Post by ckfan on Nov 28, 2016 16:12:41 GMT
I think that a few of us have asked ourselves that question when we have chosen appliances with that little blue sticker. I mean, just look at this damning article and report which talks about a gas powered alarm clock getting approved!
gizmodo.com/a-fake-gas-powered-alarm-clock-once-got-energy-star-cer-1656128986
Apparently some products just get the automated "rubber stamp" and are sent on their way. The only problem is that they then get to boast that they are "efficient". What? More efficient than what you say? 9% more efficient than the federal minimum standard? Well, I guess that is SORT of impressive (not really). What makes matters worse is that instead of creating a system where better overall products are praised for their efficiency...all "efficient" products in THEIR OWN CATEGORIES are given a blue star. What does that mean? Well, basically that means that if you compare a side by side refrigerator (by nature very inefficient) and a top freezer bottom fridge design (generally most efficient), what you will find is that both could have the energy star or that one or the other could get the blue star. Well, to the uneducated consumer which one would you choose? The one with the rubber stamped star of course! Even if that means that you chose an inherently inefficient design, you still chose an inefficient design that is 9% better than its cohorts. To me, that seems unfair. I think that the more efficient designs should be called out and should stand above the other energy wasting configurations. That is just my 2 cents though.
ANYWAYS,
This all got me thinking. Various members on the forum here have touted their old beasts as being "efficient". I will include myself in this camp. Nothing feels better than to have a rusty old (hunk of garbage) to most people's eyes and actually have it be very efficient. It just blows people away. I have thought of a method of testing these old fridges to see if they actually walk the tight watt rope. I will plug in each fridge and get it down to temperature, let it sit for a day so that a normal cycle will develop. Then, I will plug in my power meter and let it run for a day. After approx. 24 hours I can take a measurement of the KWh usage and then extrapolate that to a years worth of usage. This will give me the approximate total KWh usage for a year. Then I can find models on the Energy Star site which are similar sized and have a standard manual defrost / tiny freezer up top. Basically mini fridges now days. For my first test I put up to the plate 3 contenders that are about the same age but are very different. I was going to test 4 but the cold wall bit the dust in the 11th hour so it gets a pass (and my condolences). The 3 that I have tested are:
1. 1933 GE CA form A Size 1 monitor top
2. 1936 GE CF-1-C16 Flat Top
3. 1937 Westinghouse 5 cu ft. model
The main similarity of these units is their size and I did that on purpose. All are approximately 5 cu ft in size. This means that I can compare them to modern 5 cu ft units that are energy star rated and go from there. If you look at the attatched pictures you will see the qualifying 5 cu ft models. I took an average of the yearly KWh usage of these models (and took out a very high outlier) and came up with an average of: 226.5 KWh per year usage. Now for the fun part!
The CA? Unfortunately it didn't do so hot. The cycle times were good (I thought), it had a good frost line and a good heater. It also has good door and top seals so I am not sure if this is accurate or not.
368.65 KWh per year. Yowsa! I didn't expect it to be that high.
Well, apparently GE did get better with efficiency as they progressed through the years. Let's see how the flat top did.
211.7??? Apparently that is right. I also took this reading over a much longer 9 day period with all of us reaching in and getting beers, putting food in it, freezing ice and making desserts and so on. I was very impressed by this. You get a blue star good old flat top!
Now it is time for the Westinghouse. I have always been curious about the power usage of this machine. While it uses quite a bit of wattage, around 200, it only stays on long enough for you to realize it before it turns back off. I also froze ice in this machine and recorded the temp. A frosty 34 degrees for 2 days. What is the verdict? A scant 214.6 KWh per year. Not bad at all. You get a blue star too!
So, now is the real fun part where you all tear my calculations to shreds and tell me how bad I messed up. What do you think? Did these two old codgers actually do this well in the energy star standing of 2016?
To view the photos in this post, please follow this link: drive.google.com/open?id=0B8_jm7K-ahMaRlpRQzl5UjF6V0E
gizmodo.com/a-fake-gas-powered-alarm-clock-once-got-energy-star-cer-1656128986
Apparently some products just get the automated "rubber stamp" and are sent on their way. The only problem is that they then get to boast that they are "efficient". What? More efficient than what you say? 9% more efficient than the federal minimum standard? Well, I guess that is SORT of impressive (not really). What makes matters worse is that instead of creating a system where better overall products are praised for their efficiency...all "efficient" products in THEIR OWN CATEGORIES are given a blue star. What does that mean? Well, basically that means that if you compare a side by side refrigerator (by nature very inefficient) and a top freezer bottom fridge design (generally most efficient), what you will find is that both could have the energy star or that one or the other could get the blue star. Well, to the uneducated consumer which one would you choose? The one with the rubber stamped star of course! Even if that means that you chose an inherently inefficient design, you still chose an inefficient design that is 9% better than its cohorts. To me, that seems unfair. I think that the more efficient designs should be called out and should stand above the other energy wasting configurations. That is just my 2 cents though.
ANYWAYS,
This all got me thinking. Various members on the forum here have touted their old beasts as being "efficient". I will include myself in this camp. Nothing feels better than to have a rusty old (hunk of garbage) to most people's eyes and actually have it be very efficient. It just blows people away. I have thought of a method of testing these old fridges to see if they actually walk the tight watt rope. I will plug in each fridge and get it down to temperature, let it sit for a day so that a normal cycle will develop. Then, I will plug in my power meter and let it run for a day. After approx. 24 hours I can take a measurement of the KWh usage and then extrapolate that to a years worth of usage. This will give me the approximate total KWh usage for a year. Then I can find models on the Energy Star site which are similar sized and have a standard manual defrost / tiny freezer up top. Basically mini fridges now days. For my first test I put up to the plate 3 contenders that are about the same age but are very different. I was going to test 4 but the cold wall bit the dust in the 11th hour so it gets a pass (and my condolences). The 3 that I have tested are:
1. 1933 GE CA form A Size 1 monitor top
2. 1936 GE CF-1-C16 Flat Top
3. 1937 Westinghouse 5 cu ft. model
The main similarity of these units is their size and I did that on purpose. All are approximately 5 cu ft in size. This means that I can compare them to modern 5 cu ft units that are energy star rated and go from there. If you look at the attatched pictures you will see the qualifying 5 cu ft models. I took an average of the yearly KWh usage of these models (and took out a very high outlier) and came up with an average of: 226.5 KWh per year usage. Now for the fun part!
The CA? Unfortunately it didn't do so hot. The cycle times were good (I thought), it had a good frost line and a good heater. It also has good door and top seals so I am not sure if this is accurate or not.
368.65 KWh per year. Yowsa! I didn't expect it to be that high.
Well, apparently GE did get better with efficiency as they progressed through the years. Let's see how the flat top did.
211.7??? Apparently that is right. I also took this reading over a much longer 9 day period with all of us reaching in and getting beers, putting food in it, freezing ice and making desserts and so on. I was very impressed by this. You get a blue star good old flat top!
Now it is time for the Westinghouse. I have always been curious about the power usage of this machine. While it uses quite a bit of wattage, around 200, it only stays on long enough for you to realize it before it turns back off. I also froze ice in this machine and recorded the temp. A frosty 34 degrees for 2 days. What is the verdict? A scant 214.6 KWh per year. Not bad at all. You get a blue star too!
So, now is the real fun part where you all tear my calculations to shreds and tell me how bad I messed up. What do you think? Did these two old codgers actually do this well in the energy star standing of 2016?
To view the photos in this post, please follow this link: drive.google.com/open?id=0B8_jm7K-ahMaRlpRQzl5UjF6V0E
