A couple months ago there was a lengthy discussion here about how much
energy a new refrigerator uses versus an old one. It started with
the claim made by the EPA that a new energy star refrigerator uses
half the electricity of a 15 year old one. I just replaced my 24
year old Frigidaire 24 cft side by side with a virtually identical
Kitchenaid energy star refrigerator. I did some testing using a
Kilowatt meter before and after and thought I would share the results.

Before doing anything, I went to the Energy Star website where they
have a calculator to estimate how much energy you will save. The
calculator lets you put in your existing fridge make and model number
and cost of electricity, then it tells you the difference in estimated
energy usage. For my case, with electricity at 16 cents a kwh, this
is what it came up with:


Yearly electricity used:

24 year old Frigidaier $327

New Energy Star $91

Savings $236/yr

And then the calculator goes on to say that in five years, that would
pay for a new $1180 refrigerator. That sounded too good to be
true. So, I wanted a new refrigerator anyway, but decided to take
some actual measurements for a couple days of typical use before and
after. I tried to keep the comparison as close as possible. Both
were with units stabilized, ice makers off, no new items added, about
same number of door openings, same temps, etc. Both were also side
by side, with ice and water in the door. Old one was 24 cft, new one
is 24.5 cft.


Here's what I found:

24 year old Frigidaire $185

New Energy Star $90

Savings $95/yr


Those results were more in line with what I would have expected. You
now have a 12 year payback time, not the claimed 5 years. It would
be interesting to know exactly how the EPA is calculating the energy
usage of the old fridge. I would not be surprised that they are
assuming leaking door seals, condenser coils covered in dirt, and who
knows what else. In my case, the old one was still in relatively good
shape.

Bottom line, if you're considering a new fridge, energy star or even a
new non-energy star is going to save you a reasonable amount of money
each year compared to 24 year old unit and can help justify getting a
new one. But don't believe the hype about it paying for itself in 5
years.

wrote:

A couple months ago there was a lengthy discussion here about how much
energy a new refrigerator uses versus an old one. It started with
the claim made by the EPA that a new energy star refrigerator uses
half the electricity of a 15 year old one. I just replaced my 24
year old Frigidaire 24 cft side by side with a virtually identical
Kitchenaid energy star refrigerator. I did some testing using a
Kilowatt meter before and after and thought I would share the results.

Before doing anything, I went to the Energy Star website where they
have a calculator to estimate how much energy you will save. The
calculator lets you put in your existing fridge make and model number
and cost of electricity, then it tells you the difference in estimated
energy usage. For my case, with electricity at 16 cents a kwh, this
is what it came up with:


Yearly electricity used:

24 year old Frigidaier $327

New Energy Star $91

Savings $236/yr

And then the calculator goes on to say that in five years, that would
pay for a new $1180 refrigerator. That sounded too good to be
true. So, I wanted a new refrigerator anyway, but decided to take
some actual measurements for a couple days of typical use before and
after. I tried to keep the comparison as close as possible. Both
were with units stabilized, ice makers off, no new items added, about
same number of door openings, same temps, etc. Both were also side
by side, with ice and water in the door. Old one was 24 cft, new one
is 24.5 cft.


Here's what I found:

24 year old Frigidaire $185

New Energy Star $90

Savings $95/yr


Those results were more in line with what I would have expected. You
now have a 12 year payback time, not the claimed 5 years. It would
be interesting to know exactly how the EPA is calculating the energy
usage of the old fridge. I would not be surprised that they are
assuming leaking door seals, condenser coils covered in dirt, and who
knows what else. In my case, the old one was still in relatively good
shape.

Bottom line, if you're considering a new fridge, energy star or even a
new non-energy star is going to save you a reasonable amount of money
each year compared to 24 year old unit and can help justify getting a
new one. But don't believe the hype about it paying for itself in 5
years.

I replaced my 30-year-old side-by-side with a KitchenAid top freezer of
the same size in 2001. I keep a spreadsheet of kwh/month that goes back
to 1989 and graphs both monthly consumption and trailing 12-month average.

My monthly average consumption had been about 320kwh/month for many years.
It dropped to 200kwh: annual saving of about 120 x 0.11 x 12 = $158.
I was amazed.

wrote in message
Bottom line, if you're considering a new fridge, energy star or even a
new non-energy star is going to save you a reasonable amount of money
each year compared to 24 year old unit and can help justify getting a
new one. But don't believe the hype about it paying for itself in 5
years.


Why not? I bought a new "second fridge" for the basement and I figured the
payback to be 4 years. The old one was a 12 cu ft and the new one is 18 cu
ft so I not only save money but I get a lot more space.

Thanks for the good information, but generalizations are generally wrong.

On Jun 26, 10:19*am, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:
wrote in message
Bottom line, if you're considering a new fridge, energy star or even a
new non-energy star is going to save you a reasonable amount of money
each year compared to 24 year old unit and can help justify getting a
new one. * *But don't believe the hype about it paying for itself in 5
years.


Why not?

Because clearly in my case, the EPA Energy Star estimate that showed
it paying for itself in 5 years was wrong, because it drastically
overestimated the energy usage of the old refrigerator.



*I bought a new "second fridge" for the basement and I figured the
payback to be 4 years. *The old one was a 12 cu ft and the new one is 18 cu
ft so I not only save money but I get a lot more space.

How did you figure the payback? Did you actually measure the energy
usage using a Killowatt meter?




Thanks for the good information, but generalizations are generally wrong.


I'm not generalizing. I'm pointing out that my case demonstrated
that the EPA energy star savings claimed are wrong. Proving it wrong
in one straightforward case is enough to suggest that people should
NOT just believe the stated hype.

There are a lot of factors to consider:

How often do you (vs. Mr. Energy Star Guy) open the fridge door? Do
you have kids who open the door and leave it open while they stare/
complain?

Take ice cubes? (You turned that feature off? That makes a
difference)

How full is your fridge? Close to empty means a lot of air space, air
that blows out when you open the door and thus space that has to be re-
cooled.

What season did you do this in? There's a difference-- 40 degree
fridge in 66 degree house vs. 40 degree fridge in 82 degree house.

Shaun Eli
www.BrainChampagne.com
Brain Champagne: Clever Comedy for Smart Minds (sm)

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 08:46:21 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Jun 26, 10:19*am, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:
wrote in message
Bottom line, if you're considering a new fridge, energy star or even a
new non-energy star is going to save you a reasonable amount of money
each year compared to 24 year old unit and can help justify getting a
new one. * *But don't believe the hype about it paying for itself in 5
years.


Why not?

Because clearly in my case, the EPA Energy Star estimate that showed
it paying for itself in 5 years was wrong, because it drastically
overestimated the energy usage of the old refrigerator.



*I bought a new "second fridge" for the basement and I figured the
payback to be 4 years. *The old one was a 12 cu ft and the new one is 18 cu
ft so I not only save money but I get a lot more space.

How did you figure the payback? Did you actually measure the energy
usage using a Killowatt meter?




Thanks for the good information, but generalizations are generally wrong.


I'm not generalizing. I'm pointing out that my case demonstrated
that the EPA energy star savings claimed are wrong. Proving it wrong
in one straightforward case is enough to suggest that people should
NOT just believe the stated hype.

Ahh, but you didn't do that. What you proved was over a couple of
days, if generalized to an entire year, it would be wrong. That may
or may not be accurate depending on things like efficiencies of
different units at different house temps and humidities and the like.

On Jun 27, 9:39*pm, Chris Hill wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 08:46:21 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Jun 26, 10:19*am, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:
wrote in message
Bottom line, if you're considering a new fridge, energy star or even a
new non-energy star is going to save you a reasonable amount of money
each year compared to 24 year old unit and can help justify getting a
new one. * *But don't believe the hype about it paying for itself in 5
years.

Why not?

Because clearly in my case, the EPA Energy Star estimate that showed
it paying for itself in 5 years was wrong, because it drastically
overestimated the energy usage of the old refrigerator.

*I bought a new "second fridge" for the basement and I figured the
payback to be 4 years. *The old one was a 12 cu ft and the new one is 18 cu
ft so I not only save money but I get a lot more space.

How did you figure the payback? * Did you actually measure the energy
usage using a Killowatt meter?

Thanks for the good information, but generalizations are generally wrong.

I'm not generalizing. * I'm pointing out that my case demonstrated
that the EPA energy star savings claimed are wrong. * Proving it wrong
in one straightforward case is enough to suggest that people should
NOT just believe the stated hype.

Ahh, but you didn't do that. *What you proved was over a couple of
days, if generalized to an entire year, it would be wrong. *That may
or may not be accurate depending on things like efficiencies of
different units at different house temps and humidities and the like.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Oh, please. Anyone with a lick of sense knows that the difference in
temp and humidity of the typical house is NOT going to account for a
24 year old refrigerator using the EPA estimate of $327 of electricity
vs my measured $185. Not unless your typical house is 150 degrees.
Was my testing exhaustive? No. But 2 days is enough of a sample
for me to conclude that it's highly unlikely my old refrigerator is
going to go from using at a rate of $185/yr up to $327/yr.

Face it. There is a very good reason for the EPA to play games with
these numbers. This isn't some independent entity with no interest
in the matter. Energy star is their program and they are chartered
with getting people to use energy star appliances. They have a huge
bureacuracy dependent on funding from Congress. Clearly they have a
vested interest in giving reports to Congress and the administration
that says "Look at all the energy star refrigerators sold this year,
how successful this program is and what a great job we're doing."

Also, consider that the energy star test standards are arrived at not
just by the EPA, but in conjunction with the manufacturers of
appliances. Gee, you think the manufacturers might have an interest
in over estimating the energy savings of a new refrigerator vs and old
one, so they can sell more refrigerators? If you want to get down to
how they test, it was pointed out a couple months ago by Richard here
that the EPA tests energy star refrigerators empty, with the ice maker
turned off, and with no opening, closing of the doors. How realistic
is that? We don;t know how they arrive at their estimates of what a
24 year old refrigerator uses at all.

Now, before someone has a fit here, note I'm not saying a new energy
star refrigerator doesn't use a lot less electricity that an identical
24 year old one. Or that you shouldn't buy one. It does use a lot
less, $90 vs $185. But the $185 is no where near what the EPA claims
my 24 year old one should use, which was $327. And if anyone is
going to rely on the EPA calculator to justify payback, they should
take that into account.

Interesting findings. Hard to argue with that since you did before and
after testing in the same environment. I'm sure that the EnergyStar folks
do some stretching to present "best-case" (or "worst-case" depending on
your veiwpoint)

Since you have this data it might be interesting to check again in a few
months. I guess it is unlikely but I wonder if there could be some
"break-in" time on the compressor on the new unit where it is using a
little more power right now and maybe after it is broken in would use a
little less.

Also, as one of the other posters mentioned, I wonder if there is change
during seasons (I would guess not since the fridge is in a fairly constant
climate itself - the kitchen - maybe if it's in the garage that's
different).

How much does a kilowatt meter cost? I'd be interested to test my old
fridge.

--
Richard Thoms
Founder - Top Service Pros, Inc.
Connecting Homeowners and Local Service Professionals
http://www.TopServicePros.com

wrote in message
. But don't believe the hype about it paying for itself in 5
years.

Why not?


..

I'm not generalizing. I'm pointing out that my case demonstrated
that the EPA energy star savings claimed are wrong. Proving it wrong
in one straightforward case is enough to suggest that people should
NOT just believe the stated hype.

You made the above statement: "Don't believe the hype about paying for
itself in 5 years"

My findings say mine repaid itself in 4 years. I don't doubt that in your
case things may be different, but every case is different. The payback
depends on electric rates, cost of the appliance, efficiency of the old one,
and a few other variables. All of that adds up to the fact that you will be
wrong in many cases. You cannot make a blanket statement based on one set
of circumstances where variables affect the outcome.

I agree that people should not take every statement as hard fact, but let
their circumstances decide what is best for them. Had I bought a more
expensive model like I want in the kitchen, the payback would be a lot
longer. You just need to clarify that your statement fits your
circumstances and other's will be different.

On Jun 28, 8:50*am, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:
wrote in message
. But don't believe the hype about it paying for itself in 5
years.

Why not?

.



I'm not generalizing. I'm pointing out that my case demonstrated
that the EPA energy star savings claimed are wrong. Proving it wrong
in one straightforward case is enough to suggest that people should
NOT just believe the stated hype.

You made the above statement: "Don't believe the hype about paying for
itself in 5 years"

My findings say mine repaid itself in 4 years.


I had asked exactly how you determined this. Did you put a Killowatt
meter or similar on it and actually measure it like I did?





*I don't doubt that in your
case things may be different, but every case is different.

I seriously doubt that individual Frigidaire refrigerators that are
the same exact model are going to vary so much in energy usage so as
to be off 44% from the EPA estimate. It's a whopping big difference
between $327 and $185 per year to operate. Especially since the EPA
estimate for the new refrigerator was spot on to what I measured over
a couple of days.




*The payback
depends on electric rates, cost of the appliance, efficiency of the old one,
and a few other variables. *All of that adds up to the fact that you will be
wrong in many cases. *You cannot make a blanket statement based on one set
of circumstances where variables affect the outcome.

The payback was not based on some generic information that did not
take the above into account. It was based on the savings calculator
on the EPA website. Have you been there? It has you enter not only
your cost of electricity, but the exact model of the old
refrigerator. That's what it used to come up with the $327 a year
cost to operate and the $1100 savings in 5 years, which it turns out
is off by over 2X from what I measured.





I agree that people should not take every statement as hard fact, but let
their circumstances decide what is best for them. *Had I bought a more
expensive model like I want in the kitchen, the payback would be a lot
longer. *You just need to clarify that your statement fits your
circumstances and other's will be different.


All I said was not to believe the hype from the EPA calculator about a
new energy star refrigerator paying for itself in 5 years, because the
numbers I got out of it are highly suspect.

On Jun 28, 7:44*am, topservicepros richard[at]topservicepros[dot]com
wrote:
Interesting findings. *Hard to argue with that since you did before and
after testing in the same environment. *I'm sure that the EnergyStar folks
do some stretching to present "best-case" (or "worst-case" depending on
your veiwpoint)

Since you have this data it might be interesting to check again in a few
months. *I guess it is unlikely but I wonder if there could be some
"break-in" time on the compressor on the new unit where it is using a
little more power right now and maybe after it is broken in would use a
little less.

That isn't the problem. It's not how much energy the new refrigerator
uses. What I measured was spot on to what the EPA calculator said a
new energy star refrigerator would use. The calculator estimated $91
and I had it running at $90. The problem is that the energy star
calculator estimate for the OLD one was $327 versus a measured $185.

Personally, having some grounding in physics and reality, going from
$185 from a 24 year old fridge to $90 for a new one is more in line
with what I would have expected.






Also, as one of the other posters mentioned, I wonder if there is change
during seasons (I would guess not since the fridge is in a fairly constant
climate itself - the kitchen - maybe if it's in the garage that's
different).

How much does a kilowatt meter cost? *I'd be interested to test my old
fridge.


They are called a Kill a Watt meter and run about $20. If you get
one and do some testing, compare it to what the EPA Energy Star
website calculator estimates and let us know.



--
Richard Thoms
Founder - Top Service Pros, Inc.
Connecting Homeowners and Local Service Professionalshttp://www.TopServicePros.com

topservicepros wrote:

How much does a kilowatt meter cost? I'd be interested to test my old
fridge.

About $20-$30. The most common one is the Kill-A-Watt meter. It's available
a lot of places, Harbor Freight sells them as well as Ebay. Here's an Ebay
link:

http://search.ebay.com/search/search... t&category0=

The device is a nifty critter. It measures all the standard stuff: voltage,
amps, frequency, watts, power factor. Let it just sit there and it measures
killowat-hours over whatever period it's plugged in.

I saw another device recently. It consists of a remote unit and a read-out.
The remote unit sticks on the glass of your electric meter and counts the
revolutions of the disk per unit time. The read-out unit shows instantaneous
kwh usage. The two parts are radio-frequency connected, so you can carry
around the read-out unit turning on or off various appliances to see their
effect.

Clever.

wrote in message

I had asked exactly how you determined this. Did you put a Killowatt
meter or similar on it and actually measure it like I did?
************************

Yes, and the electric bill conformed it.





I don't doubt that in your
case things may be different, but every case is different.

I seriously doubt that individual Frigidaire refrigerators that are
the same exact model are going to vary so much in energy usage so as
to be off 44% from the EPA estimate. It's a whopping big difference
between $327 and $185 per year to operate. Especially since the EPA
estimate for the new refrigerator was spot on to what I measured over
a couple of days.
************************************************
So you say they are correct on the new but not on the old?







All I said was not to believe the hype from the EPA calculator about a
new energy star refrigerator paying for itself in 5 years, because the
numbers I got out of it are highly suspect.
******************************************

Not exactly what you said before, but with this clarification I'd agree.

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 06:07:27 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Jun 28, 8:50*am, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:
wrote in message
. But don't believe the hype about it paying for itself in 5
years.

Why not?

.



I'm not generalizing. I'm pointing out that my case demonstrated
that the EPA energy star savings claimed are wrong. Proving it wrong
in one straightforward case is enough to suggest that people should
NOT just believe the stated hype.

You made the above statement: "Don't believe the hype about paying for
itself in 5 years"

My findings say mine repaid itself in 4 years.


I had asked exactly how you determined this. Did you put a Killowatt
meter or similar on it and actually measure it like I did?





*I don't doubt that in your
case things may be different, but every case is different.

I seriously doubt that individual Frigidaire refrigerators that are
the same exact model are going to vary so much in energy usage so as
to be off 44% from the EPA estimate. It's a whopping big difference
between $327 and $185 per year to operate. Especially since the EPA
estimate for the new refrigerator was spot on to what I measured over
a couple of days.




*The payback
depends on electric rates, cost of the appliance, efficiency of the old one,
and a few other variables. *All of that adds up to the fact that you will be
wrong in many cases. *You cannot make a blanket statement based on one set
of circumstances where variables affect the outcome.

The payback was not based on some generic information that did not
take the above into account. It was based on the savings calculator
on the EPA website. Have you been there? It has you enter not only
your cost of electricity, but the exact model of the old
refrigerator. That's what it used to come up with the $327 a year
cost to operate and the $1100 savings in 5 years, which it turns out
is off by over 2X from what I measured.





I agree that people should not take every statement as hard fact, but let
their circumstances decide what is best for them. *Had I bought a more
expensive model like I want in the kitchen, the payback would be a lot
longer. *You just need to clarify that your statement fits your
circumstances and other's will be different.


All I said was not to believe the hype from the EPA calculator about a
new energy star refrigerator paying for itself in 5 years, because the
numbers I got out of it are highly suspect.

Maybe your frig is highly suspect, or your meter is highly suspect.
One incident against a whole bunch of testing, I know which I'd trust.

Chris Hill wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 06:07:27 -0700 (PDT), wrote:


On Jun 28, 8:50 am, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

wrote in message

. But don't believe the hype about it paying for itself in 5
years.

Why not?

.




I'm not generalizing. I'm pointing out that my case demonstrated
that the EPA energy star savings claimed are wrong. Proving it wrong
in one straightforward case is enough to suggest that people should
NOT just believe the stated hype.

You made the above statement: "Don't believe the hype about paying for
itself in 5 years"

My findings say mine repaid itself in 4 years.


I had asked exactly how you determined this. Did you put a Killowatt
meter or similar on it and actually measure it like I did?





I don't doubt that in your

case things may be different, but every case is different.

I seriously doubt that individual Frigidaire refrigerators that are
the same exact model are going to vary so much in energy usage so as
to be off 44% from the EPA estimate. It's a whopping big difference
between $327 and $185 per year to operate. Especially since the EPA
estimate for the new refrigerator was spot on to what I measured over
a couple of days.




The payback

depends on electric rates, cost of the appliance, efficiency of the old one,
and a few other variables. All of that adds up to the fact that you will be
wrong in many cases. You cannot make a blanket statement based on one set
of circumstances where variables affect the outcome.

The payback was not based on some generic information that did not
take the above into account. It was based on the savings calculator
on the EPA website. Have you been there? It has you enter not only
your cost of electricity, but the exact model of the old
refrigerator. That's what it used to come up with the $327 a year
cost to operate and the $1100 savings in 5 years, which it turns out
is off by over 2X from what I measured.





I agree that people should not take every statement as hard fact, but let
their circumstances decide what is best for them. Had I bought a more
expensive model like I want in the kitchen, the payback would be a lot
longer. You just need to clarify that your statement fits your
circumstances and other's will be different.


All I said was not to believe the hype from the EPA calculator about a
new energy star refrigerator paying for itself in 5 years, because the
numbers I got out of it are highly suspect.


Maybe your frig is highly suspect, or your meter is highly suspect.
One incident against a whole bunch of testing, I know which I'd trust.


I tend to believe specific measurements over generalized statistics when
I'm looking for numbers in a specific case, and the reverse when I'm
looking for statistical averages and trends.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .