Energy savings of a ' fridge
C & E
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.
Edwin Pawlowski
"C & E" <chizz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:47fc1e7a$0$19857$470e...@news.pa.net...
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.
Richard J Kinch
> 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.
RLM
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!
Joseph Meehan
"Richard J Kinch" <ki...@truetex.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A7BD92867F...@216.196.97.131...
I can't say about everything, but having loose ice in the freezer is not
going to cause significant energy use and having open liquid water in the
freezer will NOT keep it running unit it freezes. Freezing water does
require a fair amount of energy, but if you want ice you have to freeze it.
Once frozen it does not cost any measurable amounts to keep it frozen.
--
Joseph Meehan
Dia 's Muire duit
hal...@aol.com
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
tra...@optonline.net
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 $95.
These numbers shocked me. I would have thought there would be a
reasonable energy difference, but I also assumed that there was only
so much that can be done to make them more efficient. So, I was
expecting a difference of maybe 20-30%.
Guess I should start shopping. Of course, the key to this is also it
has to be an energy star certified model and I don't know how much
more they cost vs other models, but assume it's still well
worthwhile.
Too bad they don't make this more widely known. If I saw a TV ad
about this, I would have visited the EnergyStar website long ago.
ransley
My new unit uses about 4-5$ 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.
ransley
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.
ransley
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
ransley
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.
hal...@aol.com
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
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.
dpb
...
>> 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...
--
ransley
Until I saw the info in print it didnt sink in, I hate commercials on
tv.
Joseph Meehan
and anti-infiltration standards as much as they have with refrigerators.
"ransley" <Mark_R...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a522f2cf-4298-4a4d...@24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
..
>
> 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
cshenk
>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.
mm
>On Apr 9, 8:21 am, "hall...@aol.com" <hall...@aol.com> 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.
ransley
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.
Richard J Kinch
> 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
> 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/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title10/10cfr430_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.
tra...@optonline.net
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 06:09:49 -0700 (PDT), trad...@optonline.net wrote:
> >On Apr 9, 8:21 am, "hall...@aol.com" <hall...@aol.com> 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 -
tra...@optonline.net
> 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/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/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.
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
>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
RicodJour
Yes, and I've always found that kitchens are short of heat. Sheesh.
Help is hardly the right word.
R
aemeijers
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....
Richard J Kinch
> 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.
John
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
tra...@optonline.net
> > 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?
Edwin Pawlowski
> 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?
Richard J Kinch
> 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.
Richard J Kinch
> 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?
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
>>... 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 $1/day total to run a real refrigerator in a real household
>environment, I don't know that it is enough to justify the nuisance. I do
>know it is enough to demonstrate the absurdity of Energy Star.
My ice cube trays hold 0.796 pounds of water. Freezing one from 60 F takes
(60-32+144)0.796 = 137 Btu, ie 0.04 kWh of heat. A fridge with a COP of 3
could move that with 0.013 kWh worth 1.3 cents at 10 cents/kWh. Know anyone
who freezes 1/0.013 = 75 ice cube trays per day? :-)
The trays have about 4"x10" of ice surface. Over a month, they might lose
1/4" of depth in my frost-free freezer. How much does that cost?
>Polyethylene bags, by the way, are not very effective vapor barriers...
Foil helps, aluminum helps, but
http://www.devicelink.com/mpb/archive/98/09/005.html
says 100 in^2 of "low-density polyethylene" loses about 0.4 grams of water
per day per mil (0.001") of thickness at 40 C (104 F), with 0% RH on one
side and 35% on the other. A graph shows how this decreases linearly with
inverse (1000/T(K)) temperature. How much would that cost?
EERE/DOE say a 6 mil poly film vapor barrier has 0.06 perms, ie 1 ft^2
transmits 0.06 grains of water vapor per hour (out of 7000 grains per pound)
with a 1" Hg differential pressure at 73.4 F. How much would that cost?
Nick
ransley
> ransley wrote:
> > On Apr 8, 8:41 pm, "C & E" <chizzar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> I just saw an Energy Star commercial which stated that a 'fridge built ten
> >> years ago uses twice as much electricity as a new one. Does that sound like
> >> a logical stat to you? I'll have to spend some time researching that when I
> >> get time but it sounds a bit inflated to me.
>
> > My new unit uses about 4-5$ a month, my old unit maybe 15$ a month,
> > yes its true but I thought new standards were adopted in maybe 93,
> > 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 $500, that is still a
> 10-year payback.
>
> Think I'll keep this one till it craps out.
>
> I probably oughta vacum the coils, and maybe turn off the icemaker,
> since I never use the ice, though.
>
> --
> aem sends....
Read how the tests are done, they simulate a family of four I think
with alot of use, how you use your frige or how much the door is open
is alot of it, my cost was at 0.125 kwh with a kill a watt meter with
a Sears unit that was when I bought it the most efficent I could find
from EnergyStar charts. Now my rate is near .14kwh so costs are up.
ransley
1$ 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.
ransley
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.
ransley
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.
cshenk
> 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.
cshenk
> 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.
Ken
> 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
tra...@optonline.net
> "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
$175 cost.
Ask yourself this. If you were trying to determing how much energy a
refrigerator actually uses, would you test it with the doors kept
closed during the test, no food inside, and no ice maker? And why
exactly does the govt test call for them to be tested this way?
These tests were not arbitrarily made by the govt, but were done in
collaboration with the industries involved. There may not be some
ulterior motive involved, but it is a bit suspicious as to how they
don't test them anywhere near to how they are used.
dpb
> On Apr 11, 1:24 pm, "cshenk" <cshe...@cox.net> wrote:
>> "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote
>>
>>> The methods may not be "real life" but as long as they test all brands the
>>> same way, it is a way of noting that Brand A is half the cost to operate
>>> compared to Brand B.
>> Correct.
>
> I have to agree with Richard on this one. There is no way anyone can
> say that, because the EPA test standards as Richard provided, do not
> test the refrigerators anywhere near to how they are actually used.
That's not really particularly relevant -- the point is that two units,
_if used the same way_, will have a _relative_ efficiency factor between
each other that is reasonably well approximated by the test. The
absolute values aren't significant; it's the relative change between the
two that is compared. And, that variability is precisely why the
testing doesn't make some arbitrary cycling patter--it isn't really that
important for the purpose of the test.
--
ransley
> > On Apr 8, 8:41 pm, "C & E" <chizzar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> I just saw an Energy Star commercial which stated that a 'fridge built ten
> >> years ago uses twice as much electricity as a new one. Does that sound like
> >> a logical stat to you? I'll have to spend some time researching that when I
> >> get time but it sounds a bit inflated to me.
>
> > My new unit uses about 4-5$ a month, my old unit maybe 15$ a month,
> > yes its true but I thought new standards were adopted in maybe 93,
> > 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....
$52 a year savings, thats at todays electric price, in 5-10 years it
will be double the way oil is at over 100 a barrell . Its really do
you want to fix an old unit, or get one more efficient.
ransley
> Richard J Kinch writes:
> > So it's made quite a few thermodynamic trips ALL AT YOUR EXPENSE.
>
> And I should add, that the later trips are not even measured by the government
> tricked-up efficiency numbers.
>
> "Energy Star" and government refrigerator efficiency numbers are bogus.
> They measure empty freezers when most of the cost of running a
> freezer is making (and unmaking) ice. They don't measure the cost of
> air-conditioning to remove the heat your refrigerator generates inside
> your house (or conversely the value of that heat when you're heating).
> The dollar numbers are based on fantasy prices for electricity. It's
> just a huge joke of technical boob-bait designed to sell appliances
> you don't really need.
>
> Just read the test methods if you don't believe this.
>
>
> See "Appendix A1 to Subpart B of Part 430, Uniform Test Method for
> Measuring the Energy Consumption of Electric Refrigerators and
> Electric Refrigerator-Freezers"
>
> No ice making.
>
> No opening/closing doors.
>
> Empty freezer.
>
> Puh-leeze.
It worked for me, with a KAW meter, 30$ 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
ransley
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!
ransley
>
> - 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
cshenk
>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.
m...@privacy.net
>It worked for me, with a KAW meter
I've got to get a Kill A Watt
Where is cheapest place to get one? And which model to
get?
Dave Martindale
>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 $500, that is still a
>10-year payback.
>Think I'll keep this one till it craps out.
Yeah, I'm not inclined to throw out something that's still working OK.
But when our 20-year-old refrigerator wouldn't hold temperature in the
summer any more, the energy consumption ratings were one of the things
we considered when looking for a new one. I expect that's their major
purpose - not to convince people to discard older working equipment.
Dave
ransley
>
> - Show quoted text -
Trader has always been logical here. My old reading of the test was it
was Real Life, My savings are real, my tests of old to new are Real
Time since I own apt Buildings. Get a KAW meter, put it on a new unit
at a store and see for yourself, The mandates were plain and simple as
I reviewed them and they worked for us. Id say 50% savings is easy, I
have a 16 unit building with 18 cfls, pump , boiler and condensing
boiler WH, using 32$ a month , and house using the same, it CAN be
done... Cant is BS, we Can save energy.
Edwin Pawlowski
<tra...@optonline.net> 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 $200 by
EPS testing will still be within a reasonable range under
The yellow stickers are guide lines, not absolute facts. Consumers still
need to think and use some brain power. Besides, I'm still going to buy the
model I want no matter what the sticker says.
ransley
> <trad...@optonline.net> wrote in message
ENERGY STAR tests do include open door tests...Go to Energy Star.
Richard J Kinch
> Read how the tests are done, they simulate a family of four I think
No. I cited the CFR earlier in the thread: No doors (that is, they're never
opened during the tests), no contents, no ice making or storage. A
thoroughly absurd set of conditions that was chosen to make the testing
easy and way optimistic.
Richard J Kinch
> 1$ 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.
KD
>
> - 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
Edwin Pawlowski
"Richard J Kinch" <ki...@truetex.com> 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.
Richard J Kinch
> ENERGY STAR tests do include open door tests...Go to Energy Star.
Where? The CFR I cited sez otherwise.
Richard J Kinch
> 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.
Edwin Pawlowski
> 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.
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
>... 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
m...@privacy.net
>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?
ransley
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.
ransley
Lets see, as the piss 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 $.014 or so kwh, I say
Bull shit, my tenants pay US$ 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.
Piss it away, its only to the utility company, Bushes favorite
personal investment.
ransley
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 fucked up.
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
>>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
Wayne Whitney
> 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
Tenness...@gmail.com
> 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
Richard J Kinch
> 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.
Richard J Kinch
> 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 $20 bill from our utility. The
fixed charges are more than that.
ransley
I just talked to 2 of my tenants, they said they pay about 20 a
month, thats for tv, microwave, lights, video games, computer, FRIGE,
TVs, phones etc, at Chicago ill rates of near 0.14 kwh , so go figure,
your mythical 1$ 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$ pissed away in the trash. wake
up and do your own audit old fart.
Edwin Pawlowski
"Richard J Kinch" <ki...@truetex.com> 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 $1.25/day. So the accuracy of your outlet meter is not
> really
> the point, because it doesn't measure the true marginal cost of the
> refrigeration per BTU. This is one of the huge holes in the Energy Star
> claims.
I don't see that as a huge hole. I want a comparison of the appliance uses,
not how my life is or is not affected by secondary functions. In my case, I
only run the AC about 30 days a year, but if I lived in the south it may be
180+ days. Some of my neighbors have no AC, others have central units. it
is impossible to give total energy use for every household in the country.
That tag though, does give me some idea that A is better than B. Perfect?
No, that is why it is called an energy GUIDE, not an energy absolute use
sticker.
Richard J Kinch
> Gee I run a house at 39$ a month.
So you run a house on 300 watts average.
Pardon my skepticism.
Richard J Kinch
> 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.
dpb
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...
--
Richard J Kinch
> 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.
ransley
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.
dpb
> 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.
--
Edwin Pawlowski
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.
Tony Hwang
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.
tra...@optonline.net
>
> - 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.
ransley
>
> - 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
tra...@optonline.net
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 -
ransley
>
> - 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.
ransley
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I emailed you a pdf of what I found.
ransley
>
> - 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.
Don Klipstein
>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.
My experience is that most fridges don't have icemakers, and modern ones
with icemakers don't consume power like that unless people use immense
amounts of ice.
>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.
Amount of electrical energy to pump a given amount of heat energy from
indoors to outdoors is about 1/3 of the heat energy. Ideally the ratio is
3.41 divided by EER of the air conditioner.
And heat energy output of a fridge is same as electrical energy
consumption of the fridge, plus only a tiny bit more for heat coming out
for items going in warmer than they are coming out - it's close enough to
equal to the electrical energy going into the fridge.
Cost to pump the heat from indoors to outdoors is zero when outdoors is
cool enough to not use an air conditioner.
>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.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
wrote:
My utility has fixed charges closer to $5. The total per-KWH portion of
my bill is close to 14 cents. My most recent electric bill for my
1-bedroom apartment was $33 - including elctric stove.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
ransley
> In article <Xns9A827B9B306Asomeconund...@216.196.97.131>, Richard J Kinch
An electric stove costs alot to run just like electric heat, Our fixed
charges are zero for electric at 13.6 kwh now, Ng is 9$. 20 a month
for tv, if you watch it 8 hrs a day every day a new tv might cost
10-15 for me. Obviously few know where they use energy or how to lower
it, thats a shame, no wonder our country wastes the most energy.
Richard J Kinch
> The same amount of heat has to be transferred to cool N grams of water
> to make ice.
Public schooled?
Richard J Kinch
> Amount of electrical energy to pump a given amount of heat energy
> from
> indoors to outdoors is about 1/3 of the heat energy. Ideally the
> ratio is 3.41 divided by EER of the air conditioner.
That's true, at least for air conditioning serving a small delta T of
indoors to outdoors. Not so efficient when delta T is many times
larger, going from 0 deg F freezer to warm outdoors. Think about why
heat pumps for home heating aren't used when it is the mirror image of
refrigeration, with 0 deg F outside and room temp inside.
> And heat energy output of a fridge is same as electrical energy
> consumption of the fridge, plus only a tiny bit more for heat coming
> out for items going in warmer than they are coming out - it's close
> enough to equal to the electrical energy going into the fridge.
Conservation of energy of course applies. But if you consider the
multiple heat cycles that exposed water in the freezer goes through
(chill/freeze/sublimate/condense/freeze/defrost/evaporate/condense),
you'll understand why the electric energy consumed per BTU spoils the
3:1 rule of thumb. And why it's not therefore in the DOE test.
You can easily prove this to yourself with a duty cycle meter on your
refrigerator/freezer, and measuring while making and storing ice, versus
icemaker off and no exposed ice. In my experience you go from running
constantly while ice is being made to running quite intermittently when
there is no icemaking or exposed ice. A puddle of liquid water in a
freezer is like a campfire in there, pushing the temp towards 32 deg F
when the freezer wants to shut off at 0 deg F.
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
>... In my experience you go from running constantly while ice is being made
>to running quite intermittently when there is no icemaking or exposed ice.
>A puddle of liquid water in a freezer is like a campfire in there, pushing
>the temp towards 32 deg F when the freezer wants to shut off at 0 deg F.
Then again...
>>>How much energy would we save if we kept ice trays in a baggie?
>
>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?
That's about 0.25x4x10/12^3x62 = 0.36 pounds of ice, ie 1.7 Btu/day worth
0.002 cents per day (61 cents per year :-) at 10 cents/kWh with a COP of 3.
>>Polyethylene bags, by the way, are not very effective vapor barriers...
>
>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
tra...@optonline.net
Your experience with ice makers is totally different than mine. I
don't notice any difference in running time on mine when it's making
ice versus when it's not. It's most certainly NOT running all the
time when making ice. Good grief, the amount of water that's frozen
over a period of about an hour and a half is very modest, maybe a cup
or so. You can do the math, but clearly the heat contained in that
small qty of water should not make any decent refrigerator run
constantly.
Also, you vastly overestimate the sublimation effect. Sure, ice will
SLOWLY sublimate. If I leave the ice maker full, unused and off,
after maybe a month, the volume will diminish by 1/3. So, we're
talking about what? A quart of extra ice it has to make in a month?
Sure it uses some energy, but in the grand scheme of things, I don't
see this being a big factor. How about all the foods one puts in
the freezer that go in above room temp, like two quarts of soup?
Isn't that what the freezer is there for and supposed to do? Yet
making some ice is supposed to be a big factor?
Richard J Kinch
>> ...
> That's about ...
You're quoting and responding to someone else's post, not mine.
Richard J Kinch
> don't notice any difference in running time on mine when it's making
> ice versus when it's not.
Noticing or not noticing isn't physics. One has to appreciate
thermodynamics and the heat of fusion to understand why ice making is so
much more energy intensive than making up heat losses through a well-
insulated cabinet or warm air infiltration.
> Also, you vastly overestimate the sublimation effect.
I haven't actually made any specific estimate, over or otherwise, but I
suppose you mean to say that sublimation and the other wasteful phase
changes inside a refrigerator-freezer are trivial, when if fact they are
a major factor as evidenced by the need for frequent defrosting and the
pivotal role that plays in efficiency.
The trickiness of all debate over efficiency is that you can call things
like sublimation trivial that are indeed small, but then you're
comparing them to things that have been optimized down to very near
zero, like heat gain through insulation, which is what the DOE test
measures, then the efficiency ratings based on near-zero effects are
still completely spoiled by the comparatively large sublimation type
effects that aren't in the DOE tests.
dpb
>> Your experience with ice makers is totally different than mine. I
>> don't notice any difference in running time on mine when it's making
>> ice versus when it's not.
>
> Noticing or not noticing isn't physics. One has to appreciate
> thermodynamics and the heat of fusion to understand why ice making is so
> much more energy intensive than making up heat losses through a well-
> insulated cabinet or warm air infiltration.
But heat removal is still heat removal as has been pointed out before --
it's only the source and the amount of heat required to be removed from
the water to create an equivalent amount of ice is the same for equal
amounts of water at the same initial conditions. So again, it would
change the magnitude of the numbers, much less effect on the _relative_
results which is the point of the test.
...
Don Klipstein
>Don Klipstein writes:
>
>> Amount of electrical energy to pump a given amount of heat energy
>> from
>> indoors to outdoors is about 1/3 of the heat energy. Ideally the
>> ratio is 3.41 divided by EER of the air conditioner.
>
>That's true, at least for air conditioning serving a small delta T of
>indoors to outdoors. Not so efficient when delta T is many times
>larger, going from 0 deg F freezer to warm outdoors. Think about why
>heat pumps for home heating aren't used when it is the mirror image of
>refrigeration, with 0 deg F outside and room temp inside.
You claimed 1.25 times as much energy to move the heat from the
kitchen to the outdoors as is consumed by the fridge in article
<Xns9A8263FB933...@216.196.97.131>. You claimed in that
article $1 per day for the fridge and $1.25 again per day to move the
heat from the kitchen to the outdoors.
>> And heat energy output of a fridge is same as electrical energy
>> consumption of the fridge, plus only a tiny bit more for heat coming
>> out for items going in warmer than they are coming out - it's close
>> enough to equal to the electrical energy going into the fridge.
>
>Conservation of energy of course applies. But if you consider the
>multiple heat cycles that exposed water in the freezer goes through
>(chill/freeze/sublimate/condense/freeze/defrost/evaporate/condense),
>you'll understand why the electric energy consumed per BTU spoils the
>3:1 rule of thumb. And why it's not therefore in the DOE test.
What does that have to do with the 3:1 rule-of-thumb which I claimed
was for an air conditioner? As in the air conditioner's cost of
pumping the fridge's heat out of your kitchen being about 1/3 of the
fridge's contribution to the electric bill as opposed to your claim
of 1.25 times as much?
>You can easily prove this to yourself with a duty cycle meter on your
>refrigerator/freezer, and measuring while making and storing ice, versus
>icemaker off and no exposed ice. In my experience you go from running
>constantly while ice is being made to running quite intermittently when
>there is no icemaking or exposed ice. A puddle of liquid water in a
>freezer is like a campfire in there, pushing the temp towards 32 deg F
>when the freezer wants to shut off at 0 deg F.
Not true that most fridges are busy making ice 24/7, nor that this is
an argument that the air conditioner contibutes 1.25 rather than .3 times
as much to one's electric bill to dispose of the fridge's heat as the
fridge contributes to one's electric bill.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
ransley
And of course You are the idiot paying 30 month for an old frige, Im
paying 5-6 for a 19,5, you piss your time away BSn yourself with your
fancy bs talk on thermodynamicraps, and you lian , still , to yo wife,
you pay, I dont sucker. Since this conv started you wasted 5 bucks,
keep talkin, Keep waistin, mr putz.
tra...@optonline.net
> > Your experience with ice makers is totally different than mine. I
> > don't notice any difference in running time on mine when it's making
> > ice versus when it's not.
>
> Noticing or not noticing isn't physics. One has to appreciate
> thermodynamics and the heat of fusion to understand why ice making is so
> much more energy intensive than making up heat losses through a well-
> insulated cabinet or warm air infiltration.
Excuse me. You made the claim that in your experience refrigerators
run constantly when making ice. So, which is it? Your OPINION based
on physics calcs you haven't done, or your actual observation. I'll
say it again. In my experience, with my own refrigerator, it DOES
NOT COME EVEN CLOSE TO RUNNING ALL THE TIME WHILE MAKING ICE.
>
> > Also, you vastly overestimate the sublimation effect.
>
> I haven't actually made any specific estimate, over or otherwise, but I
> suppose you mean to say that sublimation and the other wasteful phase
> changes inside a refrigerator-freezer are trivial, when if fact they are
> a major factor as evidenced by the need for frequent defrosting and the
> pivotal role that plays in efficiency.
Hmmm, first we have the physics defense, now you say you haven't even
made any actual calculations. So, it's pure speculation.
>
> The trickiness of all debate over efficiency is that you can call things
> like sublimation trivial that are indeed small, but then you're
> comparing them to things that have been optimized down to very near
> zero, like heat gain through insulation, which is what the DOE test
> measures, then the efficiency ratings based on near-zero effects are
> still completely spoiled by the comparatively large sublimation type
> effects that aren't in the DOE tests.
That the DOE tests don't include ice makers does not equate to ice
makers result in the refrigerator running all the time. Or that
sublimation of maybe 1/3 of a container of ice during a month is a big
deal energy wise. All we have is your pure speculation. You have
any references to back any of this up?
Richard J Kinch
> You claimed 1.25 times as much energy to move the heat from the
> kitchen to the outdoors as is consumed by the fridge in article
><Xns9A8263FB933...@216.196.97.131>. You claimed in that
> article $1 per day for the fridge and $1.25 again per day to move the
> heat from the kitchen to the outdoors.
Simply an observation that if it cost $1 to pump some quantity of heat from
inside the refrigerator to the kitchen, it is going to cost about that much
to pump it again from the kitchen to outdoors, plus the additional heat
generated by the first pump.
> What does that have to do with the 3:1 rule-of-thumb which I claimed
> was for an air conditioner?
The 3:1 rule applies to one hop, moving heat from one place to another.
For an air conditioner you're sinking into the outside world on one
thermodynamic path, so it's one hop. A refrigerator has multiple paths,
and ultimately sinks into the room air, so the heat from making ice has
many hops, and the 3:1 rule does not apply. It can be worse if you're air
conditioning, or better if you're heating.
Richard J Kinch
Deduction is not speculation. The whole point of engineering analysis is
to predict things you haven't tried by use of mathematical laws instead of
trial and error. I assert this cup of coffee will run downhill if I spill
it. That's speculation?
> You have any references to back any of this up?
Early in this thread I cited the US CFR section that specifies the DOE
testing procedure (no doors, no contents, no icemaking). Physics and
thermodynamics are textbook subjects.