politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Ok. Let's talk a out this for a moment.
A fridge brand new in 1985 cost about 85 dollars a year in energy now a fridge costs about 45 a year. A YEAR. The savings is absolutely negligible.
And I understand that over a large population that small amount of savings is quite large. The thing is the standards for these types of ratings is... Questionable at best.
For example on a washing machine they conserve water by filling the tub with less water several times which in turn works out to be more water over time instead of just one fill.
The energy star rating sticker is there for marketing and nothing else. It helps sell the appliance. Thats all.
Source?
Is that in 1985 dollars or inflation adjusted?
No because appliances have become more efficient since then costing less energy to use.
My point is is that efficiency is negligible.
Have you heard of a little thing called the environment? Not everything is about money.
That's funny.
Although to be fair the change to r600 freon was a very good step. All they have to do is improve the reliability of those compressors and we're golden.
Got a source to back those claims up?
Are those dollar values normalized to the same year?
You going off data or just vibes, because the only thing here that feels questionable at best is your post.
20+ years in the appliance repair industry.
In the 1970s a residential clothing washer would run for about 40 minutes at the max setting pulling 120 volts and 5 amps. Albeit they used more water to clean the cloths faster.
A modern front load washer now runs for about 2 hours for a regular wash at the same 120 volts and 5 amps. Although we are saving water we recycle anyway....
Got it, so just vibes... Well, since you caught me on a Friday with a light schedule...
Amperage rating is maximum load, not how much it uses the entire cycle. I just so happen to have my washer hooked up to a power meter, and look at that! It doesn't draw the entire load during the entire cycle (which would look like a flat line)!
Runtime is not correlated with energy use. Energy is actually much more closely linked to water usage, since it takes a lot of energy to heat up all that water for a cycle, and all that water weight causes extra load on the internal motors. The additional runtime of modern washing equipment is mostly idle time to allow for additional soaking, etc. and not contributing much energy use. Historical trends show a pretty steady decline in energy use. Here's one study that found a 75+% decrease in energy use per load from the 90's to the early 2010's:
This is interesting, because when partnered with data on tub size, it actually shows that even as loads get larger, energy use has been decreasing over time:
(source is Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers again).
Back to your original comments about refrigerators, I'll just add, going from ~1400 kWh/yr in 1980 to ~400 kWh/yr in 2014 is a 72% decrease in energy use (which is amazing), even while real appliance costs have come down AND volume has gone up.
IDK where you live, but 1000 kWh/yr for me would cost ~$250 ($0.25/kWh). Swapping a 1980s fridge with a modern one would pay for itself in just 2-3 years. Hell, I could even splurge for a fancy fridge and still have a payback faster than investing in the stock market.
These gains, largely driven by regulatory efficiency targets, all benefit the consumer and the electricity grid at large. Being cranky about the fact that "they don't make them like they used to" doesn't change the fact that meaningful improvements have been made over time.
If the energy star rating is not there, manufacturers have no incentive to try to qualify. Likely it is cheaper to cut corners that make appliances less efficient. So, they'll do that and consumers won't have a way to easily know that they did. We may see the 1985-tier fridge energy use again.
The energy star organization isn't dictating how much energy manufactures have to make their appliances use federal mandate is.
The law is actually dictating how much energy they should be using and they get more and more stringent every year from Congress.
The energy star rating is nothing more than marketing. The same as the better Business bureau they serve no actual function.
My bet is that consumers still care because it equates to dollars, so either the manufacturers will advertise it themselves, raitings websites will measure it as part of their assessment, or some non profit will pop up to do it.
TIL that a ~50% improvement in energy use is 'absolutely negligible'.
I agree that the energy star system may be flawed but the premise of your comment is wild.
85 dollars spread over the course of 365 days is .23 cents a day. 45 dollars spread over 365 days is .12 cents a day. Omg. A whole .11 cents of saving in energy costs. Whoopdy doo! But yes if you turn it into a percentage that number seems way way bigger! 50% savings! A whole 40 bucks a year!
It's funny because energy costs is just one small aspect of refrigeration.
Did you know that fridges made in the 80s and 90s leaked far less freon than ones made in the last 10 years?
The environmental impact of modern refrigeration is staggering compared to that of about 40 years ago.
Freon is a brand name that covers a bunch of refridgerants, but when people talk about freon with negative connotations they are usually referring to the original CFC-based Freon products such as the widely-used refridgerant R-12. Fridges haven't used CFCs since the early 90s, when they were banned and phased out world-wide due to their ozone-depleting potential.
They were replaced by R-134a (tetrafluoroethane) which is less harmful, and other non-CFC refridgerants but those have since also being phased out for even better options. Modern fridges of the last 10-20 years use butane (R600a) and alternatives which are the current least-harmful options for both health and the environment. Butane is burned as a fuel by the millions of tonnes every year, so an ounce or two leaking from a refrigerator is of truly minimal concern.
In short, if you have bought a fridge since circa 1994 you don't have to worry about it "leaking freon", that is a non issue.
The ozone hole is being actively & closely monitored and has been closing since the ban, projected to completely close & return to 1980 levels by 2075. https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ozone_depletion&wprov=rarw1
Tell that to the thousands of clients I service every year with no r134a left if their sealed systems.
There's a reason appliance repair techs that work on sealed systems are in such high demand.
Dude. I literally recharge two refrigerators yesterday that were less than ten years old.
I never said they don't leak, all those systems have leaks with enough time and a certain failure rate right?
If they have increased their failure rate since being offshored largely to China and SEA I would not be surprised, as the manufacturing standards there are infamously lower than USA/EU/etc, but it seems like something where evidence is scant - I can't find anything in my searches. I'm not saying your experience is not valuable, I believe you when you say you service more of the new ones than the old ones, but there may be other reasons for that than those models having a higher failure rate.
For example, it could be that people are buying fridges more often nowadays (like every 7-8 years instead of every 15+ in the 90s) because so many components on them are made cheaper and fail earlier.. Everything is made to me more disposable nowadays (for the worse, IMO). If there are surviving models around from the 90s and earlier then you get survivor's bias - you don't see all the ones that failed as they went to scrapyards 25 years ago, etc.
He's using Maga-nomics. Real numbers don't mean anything