Apr 16, 11:03*pm, Tony Hwang wrote:

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message
...

Edwin Pawlowski writes:

That tag though, does give me some idea that A is better than B.

Exactly: it gives you that idea. *An untested, unproven idea that
plausibly
could be the inverse of the truth.

The function of the tag is to sell refrigerators and provide cover for the
government. No doors, no contents, no ice. *A schoolboy doing a science
fair project would come up with a better test.

Do you have evidence that it may be the inverse? *Have you done any testing?

The test is not perfect, the circumstances are not the same as every
household uses their fridge in a different manner, but overall, heat gain
into a given volume insulated container has to be removed. *If two boxes,
one more insulated than the *other sit side by side in a *70 degree room,
the better insulated one will have less gain. *So, measure it, put it on a
yellow tag and you have some basis for comparison. *Real use will vary if
you open the door five times or fifty times a day, but the comparison of A
to BE will still be reasonably close. Add five pounds of water to each and
make ice. *You still have to move the same number of calories to get the
water from 50 to 0 or whatever.

If the yellow tag sates $50 per year, my use may be 20% more, but the model
that says $150 per year is still going to be 17% to 22% more and that is all
I need to know. "Look honey, this one is better insulated so we can save a
whale for dinner." *That's all I need to know no matter how detailed your
proposed test is.

I bought a car that states 30 mpg on the sticker and I'm happy with the 25
that I get and expected. *I knew that difference up front. *I do, in fact,
know that it is better than the cars with the 20 mpg sticker and not as good
as the ones with the 35 mpg sticker.

Hmmm,
No sense arguing with a person like that. He is never happy with
anything. Typically person like that blame everything/everyone but
himself. That Energuide sticker is a quick reference for comparing
A to B no matter what. If you are so energy concious, look at your life
style first.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think both sides of this argument have merit. * The bottom line is,
we really don't know how adding ice makers, a reasonably full load of
food and opening and closing doors will affect the overall energy
usage of the units. * I would agree it's likely there is some
corelation between the current energy test and how they will perform
under more realistic conditions. *I'd be surprised if the most
efficient one suddenly became the most inefficient, but we really
don't know.

I agree with Richard on one thing. *That is the way they test them is
not even close to how they are actually used. *Unless I'm missing
something, that means the stickers on all the doors showing the
estimated annual energy used is not even close to accurate, as it's
underestimated. * And I would have to agree that it sure looks
suspiciously like a way to fool consumers into thinking the new unit
on the showroom floor is going to use less energy than it really does,
which helps sell them. * *The tests were arrived at jointly between
the EPA and the manufacturers and by having a test that is skewed
helps the manufacturers sell units and helps the EPA by making it look
like the Energy Star program is producing better results that it
actually is.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Has anybody here read how the Energy Star test is done or what it
tries to achieve.

Yes, I did. *Richard provided the link several days ago in one of his
posts. * That is the basis for most of what has been discussed here
regarding the accuracy of the tests. * Go back in his posts, find it
and take a look. *It says the tests are done with the doors closed, no
food, no ice maker, etc.

Years ago I found it and if I remember it simulated



a family of 4 with doors opening up to 90f interior temp and doors not
opened over 91f. Simulate it right, and it gets close even without
food as the air must cool. *Ive bought quite few 19cu ft friges, last
year about 10, my tenants electric bills dropped about 10$ a month, my
Kill a watt confirms usage on my new and old stuff. Sure you will
likely pay more than ratings but comparing new to old, to the Energy
Star units is pretty dramatic, If you look at all energy star tests
there are 20% better units then gov average. Overall 50-75% savings
over old units is a reality. I found I can *beat the Yellow Tag with
carefull use, my frige when tested with a KAW meter is as good as *Sun
Frost, which at the time was the most efficent with 6" of foam
insulation, At .125 kwh I was paying under 5$ a month. Whats so hard
to believe, ACs go to 20? seer, cfls save 75%, Boilers are up to
93-98%, 30 years ago few cared. Just 10 years ago my heating co would
not recommend a condensing boiler because they felt there were
reliability issues, now they do. If the tests were so far off it would
be headline news. Doing your own test is easy with a Kill a Watt or
other similar unit- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think its the wrong refrence. Yesterday I saw at Energy Star stating
doors open below 90 or 91f then tests were done doors closed. The true
refrence has it stating family usage as well.

On Apr 17, 8:27*am, wrote:
On Apr 17, 9:10*am, ransley wrote:





On Apr 17, 6:59*am, wrote:

On Apr 16, 11:03*pm, Tony Hwang wrote:

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message
...

Edwin Pawlowski writes:

That tag though, does give me some idea that A is better than B.

Exactly: it gives you that idea. *An untested, unproven idea that
plausibly
could be the inverse of the truth.

The function of the tag is to sell refrigerators and provide cover for the
government. No doors, no contents, no ice. *A schoolboy doing a science
fair project would come up with a better test.

Do you have evidence that it may be the inverse? *Have you done any testing?

The test is not perfect, the circumstances are not the same as every
household uses their fridge in a different manner, but overall, heat gain
into a given volume insulated container has to be removed. *If two boxes,
one more insulated than the *other sit side by side in a *70 degree room,
the better insulated one will have less gain. *So, measure it, put it on a
yellow tag and you have some basis for comparison. *Real use will vary if
you open the door five times or fifty times a day, but the comparison of A
to BE will still be reasonably close. Add five pounds of water to each and
make ice. *You still have to move the same number of calories to get the
water from 50 to 0 or whatever.

If the yellow tag sates $50 per year, my use may be 20% more, but the model
that says $150 per year is still going to be 17% to 22% more and that is all
I need to know. "Look honey, this one is better insulated so we can save a
whale for dinner." *That's all I need to know no matter how detailed your
proposed test is.

I bought a car that states 30 mpg on the sticker and I'm happy with the 25
that I get and expected. *I knew that difference up front. *I do, in fact,
know that it is better than the cars with the 20 mpg sticker and not as good
as the ones with the 35 mpg sticker.

Hmmm,
No sense arguing with a person like that. He is never happy with
anything. Typically person like that blame everything/everyone but
himself. That Energuide sticker is a quick reference for comparing
A to B no matter what. If you are so energy concious, look at your life
style first.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think both sides of this argument have merit. * The bottom line is,
we really don't know how adding ice makers, a reasonably full load of
food and opening and closing doors will affect the overall energy
usage of the units. * I would agree it's likely there is some
corelation between the current energy test and how they will perform
under more realistic conditions. *I'd be surprised if the most
efficient one suddenly became the most inefficient, but we really
don't know.

I agree with Richard on one thing. *That is the way they test them is
not even close to how they are actually used. *Unless I'm missing
something, that means the stickers on all the doors showing the
estimated annual energy used is not even close to accurate, as it's
underestimated. * And I would have to agree that it sure looks
suspiciously like a way to fool consumers into thinking the new unit
on the showroom floor is going to use less energy than it really does,
which helps sell them. * *The tests were arrived at jointly between
the EPA and the manufacturers and by having a test that is skewed
helps the manufacturers sell units and helps the EPA by making it look
like the Energy Star program is producing better results that it
actually is.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Has anybody here read how the Energy Star test is done or what it
tries to achieve.

Yes, I did. *Richard provided the link several days ago in one of his
posts. * That is the basis for most of what has been discussed here
regarding the accuracy of the tests. * Go back in his posts, find it
and take a look. *It says the tests are done with the doors closed, no
food, no ice maker, etc.

Years ago I found it and if I remember it simulated



a family of 4 with doors opening up to 90f interior temp and doors not
opened over 91f. Simulate it right, and it gets close even without
food as the air must cool. *Ive bought quite few 19cu ft friges, last
year about 10, my tenants electric bills dropped about 10$ a month, my
Kill a watt confirms usage on my new and old stuff. Sure you will
likely pay more than ratings but comparing new to old, to the Energy
Star units is pretty dramatic, If you look at all energy star tests
there are 20% better units then gov average. Overall 50-75% savings
over old units is a reality. I found I can *beat the Yellow Tag with
carefull use, my frige when tested with a KAW meter is as good as *Sun
Frost, which at the time was the most efficent with 6" of foam
insulation, At .125 kwh I was paying under 5$ a month. Whats so hard
to believe, ACs go to 20? seer, cfls save 75%, Boilers are up to
93-98%, 30 years ago few cared. Just 10 years ago my heating co would
not recommend a condensing boiler because they felt there were
reliability issues, now they do. If the tests were so far off it would
be headline news. Doing your own test is easy with a Kill a Watt or
other similar unit- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I emailed you a pdf of what I found.

On Apr 17, 8:27*am, wrote:
On Apr 17, 9:10*am, ransley wrote:





On Apr 17, 6:59*am, wrote:

On Apr 16, 11:03*pm, Tony Hwang wrote:

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message
...

Edwin Pawlowski writes:

That tag though, does give me some idea that A is better than B.

Exactly: it gives you that idea. *An untested, unproven idea that
plausibly
could be the inverse of the truth.

The function of the tag is to sell refrigerators and provide cover for the
government. No doors, no contents, no ice. *A schoolboy doing a science
fair project would come up with a better test.

Do you have evidence that it may be the inverse? *Have you done any testing?

The test is not perfect, the circumstances are not the same as every
household uses their fridge in a different manner, but overall, heat gain
into a given volume insulated container has to be removed. *If two boxes,
one more insulated than the *other sit side by side in a *70 degree room,
the better insulated one will have less gain. *So, measure it, put it on a
yellow tag and you have some basis for comparison. *Real use will vary if
you open the door five times or fifty times a day, but the comparison of A
to BE will still be reasonably close. Add five pounds of water to each and
make ice. *You still have to move the same number of calories to get the
water from 50 to 0 or whatever.

If the yellow tag sates $50 per year, my use may be 20% more, but the model
that says $150 per year is still going to be 17% to 22% more and that is all
I need to know. "Look honey, this one is better insulated so we can save a
whale for dinner." *That's all I need to know no matter how detailed your
proposed test is.

I bought a car that states 30 mpg on the sticker and I'm happy with the 25
that I get and expected. *I knew that difference up front. *I do, in fact,
know that it is better than the cars with the 20 mpg sticker and not as good
as the ones with the 35 mpg sticker.

Hmmm,
No sense arguing with a person like that. He is never happy with
anything. Typically person like that blame everything/everyone but
himself. That Energuide sticker is a quick reference for comparing
A to B no matter what. If you are so energy concious, look at your life
style first.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think both sides of this argument have merit. * The bottom line is,
we really don't know how adding ice makers, a reasonably full load of
food and opening and closing doors will affect the overall energy
usage of the units. * I would agree it's likely there is some
corelation between the current energy test and how they will perform
under more realistic conditions. *I'd be surprised if the most
efficient one suddenly became the most inefficient, but we really
don't know.

I agree with Richard on one thing. *That is the way they test them is
not even close to how they are actually used. *Unless I'm missing
something, that means the stickers on all the doors showing the
estimated annual energy used is not even close to accurate, as it's
underestimated. * And I would have to agree that it sure looks
suspiciously like a way to fool consumers into thinking the new unit
on the showroom floor is going to use less energy than it really does,
which helps sell them. * *The tests were arrived at jointly between
the EPA and the manufacturers and by having a test that is skewed
helps the manufacturers sell units and helps the EPA by making it look
like the Energy Star program is producing better results that it
actually is.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Has anybody here read how the Energy Star test is done or what it
tries to achieve.

Yes, I did. *Richard provided the link several days ago in one of his
posts. * That is the basis for most of what has been discussed here
regarding the accuracy of the tests. * Go back in his posts, find it
and take a look. *It says the tests are done with the doors closed, no
food, no ice maker, etc.

Years ago I found it and if I remember it simulated



a family of 4 with doors opening up to 90f interior temp and doors not
opened over 91f. Simulate it right, and it gets close even without
food as the air must cool. *Ive bought quite few 19cu ft friges, last
year about 10, my tenants electric bills dropped about 10$ a month, my
Kill a watt confirms usage on my new and old stuff. Sure you will
likely pay more than ratings but comparing new to old, to the Energy
Star units is pretty dramatic, If you look at all energy star tests
there are 20% better units then gov average. Overall 50-75% savings
over old units is a reality. I found I can *beat the Yellow Tag with
carefull use, my frige when tested with a KAW meter is as good as *Sun
Frost, which at the time was the most efficent with 6" of foam
insulation, At .125 kwh I was paying under 5$ a month. Whats so hard
to believe, ACs go to 20? seer, cfls save 75%, Boilers are up to
93-98%, 30 years ago few cared. Just 10 years ago my heating co would
not recommend a condensing boiler because they felt there were
reliability issues, now they do. If the tests were so far off it would
be headline news. Doing your own test is easy with a Kill a Watt or
other similar unit- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ok I found it, and find it extensive in overall testing. sec 3.3 and
4.1.2.3 refer to doors open. Also note test is up to 90f for a period.
And 96 hours. I dont see a scam in the testing.