Hacker News Reader

Comment by timr | Hacker News Reader

> New dishwashers take a long time because they can be more energy and water efficient if they leave more time for detergents to degrade grease and the other stuff on dishes.

Yes, I know the reason, but now say it in a way that doesn't make the assumption that the rule is rational: EnergyStar continued to increase the efficiency requirements to the point where the only option manufacturers had was to make the default cycles much longer in order to get the same performance [1]. Every dishwasher therefore has a button that reverts to the pre-regulation mode, but it's usually named in doublespeak.

Somehow I doubt that dishwashers are driving the power consumption curve in the US in 2025. But this is what bureaucracies do, unless given a self-destruct date.

[1] for example, what's preventing EnergyStar from requiring that the water be cold? That would use way less energy!

View on HN

So dishwashers can get the same performance for less water and energy usage, and you easily can push a button to trade energy and water efficiency for speed, and your problem is what?

The idea that manufacturers wouldn’t just make energy and water hogging dishwashers now is naive at best. Making something run well using less resources costs more money up front, even though the total cost of ownership is lower. If you don’t have to make them efficient and you don’t have to display how much energy or water they use and how much that would cost, then you can massively undercut anyone that does those things, even though the consumer would end up paying more over time.

> Somehow I doubt that dishwashers are driving the power consumption curve in the US in 2025.

But of course it isn’t just dishwashers, it is practically every home appliance. If every house was using 10% more energy, that adds up to a lot. It doesn’t mean that data centers aren’t also a problem, but abandoning a program that saves energy doesn’t fix either problem.

>for example, what's preventing EnergyStar from requiring that the water be cold? That would use way less energy!

Is that something you are worried about or was discussed? Or is that just a ridiculous made-up scenario trying to paint a reasonable regulation for nonsense?

> The idea that manufacturers wouldn’t just make energy and water hogging dishwashers now is naive at best. Making something run well using less resources costs more money up front, even though the total cost of ownership is lower.

Really? You sound like someone who would pay for such a thing. I bet there are more of you!

> If you don’t have to make them efficient and you don’t have to display how much energy or water they use and how much that would cost, then you can massively undercut anyone that does those things, even though the consumer would end up paying more over time.

Nobody said anything about getting rid of the stickers. We can still require stickers, just like we require food has labels on it. We don't need a sprawling certification system encompassing everything from telephones (sigh) to roofing materials and the government bureaucracy that defines it.

I just do not agree with the libertarian mindset. It is a “tragedy of the commons” situation for me. We live in a complex society and share/use the same resources and infrastructure, and the net effect of individual use can be huge. Power grid capacity is a perfect example, where each individual using a bit more energy doesn’t cost them much directly and there is little market pressure one way or the other. The overall effect requires higher infrastructure spending, that everyone pays regardless of if you use a bit more or less energy. Never mind how much pollution comes from energy production, and we all breath the same air. “The market” is absolutely terrible at solving for indirect effects like that.

I also don’t have the time, energy, and knowledge to be an expert on every single thing I buy or use. I know nothing about roofing materials, so having some bare minimum standards and left and right limits balancing societal harm/good and individual choice is perfectly reasonable to me.

Natural resources and infrastructure are a shared resource “owned” by everyone, collectively known as the nation. Protecting that value is what the government should be doing.

Re: Cold water requirement. It's not as ridiculous as it may seem. --In the 70's, we were told (in the US) to not flush the toilet after peeing. --We also were told that driving at 55mph was the optimum, most fuel efficient speed for all vehicles under all circumstances. --In the 2000's, my kids were urged to watchdog our family so that we didn't leave the tap on for more than 10 seconds while brushing our teeth. --In the 2010's, light bulbs that emit warm tones of light were apparently outlawed to save energy. I could see cold water becoming a thing.

Incandescent bulbs have a color temp of about 2700K and you can currently purchase LEDs at that same temp.

They are talking about the CFL bulbs (compact florescent), which have that cool colored industrial look lighting. Like all their examples, it is a grain of truth spun into ridiculousness. Most of the development of CFLs was in the 1970s because of the energy crisis. In the 1990s, they were promoted for use by the government and power companies, with rebates and other subsidies. The government didn’t start banning incandescents until 2012, after warm light LEDs had been around for a long time.

But 2700K CFLs have existed for several decades as well, even in the 90s.

I’m completely missing your point. Your original comment has been flagged so I don’t see it, so I’m missing context.

I, and I would guess most consumers, are perfectly fine with the trade off of taking longer at lower cost (energy and water). I run mine overnight so it doesn’t matter. This is what I want as the default.

On the few occasions I need it to run faster and am fine with the trade off of higher cost, I press a button and it’s there.

What’s the problem?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com