Energy savings of a ' fridge

Page 2 of 7  


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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Apr 11, 3:25pm, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

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

I think based on my web page reading they do in fact test door openings etc on all of them as a standard.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Apr 11, 3:25pm, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

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

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

ENERGY STAR tests do include open door tests...Go to Energy Star.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
ransley writes:

Where? The CFR I cited sez otherwise.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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

I've got to get a Kill A Watt
Where is cheapest place to get one? And which model to get?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Most frozen food is contained in vapor barrier packages. How much energy would we save if we kept ice trays in a baggie?
Nick
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Just go to Harbor Freight, or Ebay, and buy what is called the "Kill A 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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.