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.

"C & E" wrote in message
...
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.


Sounds plausible. I replaced a small old fridge with a newer one twice the
size and my electric bill dropped $10 a month.

Two factors make this possible. Compressors are more efficient and draw
less power, and the insulation is better so the compressor does not run as
long.

C & E writes:

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.

This same bunk has been spouted for decades, ever since the energy crisis
of the 1970s. There was some basis to it then, but major efficiency
improvements have all been exploited for quite a while now. Efficiency in
fact went way *backwards* with the switch in non-CFC refrigerants in the
1990s to today.

The biggest power hog in a refrigerator is making ICE. Turn off your
icemaker and remove any loose ice (which sublimates and costs energy) and
watch how much less your unit runs. As long as you have open liquid water
in the freezer it will never shut off.

On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 21:41:06 -0400, 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.

Without the kids peeking in the frig door every few minutes we save a
bunch.

Now they have kids that also have kids.

Serves them right!

the energy use requirement from 10 years ago has changed a lot........

so a new fridge is likely twice as efficent as a low end 10 year old
energy piggie.

they fail to note the wasted heat helps warm your home in the winter.
but does add is summer heat load and cooling if you have AC

On Apr 9, 8:21*am, " wrote:
the energy use requirement from 10 years ago has changed a lot........

so a new fridge is likely twice as efficent as a low end 10 year old
energy piggie.

they fail to note the wasted heat helps warm your home in the winter.
but does add is summer heat load and cooling if you have AC


I was skeptical of the claim that a new refrigerator will use half the
energy of one just 10 years old. From the DOE EnergyStar website,
they actually say a new energy star certified one will use about half
as much energy as one from 15 YEARS AGO.

They also have a calculator where you can enter your current model
fridge and energy cost and then it will tell you how much it will save
per year.

For my late 80's vintage side by side 24cft Fridgidare, it costs $305
to run, a new energy star unit would cost $90. I also tried using
the typical side by side, late 80's, 24cft option. That comes up
with $397 vs $95.

These numbers shocked me. I would have thought there would be a
reasonable energy difference, but I also assumed that there was only
so much that can be done to make them more efficient. So, I was
expecting a difference of maybe 20-30%.

Guess I should start shopping. Of course, the key to this is also it
has to be an energy star certified model and I don't know how much
more they cost vs other models, but assume it's still well
worthwhile.

Too bad they don't make this more widely known. If I saw a TV ad
about this, I would have visited the EnergyStar website long ago.

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.gov has 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.

On Apr 9, 7:21*am, " wrote:
the energy use requirement from 10 years ago has changed a lot........

so a new fridge is likely twice as efficent as a low end 10 year old
energy piggie.

they fail to note the wasted heat helps warm your home in the winter.
but does add is summer heat load and cooling if you have AC

Warm your home? How about waste your money, part of the savings is
better foam insulation, since my electric is 30% more per BTU than gas
why would I want to pay more for heat, I bet you dont use CFLs either.

On Apr 9, 12:20*am, Richard J Kinch wrote:
C & E writes:
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.

This same bunk has been spouted for decades, ever since the energy crisis
of the 1970s. *There was some basis to it then, but major efficiency
improvements have all been exploited for quite a while now. *Efficiency in
fact went way *backwards* with the switch in non-CFC refrigerants in the
1990s to today.

The biggest power hog in a refrigerator is making ICE. *Turn off your
icemaker and remove any loose ice (which sublimates and costs energy) and
watch how much less your unit runs. *As long as you have open liquid water
in the freezer it will never shut off.

Non cfcs, thats funny, so why dont home AC units benefit that same 75%
increase that my new frige gave me, why, because its not the Cfcs

On Apr 9, 8:09*am, wrote:
On Apr 9, 8:21*am, " wrote:

the energy use requirement from 10 years ago has changed a lot........

so a new fridge is likely twice as efficent as a low end 10 year old
energy piggie.

they fail to note the wasted heat helps warm your home in the winter.
but does add is summer heat load and cooling if you have AC

I was skeptical of the claim that a new refrigerator will use half the
energy of one just 10 years old. *From the DOE EnergyStar website,
they actually say a new energy star certified one will use about half
as much energy as one from 15 YEARS AGO.

They also have a calculator where you can enter your current model
fridge and energy cost and then it will tell you how much it will save
per year.

For my late 80's vintage side by side 24cft Fridgidare, it costs $305
to run, a new energy star unit would cost $90. * *I also tried using
the typical side by side, late 80's, 24cft option. * That comes up
with $397 vs $95.

These numbers shocked me. * I would have thought there would be a
reasonable energy difference, but I also assumed that there was only
so much that can be done to make them more efficient. *So, I was
expecting a difference of maybe 20-30%.

Guess I should start shopping. *Of course, the key to this is also it
has to be an energy star certified model and I don't know how much
more they cost vs other models, but assume it's still well
worthwhile.

Too bad they don't make this more widely known. *If I saw a TV ad
about this, I would have visited the EnergyStar website long ago.

Yea if we actualy had a Government Education Energy Program we all
would benefit, but the govenment does nothing. I think most all are
now Energy Star, Sears has had the most efficent units as of 4 years
ago, Shop by the Yellow Energy guide tag.

On Apr 9, 10:12�am, ransley wrote:
On Apr 9, 7:21�am, " wrote:

the energy use requirement from 10 years ago has changed a lot........

so a new fridge is likely twice as efficent as a low end 10 year old
energy piggie.

they fail to note the wasted heat helps warm your home in the winter.
but does add is summer heat load and cooling if you have AC

Warm your home? �How about waste your money, part of the savings is
better foam insulation, since my electric is 30% more per BTU than gas
why would I want to pay more for heat, I bet you dont use CFLs either.

all standby electric use, tvs, clock radios, cable boxes, computer
even in idle mode generate some waste heat that helps heat your home
in the winter. energy star savings isnt 100%

nearly all my lamps are CF, except one in attic thats rarely used, and
a couple in fixtures that wouldnt accept CF. i modified my living room
lamps to accept CFs..........

specifically to save energy they are on a lot.......

ransley wrote:
....

Too bad they don't make this more widely known. If I saw a TV ad
about this, I would have visited the EnergyStar website long ago.

Yea if we actualy had a Government Education Energy Program we all
would benefit, but the govenment does nothing. I think most all are
now Energy Star, Sears has had the most efficent units as of 4 years
ago, Shop by the Yellow Energy guide tag.

Don't know where ya'll have been, I see energy-conservation PSA's fairly
regularly and I watch very little TV...

--

On Apr 9, 9:41Â*am, " wrote:
On Apr 9, 10:12�am, ransley wrote:

On Apr 9, 7:21�am, " wrote:

the energy use requirement from 10 years ago has changed a lot........

so a new fridge is likely twice as efficent as a low end 10 year old
energy piggie.

they fail to note the wasted heat helps warm your home in the winter.
but does add is summer heat load and cooling if you have AC

Warm your home? �How about waste your money, part of the savings is
better foam insulation, since my electric is 30% more per BTU than gas
why would I want to pay more for heat, I bet you dont use CFLs either.

all standby electric use, tvs, clock radios, cable boxes, computer
even in idle mode generate some waste heat that helps heat your home
in the winter. energy star savings isnt 100%

nearly all my lamps are CF, except one in attic thats rarely used, and
a couple in fixtures that wouldnt accept CF. i modified my living room
lamps to accept CFs..........

specifically to save energy they are on a lot.......

True, but energy star ratings educate us to save energy since our own
government is to cheap to educate us or have an energy policy. I have
most things on switches that have idle load, get yourself a Kill-A-
Watt meter and do your own energy audit. Old anything can be a hog,
especialy tvs.

On Apr 9, 9:57*am, dpb wrote:
ransley wrote:

...

Too bad they don't make this more widely known. *If I saw a TV ad
about this, I would have visited the EnergyStar website long ago.

Yea if we actualy had a Government Education Energy Program we all
would benefit, but the govenment does nothing. I think most all are
now Energy Star, Sears *has had the most efficent units as of 4 years
ago, Shop by the Yellow Energy guide tag.

Don't know where ya'll have been, I see energy-conservation PSA's fairly
regularly and I watch very little TV...

--

Until I saw the info in print it didnt sink in, I hate commercials on
tv.

wrote

late 80's vintage side by side 24cft Fridgidare, it costs $305
to run, a new energy star unit would cost $90. I also tried using
the typical side by side, late 80's, 24cft option. That comes up
with $397 vs $95.

Yup. As I replace stuff, it's all energystar. Being in an older house,
I've had to replace quite a bit over time. Then again, we bought in 1995 so
thats reasonable.

Oh my chest freezer is energy star g. At highest KWH rate I could find,
came out with 7$ a month but thats peak California brown-out day rates.
Actual rate here comes up with 48$ a year roughly.

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 06:09:49 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Apr 9, 8:21*am, " wrote:
the energy use requirement from 10 years ago has changed a lot........

so a new fridge is likely twice as efficent as a low end 10 year old
energy piggie.

they fail to note the wasted heat helps warm your home in the winter.
but does add is summer heat load and cooling if you have AC


I was skeptical of the claim that a new refrigerator will use half the
energy of one just 10 years old. From the DOE EnergyStar website,
they actually say a new energy star certified one will use about half
as much energy as one from 15 YEARS AGO.

They also have a calculator where you can enter your current model
fridge and energy cost and then it will tell you how much it will save
per year.

For my late 80's vintage side by side 24cft Fridgidare, it costs $305
to run, a new energy star unit would cost $90. I also tried using
the typical side by side, late 80's, 24cft option. That comes up
with $397 vs $95.

Your word order confuses me. Are you saying the first one uses only
1/3 of the older one, and the sidebyside uses only 25%?

That's a lot more than saving 1/2.

These numbers shocked me. I would have thought there would be a
reasonable energy difference, but I also assumed that there was only
so much that can be done to make them more efficient. So, I was
expecting a difference of maybe 20-30%.

Guess I should start shopping. Of course, the key to this is also it
has to be an energy star certified model and I don't know how much
more they cost vs other models, but assume it's still well
worthwhile.

Too bad they don't make this more widely known. If I saw a TV ad
about this, I would have visited the EnergyStar website long ago.

On Apr 9, 8:09*am, wrote:
On Apr 9, 8:21*am, " wrote:

the energy use requirement from 10 years ago has changed a lot........

so a new fridge is likely twice as efficent as a low end 10 year old
energy piggie.

they fail to note the wasted heat helps warm your home in the winter.
but does add is summer heat load and cooling if you have AC

I was skeptical of the claim that a new refrigerator will use half the
energy of one just 10 years old. *From the DOE EnergyStar website,
they actually say a new energy star certified one will use about half
as much energy as one from 15 YEARS AGO.

They also have a calculator where you can enter your current model
fridge and energy cost and then it will tell you how much it will save
per year.

For my late 80's vintage side by side 24cft Fridgidare, it costs $305
to run, a new energy star unit would cost $90. * *I also tried using
the typical side by side, late 80's, 24cft option. * That comes up
with $397 vs $95.

These numbers shocked me. * I would have thought there would be a
reasonable energy difference, but I also assumed that there was only
so much that can be done to make them more efficient. *So, I was
expecting a difference of maybe 20-30%.

Guess I should start shopping. *Of course, the key to this is also it
has to be an energy star certified model and I don't know how much
more they cost vs other models, but assume it's still well
worthwhile.

Too bad they don't make this more widely known. *If I saw a TV ad
about this, I would have visited the EnergyStar website long ago.

Those costs you figure on the new one might be high, my sears 19.5
costs in reality $4.50 a month tested with a Kill a watt meter. But I
bought the sears only because it had the best effeciency rating. I
have also a 20 yr old side by side that costs 11 a month.

Joseph Meehan writes:

Once frozen it does not cost any measurable amounts to keep it frozen.

Nope. You don't understand the thermodynamics of sublimation and the heat
of fusuion and vaporization, and the practicalities of modern appliances.

You pay energy first to sublimate ice to vapor if they're loose in the
freezer. This is why they shrink over time, and why frozen food dessicates
if not in a vapor barrier.

You pay again to condense and fuse that vapor into frost on the
refrigerator's evaporator.

You pay *again* for the heater which melts that frost off during the
defrost cycle into a drain pan in the bottom of the fridge.

You pay again for a blower and heat to evaporate that drained, melted frost
out into the room air from below the fridge.

You pay again to condense that room vapor with your air conditioner.

So it's made quite a few thermodynamic trips ALL AT YOUR EXPENSE.

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...30_main_02.tpl

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.

On Apr 9, 1:20*pm, mm wrote:
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 06:09:49 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Apr 9, 8:21*am, " wrote:
the energy use requirement from 10 years ago has changed a lot........

so a new fridge is likely twice as efficent as a low end 10 year old
energy piggie.

they fail to note the wasted heat helps warm your home in the winter.
but does add is summer heat load and cooling if you have AC

I was skeptical of the claim that a new refrigerator will use half the
energy of one just 10 years old. *From the DOE EnergyStar website,
they actually say a new energy star certified one will use about half
as much energy as one from 15 YEARS AGO.

They also have a calculator where you can enter your current model
fridge and energy cost and then it will tell you how much it will save
per year.

For my late 80's vintage side by side 24cft Fridgidare, it costs $305
to run, a new energy star unit would cost $90. * *I also tried using
the typical side by side, late 80's, 24cft option. * That comes up
with $397 vs $95.

Your word order confuses me. *Are you saying the first one uses only
1/3 of the older one, and the sidebyside uses only 25%?

That's a lot more than saving 1/2.


They are both side by side. On the energy star website you can put in
the model of your current refrigerator. They did not have my exact
model, but did have one that is the same size and similar model
number. That was the $305 yearly operating cost number vs $90 for a
new same size side by side energy star. If you can't find your model
#, you can also opt for a "typical" late 80's side by side. That
comparison gives the $397 vs $95 numbers.









These numbers shocked me. * I would have thought there would be a
reasonable energy difference, but I also assumed that there was only
so much that can be done to make them more efficient. *So, I was
expecting a difference of maybe 20-30%.

Guess I should start shopping. *Of course, the key to this is also it
has to be an energy star certified model and I don't know how much
more they cost vs other models, but assume it's still well
worthwhile.

Too bad they don't make this more widely known. *If I saw a TV ad
about this, I would have visited the EnergyStar website long ago.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Apr 10, 12:06*am, 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. *

Do you have anything to substantiate that most of the cost of running
a freezer is the ice? I understand that ice in the freezer will
sublimate and that's a factor. I don't know how fast that happens in
your refrigerator, but in mine it's a fairly slow process. It's not
like it's making a new bucket of ice every day. If I leave the ice
maker arm up so it's off and don't use the ice, there is still plenty
left after a month.

I do agree it would seem more reasonable to have the refrigerators and
freezers loaded as opposed to empty. This does seem odd, unless they
did testing and found there was no significant difference.


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).

I think it's unreasonable for them to factor in what are clearly
second order effects.



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.

The energy star calculator at their website let's you put in your own
cost of electricity.




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.

I would agree that should be factored into the test scenario and seems
a major problem, as that is one thing I think we can all agree on as a
major loss of energy.



Empty freezer.

Puh-leeze.


On the other hand, we have ransely who actually has an new unit with a
killowatt meter on it and he says it uses a lot less electricity.

Richard J Kinch wrote:

Joseph Meehan writes:

Once frozen it does not cost any measurable amounts to keep it frozen.

Nope. You don't understand the thermodynamics of sublimation and the heat
of fusuion and vaporization, and the practicalities of modern appliances.

You pay energy first to sublimate ice to vapor if they're loose in the
freezer. This is why they shrink over time, and why frozen food dessicates
if not in a vapor barrier.

Most frozen food is contained in vapor barrier packages. How much energy
would we save if we kept ice trays in a baggie?

Nick

On Apr 9, 8:21 am, " wrote:
the energy use requirement from 10 years ago has changed a lot........

so a new fridge is likely twice as efficent as a low end 10 year old
energy piggie.

they fail to note the wasted heat helps warm your home in the winter.
but does add is summer heat load and cooling if you have AC

Yes, and I've always found that kitchens are short of heat. Sheesh.
Help is hardly the right word.

R

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.gov has 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....

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.

Just go to Harbor Freight, or Ebay, and buy what is called the "Kill A
Watt Meter"

It plugs into the wall, you plug the fridge into it, and it will
calculate the power consumption/wattage/amps used over how ever long
you want to leave in connected.

Now you know how much your fridge uses in say, three days.

Buy a new fridge that claims a certain amount of power consumption.
Use it, plug in the watt meter, and if it doesn't meet the claim, take
it back and tell them to stuff it.

The meter is about $30, and will tell you a lot about your energy
usage throughout the house, and help you keep your costs down.

Government guidelines are as unreliable as the government itself.

John

On Apr 10, 6:40*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.


That's a totally invalid comparison. If anything, it refutes your
argument. Everyone knows that the actual mileage one gets can be
somewhat different than the official EPA city/highway ratings on any
given car. But the tests are still a useful tool and allow a basic
mileage comparison to be made. Or do you think a Ferrari gets about
the same mileage as a Honda Civic?




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.

"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message
"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.

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.

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?

But the tests are still a useful tool and allow a basic
mileage comparison to be made.

Of course. What I said was that the *fleet averages* are nonsense, because
they don't even include the cars that people want to drive, by calling them
SUVs instead of passenger cars and leaving them out of the counting. Like
most technical analysis provided by the government, the information is not
the plain truth, but what promotes political and commercial expedience.

Edwin Pawlowski writes:

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.

You and I have no way to know that, because the tests don't cover the
actual duties that use most of the energy--opening doors, chilling warm
things, freezing thawed things and ice.

Quite plausibly the opposite could be true, that Energy Star comparisons
are invalid. Say one machine keeps an empty box of air cold more
efficiently (about all the Energy Star test really tests). Another is more
efficient at making ice (absolutely unmeasured by the Energy Star test)..
Since you spend a lot more energy on the latter, the Energy Star "loser" is
really the better one.

The DOE refrigerator test is like testing gas mileage while rolling
downhill.

Look, Energy Star exists for basically two reasons.

One, to allow the government to claim concrete progress on energy
conservation, with (false) statements like "twice as efficient as ten years
ago". They've said that for decades, and pretty soon we can expect
refrigerators to not just use no electricity whatsoever, but that they will
emit 93 octane unleaded gasoline as a waste product.

Two, to let manufacturers make absolutely absurd claims about energy
consumption ($36/year to run, twich as efficient ...) with immunity from
lawsuits for misrepresented sales.

Three, to benefit manufacturers by suckering consumers into believing their
old units are NO GOOD, when they're typically just fine. This seems to
work very well on people, because we all enjoy any excuse to buy a new one
anyway, and the Great White Father has spoken.

Why do you think ASHRAE has co-opted the DOE and dictates the tests now?

Richard J Kinch wrote:

... 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.

My ice cube trays hold 0.796 pounds of water. Freezing one from 60 F takes
(60-32+144)0.796 = 137 Btu, ie 0.04 kWh of heat. A fridge with a COP of 3
could move that with 0.013 kWh worth 1.3 cents at 10 cents/kWh. Know anyone
who freezes 1/0.013 = 75 ice cube trays per day? :-)

The trays have about 4"x10" of ice surface. Over a month, they might lose
1/4" of depth in my frost-free freezer. How much does that cost?

Polyethylene bags, by the way, are not very effective vapor barriers...

Foil helps, aluminum helps, but

http://www.devicelink.com/mpb/archive/98/09/005.html

says 100 in^2 of "low-density polyethylene" loses about 0.4 grams of water
per day per mil (0.001") of thickness at 40 C (104 F), with 0% RH on one
side and 35% on the other. A graph shows how this decreases linearly with
inverse (1000/T(K)) temperature. How much would that cost?

EERE/DOE say a 6 mil poly film vapor barrier has 0.06 perms, ie 1 ft^2
transmits 0.06 grains of water vapor per hour (out of 7000 grains per pound)
with a 1" Hg differential pressure at 73.4 F. How much would that cost?

Nick

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....

Read how the tests are done, they simulate a family of four I think
with alot of use, how you use your frige or how much the door is open
is alot of it, my cost was at 0.125 kwh with a kill a watt meter with
a Sears unit that was when I bought it the most efficent I could find
from EnergyStar charts. Now my rate is near .14kwh so costs are up.

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.

1$ a day! not for a new unit, Get a Kill a watt meter and test one, I
bet your local apliance shop would let you, I know I was paying under
5$ a month for a 19.5 cu ft unit.

On Apr 10, 9:47*pm, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:
"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message

"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.

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.

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?

The test methods are online, and are heavier use than I give a frige.
They try to be accurate to family lifestyle and winter -summer temps.

On Apr 10, 11:59*pm, Richard J Kinch wrote:
Edwin Pawlowski writes:
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.

You and I have no way to know that, because the tests don't cover the
actual duties that use most of the energy--opening doors, chilling warm
things, freezing thawed things and ice.

Quite plausibly the opposite could be true, that Energy Star comparisons
are invalid. *Say one machine keeps an empty box of air cold more
efficiently (about all the Energy Star test really tests). *Another is more
efficient at making ice (absolutely unmeasured by the Energy Star test).. *
Since you spend a lot more energy on the latter, the Energy Star "loser" is
really the better one.

The DOE refrigerator test is like testing gas mileage while rolling
downhill.

Look, Energy Star exists for basically two reasons.

One, to allow the government to claim concrete progress on energy
conservation, with (false) statements like "twice as efficient as ten years
ago". *They've said that for decades, and pretty soon we can expect
refrigerators to not just use no electricity whatsoever, but that they will
emit 93 octane unleaded gasoline as a waste product.

Two, to let manufacturers make absolutely absurd claims about energy
consumption ($36/year to run, twich as efficient ...) with immunity from
lawsuits for misrepresented sales.

Three, to benefit manufacturers by suckering consumers into believing their
old units are NO GOOD, when they're typically just fine. *This seems to
work very well on people, because we all enjoy any excuse to buy a new one
anyway, and the Great White Father has spoken.

Why do you think ASHRAE has co-opted the DOE and dictates the tests now?

The tests do cover opening doors etc etc etc, 1$ a day, I run a house
on 1 $ a day. You really need to try a Kill a watt meter.

"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 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.

"Richard J Kinch" wrote

Three, to benefit manufacturers by suckering consumers into believing
their
old units are NO GOOD, when they're typically just fine. This seems to
work very well on people, because we all enjoy any excuse to buy a new one
anyway, and the Great White Father has spoken.

Hehe there is a trueism there. So far, I have replaced things as needed
with more efficient units.

My chest freezer is energy star. My old unit was just fine though over
sized for our needs. It was an almost antique commercial grade and sized
unit perfect for farm and now working at a local church as the main one for
the soup kitchen. They tested it and told me it's running at about 7$ a
month which for their needs, is very good. (This keep in mind is a monster
big thing, you can put a whole cow in there and have room for other stuff.
It's the biggest thing I've seen short of a walk in freezer). We only
replaced that old unit because we had left it here stateside when we moved
to Japan, then in Japan got another.

It would be silly though to replace my refridgerator before it subsumes to
age. It may be costing me 17$ or more a month, but thats fine. A new unit
of the size and quality we find acceptable will run us close to 1,000$ and
the savings if even 10$ a month on the electric won't pay off before that
unit bites the dust through age.

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.

OK, here's one data point in the comparison:

We were gettting a new fridge to replace an old one that was about
10-15 years old (I don't know the exact age because the previous
homeowners bought it.) Shortly before the new fridge was to be
delivered, we plugged the old one into a kill-a-watt meter, and
recorded the usage over a 1 week period. Result was 2.5 kWh per day
electrical usage. After the new one was delivered, we plugged in the
same kill-a-watt meter and recorded the usage over another 1 week
period. Usage was 1.0 kWh per day. So the old fridge used 2.5 times
as much electrical energy to run. This was measured with a similar
load of contents in the two fridges, with similar door opening and
closing frequencies, same time of year, so the house interior temp was
about the same between the two measurements, same kill-a-watt meter
used, so any meter calibration bias would cancel out. New fridge is
somewhat smaller than the old fridge, old one was something like 21 cu
ft, new one 19 cu ft. I think, so that could explain part of the
energy use reduction.

When we bought the new fridge (this was about a year ago), we were
told by the salesman (so take this for what it's worth ;-) ), that
fridges had recently gone through a redesign to make them much more
efficient, but lower reliability. He said manufacturers had reduced
their compressor warranty periods from 5 years to 1 year.

Ken

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.

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.
....

That's not really particularly relevant -- the point is that two units,
_if used the same way_, will have a _relative_ efficiency factor between
each other that is reasonably well approximated by the test. The
absolute values aren't significant; it's the relative change between the
two that is compared. And, that variability is precisely why the
testing doesn't make some arbitrary cycling patter--it isn't really that
important for the purpose of the test.

--