Those deadly air conditioners...
-
@taiwan_girl said in Those deadly air conditioners...:
Not sure why you guys think this is a bad idea.
For example, energy efficiency of refrigerators:
A fridge in 1975 used about 2200 kWh/year of energy.
A fridge in 2013 used about 460 kWh/year of energy.I dont think that refridges have gotten smaller. Increasing standards required of manufactures were the main driver. I dont think that anybody has complained that refridges have gotten worse because of that.
And my grandmother's Coldspot from the 1950's is still in use. Ask an appliance guy about how long a new frig lasts today.
If you have to buy a frig every 5:years, how energy efficient is that?
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@Jolly said in Those deadly air conditioners...:
And my grandmother's Coldspot from the 1950's is still in use. Ask an appliance guy about how long a new frig lasts today.
If you have to buy a frig every 5:years, how energy efficient is that?
How do you know that shortened usable lives of refrigerators is caused by higher efficiency standard? Could it not be due to manufacturers' profit seeking?
-
Work on the damn things, lad.
-
This is from 1960. What's that price work out at in today's money? About $2600.
Proud supporter of Plan 2525. Everything you think, do and say will be in the pill you took today.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Those deadly air conditioners...:
This is from 1960. What's that price work out at in today's money? About $2600.
It's an interesting discussion...Is it better to pay more for something that can last decades and is easily repairable or pay less for something that will last six or seven years?
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
Pretty much.
There are a few dinosaurs still out there...
-
@Jolly said in Those deadly air conditioners...:
It's an interesting discussion...Is it better to pay more for something that can last decades and is easily repairable or pay less for something that will last six or seven years?
Depends on the technological maturity of the product and the industrial ecosystem needed to support the product.
Some products require consumable parts. If you cannot get those parts, you cannot use the product anymore even if the product itself is still rock solid.
Some products require outside support (e.g., network connectivity, server interaction). The product, though durable by itself, may stop working once the required outside support ceases.
Some products were manufactured with hazardous materials that were not known to be hazardous at the time. Depends on the nature of the hazard, you may want to get rid of the product long before it becomes unusable absent the newly discovered hazard. Ditto mechanical design issues concerning safety.
Better to buy a simple hammer that lasts decades, not so a smartphone. Probably OK for cars running on gasoline or diesel, probably not there yet for hybrids/EVs.
Refrigerator and other large household appliances? Probably OK to spend more to get a longer lasting one, but no point for it to last much longer than your time owning the house if you know you’re going to sell the house not too far down the road. Not necessarily because you don’t want to leave nice stuff for the next owner, but the next owner may have different preferences anyway, be they for style or function.
-
@George-K said in Those deadly air conditioners...:
@Jolly said in Those deadly air conditioners...:
Is it better to pay more for something that can last decades and is easily repairable
If you can find it. Everything from major appliances to televisions have become disposable.
That's not due to government legislation, that's a strategic call that's been made by manufacturers, driven both by commercial thinking, and also by a public that wants the next best thing in a very rapidly changing technological environment.
As far as televisions go, is anybody going to try and argue that what you got in 1960 is better than what's available today? Vinyl arguments are bad enough, but claiming that the picture 'was warmer' back then would really be jumping the shark.
-
I agree with Ax on this. The decrease in the "life" of the product is probably NOT because of increased efficiency. I think they are two different subjects.
