• OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    I’ve never understood this. If your appliances use less energy, you save money on energy. How is that ever a bad thing? Who wants something that costs more to operate (other than those ‘rolling coal’ idiots)?

    • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      It just might make you GAY! If not that, it might make you woman-ish. Or it might shrink your penis and/or balls!

      At the very worst, OTHER people might think you have a tiny, tiny penis if you are seen caring the least fucking bit about the environment! Obviously, well hung manly macho men all burn the very most fossil fuel possible at all times, in every activity they do.

      What happens if women do these kinds of activities? Well, don’t ask, because it doesn’t have to make any sense…it’s kind of the same kind of thinking surrounding eating lots of animal carcasses…

      • DancingBear@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        Life would be a lot easier if I was just gay. What kind of stove do I need to get for that? I’m in as long as it doesn’t also have to be fabulous or something

    • rumba@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      Devil’s advocate, because I do believe we should keep energy star, the high efficiency stuff is often less effective at it’s job. Sure, a water heater is a water heater. But low end and mid range HE dishwashers and clothes washers are less effective. Low flow toilets have more problems.

      Energy star is absolutely worth it all told, but there is bad with the good.

      Also, there’s no reason some of the the stuff should cost that much more. In a dishwasher, it’s putting in smaller pumps and a turbidity sensor.

      • lemming741@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 days ago

        It’s because corporations, seeking profit, will find the absolute cheapest way to get the star.

        Then consumers, seeking savings, buy the absolute cheapest option that has the level of superfluous features they can find.

        You end up with refrigerators that can tweet, but the compressor grenades itself 2 week out of the 1 year warranty.

      • Riprif@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        I think it’s good to have some 3rd party organization, as in besides the manufacturer and consumer, imposing some restrictions that weed out companies that cut too many corners on engineering a product or are just low skilled at engineering things.

        Like cars for example. The average mpg of cars has pretty much doubled in the last 15 or 20 years, which is insane for such a mature industry. They were forced to adapt and get creative by lawmakers making emissions requirements more strict. It shows that automakers could have been doing more in decades past.

        • rumba@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 days ago

          It would be nice if the government wasn’t actually trying to squash efficiency. A third party could totally take it over and consumers that care would definitely purchase based on their badging.

    • ImADifferentBird@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      Who wants something that costs more to operate (other than those ‘rolling coal’ idiots)?

      The people charging you to operate the thing, of course.

      Right wingers use populist rhetoric (and tons of scapegoating) to get people to vote for their own destruction. They keep us all fighting each other so we don’t notice the only minority ruining our country is them.

    • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      For heat pump HVAC systems, the only way to make them efficient enough to meet the requirements that were coming into effect up to now was to make them physically larger. My utility room has zero space left that could fit a larger unit. My current one isn’t looking so hot and is nearly 20 years old. I wasn’t sure what I was going to be able to do when it was going to need replaced. The standard exceeded affordable capabilities of technology.

      As to washing machines. They use less water, but they also take longer and kinda suck, now.

      • JackbyDev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 days ago

        For heat pump HVAC systems, the only way to make them efficient enough to meet the requirements that were coming into effect up to now was to make them physically larger. My utility room has zero space left that could fit a larger unit.

        Huh? The part that does the actual heat pumping (and cooling when AC is on) is outside. Why would the size of your utility room matter?

        • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 days ago

          The condenser/evaporator, the blower fan, and the air filter is all inside. Larger fan=more efficient. Bigger filter=more efficient. Larger surface area on the condensor= more efficient.

          The pump is a tiny and inconsequential size. A Larger evaporator coil outside helps with efficiency, but it does nothing for the blower motor, airflow restrictions, and the condenser coil the air has to pass through that’s all inside the utility room.

    • Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      Some of the new designs are just bad at what they’re supposed to do. I replaced a 25 year old dishwasher recently and the new one I bought is terrible at actually washing dishes. I’d gladly pay a few dollars more in energy/water to not have to hand scrub all my bowls.

            • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 days ago

              Step 4. Acknowledge that lower speed jets from smaller motors and less ability to heat water up within the dishwasher actually do a worse job at washing dishes.

              Not rocket science to figure out that hot water hitting dirty dishes with more force will clean them better.

          • wraithcoop@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 days ago

            if I remember correctly the #1 most important tip he wanted you leave with was to run the hot water before starting the cycle so the prewash uses hot water. But, it sounds like your dishwasher is just crap.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      Very short term thinking:

      Saving money is hypothetical and future

      Meanwhile you’re instantly effected by

      • higher initial price
      • longer operating time
      • lower water flow.

      All this political catastrophe is feeding immediate visceral emotions at the cost of the future

    • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      Because poor people don’t really get to choose their appliances. Meanwhile the fossil fuel industry and landlords laugh all the way to the bank.

    • GBU_28@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      The perception among idiots is that there’s a trade-off with performance

      • cogman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 days ago

        Sometimes there is usually there isn’t.

        The trap is that often times when there is a performance difference, a change in behavior can accommodate fairly reasonably.

        For example, a hybrid hot water heater in its most efficient mode will (sometimes) recover heat slower than a pure electric or gas heater. That generally only matters for showers, so a shorter shower can overcome the slower recovery.

    • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      Because, from conservative perspective, anything that incorrectly influences a corporation to do something is seen as a bad thing.

      These “energy savings” cost corporations gazillions of dollars that they could use for stock buybacks and dividends fostering innovation.

    • QuarterSwede@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      If up front costs were the same everyone would choose the energy efficient appliance. However, usually the energy efficient appliance costs more up front. Many people don’t think in terms of long term costs, only short term monthly payments. I wish it weren’t that way but it really is.

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        Maybe 25 years ago… But walk into a Best Buy and see if you can find a full sized kitchen appliance that doesn’t have an “Energy Star” logo.

        Maybe it’s just the state I live in…?

          • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            7 days ago

            My point is that appliances without the rating don’t appear to exist (in my part of the US) anymore. I’m sure they will test the waters and see if ending the program hurts their sales at all… As someone who remembers when that program started becoming popular, I do think that people would take it into account. They used to at least, before it became the norm (which is why it became the norm, by the way, before the government started to care.