Energy savings of a ' fridge

Page 1 of 7  
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
C & E writes:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Apr 9, 8:09am, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
ransley wrote: ...

Don't know where ya'll have been, I see energy-conservation PSA's fairly regularly and I watch very little TV...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Until I saw the info in print it didnt sink in, I hate commercials on tv.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 06:09:49 -0700 (PDT), snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

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.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Apr 9, 8:09am, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.......
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, and I've always found that kitchens are short of heat. Sheesh. Help is hardly the right word.
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Joseph Meehan writes:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Richard J Kinch writes:

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 fr&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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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

I think it's unreasonable for them to factor in what are clearly second order effects.

The energy star calculator at their website let's you put in your own cost of electricity.

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.

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.