How long before we see an article about consumers repairing and chasing down ancient refrigerators that are sadly inefficient but at least repairable?
How long before we see an article about consumers repairing and chasing down ancient refrigerators that are sadly inefficient but at least repairable?
(Most of the stuff you see with the GE logo on is licensed branding and GE has nothing to do with it except collecting a fee for the use of their logo.)
https://invidio.us/watch?v=VRfoIyx8KfU
Have you got a 27B/6?
I’ll be sure to boycott Haier, and thus all of GE Appliances.
Wouldn't surprise me if others in that list of seven are holding multiple sub-brands too, and a full tree-walk produces a huge list of brands.
In my eyes, GE is just as guilty as Haier & KKR.
Case in point, the current top comment is how they're never going to buy a GE fridge again -- even though it's not GE. Haier's gettin that money and GE is eating that bad voodoo.
Inefficient? Maybe "old" (60s-80s?), but not "ancient" (30s-50s) --- this article might be worth reading:
http://web.archive.org/web/20121218033749/http://www.greenbu...
The 1930s GE Monitor-Top (ironicallly also made by GE, but the good old GE) uses less power than a lot of modern refrigerators, and many others from that era are similar. Despite their age, used working ones are very expensive.
I have a 1938 Frigidaire which I restored. The compressor, which was marketed as the "Meter-Miser", draws less than 100W when running, and it doesn't run very often. So far it seems it will be around 280kWh/year. It has no "smarts" to subvert me, and the sealed nature of the system means that it could likely continue running for another century and outlast me...
Nowadays I cringe when I regularly see small fridges completely encased in furniture in hotel rooms, with no air circulation. They get very warm and even the top surface of the furniture sometimes.
I wonder what William Holladay, the grandfather of the article's author, would have to say about that.
The idea of putting the compressor on top is also interesting, why is it not being pursued? Noise issues?
https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Appliance#Embodied_e...
Two hops upthread, the commenter says "280kWh/year" for their 1938 fridge. No clue what kind of power they use, but we can calculate the recoup cost of a replacement without knowing it.
It looks like modern refrigerators are considered about 3x as efficient as pre-70s refrigerators, so let's say that a straight swap of a size-equivalent refrigerator of average efficiency will cost 100kWh/year.
https://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=refrig.calcu...
Spending 1638 kWh on a new refrigerator will save 160kWh/year, so the break even point in carbon terms occurs after 10 years have passed.
This is all very bad napkin math done in crayon. If you want better figures, you'll need to know your own refrigerator runtime figures, which means measuring your fridge's power usage for a standard week of use (if you maintain a very stable indoor temperature through heating/cooling) or for a year (if you do not), and you'll need to know the energy saved per year of your current fridge, and etc.
ps. Apparently they have a fridge from 90 years ago that's still running. If you replace one modern fridge with another and only save 20 kWh/year, it will take you 90 years to recoup that cost. The 10 year figure is only possible because their 1938 fridge is so inefficient.
pps. Owner of said 1938 fridge, I intend no disrespect. This DOE paper talks in detail about the changes that improved efficiency – inventing high-efficiency compressors, changing the shape of the drain pipe (1% efficiency gain!), and replacing the refrigerant and insulation materials with more efficient ones. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/old/7281.pdf
...and that's where you're wrong. These are the most efficient as of 2020:
https://www.energystar.gov/most-efficient/me-certified-refri...
The top of that list is a 5.1cft model that uses 186kWh/year. The next one is also roughly the same size and uses 202kWh/year, followed by an 8.8cft that uses 294kWh/year. 100kWh/year is, frankly speaking, impossible. Mine has 9cft.
That "calculator" is being very deceptive by grouping everything "before 1980" together. The 60s and 70s models are certainly far more power-hungry because they made them bigger and with thinner insulation (more interior space) and things like defrost heaters, but the ones before that are not.
This DOE paper talks in detail about the changes that improved efficiency
...and none of the energy usage figures they quote are anywhere near the 300kWh/year range. A look at the real numbers shows just how efficient these early models are.
The only takeaway for me is that a fridge upgrade has to be at least 50 kWh/year more efficient, or it's more likely than not a complete waste of carbon.
Here is a fridge that is rated at 75kWh/year.
https://www.bosch-home.dk/produktliste/koeleskabe-og-frysesk...
https://www.euronics.ee/t-en/89517/home-appliances/sbs-refri...
75kWh/year is for the "cooler" only, which doesn't go below freezing. Ice takes a huge amount of energy to make, so that isn't surprising. I'm not sure I can even set my vintage fridge to not freeze, but it would probably consume in that ballpark too if I never let the evaporator go below 4C or so. The above link shows the companion freezer, which does, uses a 237kWh/year --- pretty good, but then the two together use a far more realistic 312kWh/year.
In any case, if you buy a A+++ freezer they "only" use around 200kWh/year. This is mostly due to better insulation, and is in general an environmental and economical benefit to buy if your freezer is old.
Wait until you hear about cars!
Fortunately for the big corporations, most people lack even the most basic mechanical skills and are totally reliant upon others to do even trivial maintenance. Thus almost everything is becoming disposable because it's cheaper to throw something away than it is to pay a technician to fix it, parts notwithstanding. Car makers are really hoping the EV thing sticks so they can force you to buy a brand new car every 5-6 years once the battery is toast.
But unfortunately you’re right. It’s probably the single biggest thing keeping me from pulling the trigger on a Tesla.
https://www.tesla.com/support/vehicle-warranty
> Model 3 - 8 years or 100,000 miles, whichever comes first, with minimum 70% retention of Battery capacity over the warranty period.
But that's warranty.
https://electrek.co/2018/04/14/tesla-battery-degradation-dat...
Some forum discussion: https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/cost-battery-pack-10-y...
Keep your car if it works for you. Financially that's the sensible choice regardless of technology. But you should expect to have less maintenance work if/when you switch to an EV.
What? No. This doesn't make sense at all.
First, most traditional manufacturers are NOT keen on having their fleet replaced. They don't want to cannibalize their own products. When they can, they will even retake possession of 'compliance cars' and destroy them.
Second, dealerships are also NOT pushing EVs. EVs make very little money due to less maintenance.
Third, no EV battery is toast after 5 years, except maybe first generation Nissan Leaf batteries (lookup 'lizard battery' if you are interested). Tesla's should last for 10 or more.
They really cannot prevent aftermarket batteries from being installed, or individual cells replaced. They can try to make the process more difficult (as GE is doing), but if there's enough incentive it will be circumvented.
Anything that does not deal with the drivetrain works just the same as any other car.
You might have a point if you mentioned the EV electronics. But can you repair a car ECU? Most likely, you can't. If that fails, you replace it. Same thing here, except there's less to replace.
Imagine how abysmal the second hand prices would be to offset a new battery pack after 10 years.
The environmental impact would be really bad as well.
Related: https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/10/16283330/tesla-hurricane-...