Extremely doubtful. Yes newer ones are more efficient but not that
radically so when new units of that size are 700$ and up. She's much better
off just banking the food savings money until it eventually needs more freon
(which she wont be able to get for the older unit nor is it cost effective
to try to adapt them). She's probably getting 40$ a year electric more for
it vice a newer model. I know. I had one like it. It will take 17 YEARS
to pay off at that rate.
No I never 'tested'. I didnt need to as I have live experience . *I had
one*. You'll note the only other person to reply who has had one said the
same. You are acting like the new ones run for free. They dont. The
difference in cost per month is a few dollars. Can be 3 or 4 depending on
how expensive electric is where you are.
Perhaps you missed that it's a difference per cost that matters here. Want
to argue with a 12 year electrical bill history showing? I *know* what I am
talking about. She should save the unit as long as possible and not create
I will, but not for that reason. I am keeping it because I love the look and
of it, and it works great! Our electric bill is low for people who use so
electronics, too. The best reason to keep it: it, and the 1949 GE
next to it has run without a hitch for ten years, after running in the same
from at least 1969 to 1998 when we bought this house. The owner left me
all the documentation for all of the appliances that came with the house.
are in the utility in the finished basement. While the 1970s fridge in the
died along with the 1980s dishwasher and the 1980s hood fan over the stove,
these beauties have hummed along smoothly for all these years. And, again,
when we replaced the kitchen fridge with a new Whirlpook with all the bells
and whistles, it broke after 3 years. I was so pissed at paying over a grand
for a bunch of plastic, I won't have it fixed. I am the cook in the house,
if I want to go downstairs to get my stuff, I guess I can.
I have both, a 1950 freeezer now used as clothes storage and new
stuff. I have used a KAW meter on Both and I am right as www.EnergyStar.Gov
will confirm. Its BS to state " you save little" , if you want to
waste energy go ahead , be a hog, my neighbor keeps 1500w of
incandesants on 24x7, but its not apropriate to do so in this day and
age, and its a waste of $$. So the rich dont give a shit.
on 2/25/2008 7:30 PM Dr. Hardcrab said the following:
I live about 25 miles from the Indian Point Nuclear facility in
Buchanan NY. It has been there for 30 years. Every time a light bulb
burns out there, the wackos come out with their "See, we told you it was
I lose no sleep being within fallout distance from it.
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @
And Chernobyl was a _completely_ different reactor design than any in
the US (or elsewhere, for that matter) without any containment.
That Chernobyl was a disaster is true but it has no relevance to
the US nearly had its chernobyl, 3 mile island. some roids melted, it
was a close thing....
plus a meltdown like situation can occur at any time, with the spent
fuel rods in unhardened buildings, a easy terrorist target. and
reactors with waste storage tend to be near population centers and
rivers for cooling water.
now take a look at some of these photos and explain how the risk is
No, it is not possible to do a Chernobyl w/ a LWR. Do you understand
the difference in reactor designs?
Again, no -- after the spent fuel assemblies are removed and been in
storage for a while they do not have enough self-generated heat to
require forced cooling. A very large percentage of the fuel in storage
at various facilities in the US has been out of the reactor for so long
it could be in open air and still not be a thermal problem. Some
biological shielding is, of course, still required and that is actually
as much of the purpose of the pool water as is cooling.
Certainly the risk is worth it. That's already been established.
If it can be shown that nuclear power causes less deaths per KWs generated
than any other form of electrical generation, then nuclear should be a
Well, it can.
Consider the mining and transportation (from, say Montana to Chicago) of
tens of thousands of railcars full of coal. Consider that hydroelectric dams
don't fail very often, but when they do...
And so on.
The thing that nuclear has that the others don't is the "terror factor."
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.