Energy Cost in Replacing Old Appliances with Energy Efficient New Appliances

Make sure you participate in a refrigerator buy back program (where the old frig's get recycled). Otherwise, they end up getting sold as used and you don't gain anything.

Thanks & Adios,
CJD 

Carol J. Dollard, P.E.,
LEED AP Utility Engineer
[email protected]
(970) 491-0151
Mailing Address: Facilities Management
Colorado State University
6030 Campus Delivery
Fort Collins, CO 80523-6030

A great resource for calculating all energy savings costs for all kinds of EE measures, including residential appliances is the California Database for Energy Efficient Resources, affectionately known as DEER in California. Here is a description of the website http://www.energy.ca.gov/deer/: The Database for Energy Efficient Resources (DEER) is a California Energy Commission and California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) sponsored database designed to provide well-documented estimates of energy and peak demand savings values, measure costs, and effective useful life (EUL) all with one data source. The users of the data are intended to be program planners, regulatory reviewers and planners, utility and regulatory forecasters, and consultants supporting utility and regulatory research and evaluation efforts. DEER has been has been designated by the CPUC as its source for deemed and impact costs for program planning. The actual DEER website is: http://eega.cpuc.ca.gov/deer/ You can find also information about replacing old refridgerators with new EE ones. Pamela Wellner California Public Utilities Commisssion

Hi Damien,

The Ontario Power Authority has been running a refrigerator round-up program for about 9 months now and should have some data on energy saved and the energy of the new appliances. Here is a link to their website "http://www.conservationbureau.on.ca/Page.asp?PageID=924&ContentID=1769"
http://www.conservationbureau.on.ca/Page.asp?PageID=924&ContentID=1769.

Regards,
Theresa

The Ontario Power Authority has run a successful campaign for the past few years called the Great Refrigerator Roundup. http://www.everykilowattcounts.ca/HTML/Secondary/highlight_greatrefriger ator.shtml Fridges are decommissioned in an environmentally-friendly manner - CFCs, mercury and PCBs are safely removed - and all metals are recycled. This is one of the programs that the OPA has delivered under the Every Kilowatt Counts campaign.

Cheers,
John

John Osmond
Stakeholder
Relations Coordinator
Green Light On a Better Environment
390 Bay Street, Suite 710
Toronto, ON M5H 2Y2
Tel: 416-594-9325 Ext. 237
Fax: 416-594-9422
Toll-free: 1-866-268-4451
E-mail: [email protected]
www.shscorp.ca

In Ontario the Great Refrigerator Roundup Program offers free pick-up of old, inefficient refrigerators and freezers that can cost up to $150 per year in electricity to operate. The Ontario Power Authority will arrange for the disposal of the fridges/freezers in an environmentally responsible manner. I am not sure of the specifics of the research relied upon for this program, but you may be able to contact them for more info. http://www.everykilowattcounts.com/HTML/InMarket/FridgeRoundUp/FRUprogra mHome.shtml

Jessica Happl,

A. Sc. T. DWQMS Coordinator
County of Oxford
519-539-9800 x3113
[email protected] 
Fax: 519-421-2207

Has anyone thought of the "embodied energy" in the material we throw away? I'm wondering if it wouldn't be more feasible to keep things working rather than throwing away so much LARGE equipment? Unless of course they are recycled (even that costs energy) and CAN they with so much metal and plastic amalgams? I have just fixed my old washer because I don't like the way the new ones are made AND the computer chip often has problems that cost a bundle to fix!

Lucille

My rule of thumb is that, if an appliance or larger item is working well, is operating as efficiently as it was designed to be, and not otherwise in need of upgrade for repair or to replacement with an item that is much more energy efficient, then I'll keep the old one going on the assumption that the embedded energy in the new item far outweighs the energy savings to be made in comparison with the old item. My only exception to this rule was to replace an instantaneous gas water heater with a solar water heater which has had a pay-back time of less than 5 years. A trap to be aware of relates to home or building renovation, where you can spend $100,000+ to convert a house into a passive solar design in order to save $1000 in energy usage. Not only does the economic equation on a project like this not make sense but the embedded energy in new building materials is likely to be far too high to make the redesign energy neutral or positive. My one exception to this would be if most of the building materials used are recycled. In this instance, the economics may not stack up but the energy equation may make sense.

Bernie Masters

Hi Lucille,

Has anyone thought of the "embodied energy" in the material we throw away? Me, I think of such things all the time! I'm wondering if it wouldn't be more feasible to keep things working rather= than throwing away so much LARGE equipment? I am somewhat aghast at the growing concept that we have to re-fashion all our devices with "energy efficient" ones in order to reduce the operating load on the environment and that that automatically means replacing rather than (as you have artfully done!) modifying in order to achieve the same end effect. Not only does it cost the environment a lot to absorb discarded appliances, but it also costs a lot of new resources to manufacture new ones. There are definitely more factors in the equation than just "operating energy saved". Making well-informed choices must take all those other factors into consideration. We tend to overlook the resources is takes to convert scrap metal or scrap paper into something useable. If a bit of ingenious tweaking can mean that the old washer remains in place and operates more efficiently, the ONLY party to suffer is the purveyor of new washers. I don't think we need shed tears on that behalf; however, Environmentalists do need to study the antagonism which greening is almost calculated to produce among those whose sales profits will definitely be damaged. I have just fixed my old washer You are a saint! - and a brilliant exemplar of the three R's: REDUCE, Re-use, Re-cycle, IN THAT ORDER OF PRIORITY. Well done!

Elizabeth Griffin (Victoria, Canada)

Thank you so much Elizabeth - I think that in the name of efficiency - we have thrown out the baby with the bath water!

Lucille

Hi All,

I agree that we tend to throw away items that can easily be kept operating. However, when one takes account of the operating hours it may well be worth changing an inefficient item to a more efficient unit. Take an electric motor of say 2kW with an efficiency of 85%, operating 90% of the time. Its energy use will be: 2kW x 8760hr/yr x 0.9 = 19710 kWhr/yr 0.80 If it is replaced with an energy efficient motor with an efficiency of 90% the new energy use will be: 2kW x 8760hr/yr x 0.9 = 17520 kWhr/yr 0.90 The energy saving is (19710 - 17520) = 2190kWh/yr

If electricity costs 15c/kWh the cost saving is 2190kWh/yr x $0.15 = 328/yr

At these energy and cost savings the new high efficiency motor will quickly recoup the embodied energy contained in the motors and have a relatively quick payback period.

Cheers
John Osborne

John Osborne
Renewables, Sustainability Victoria
T: 03 8626 8783
F: 03 9663 1007
Level 28, Urban Workshop,
50 Lonsdale Street,
Melbourne 3000
www.sustainability.vic.gov.au
www.sustainabilityawards.vic.gov.au

Dear list,

I learned from working on a book for Consumer Reports that they rate different appliances in a section called "Repair or Replace." The ratings are also on their website, broken down by appliance, and offer a general rule of thumb. For example, below I've pasted the Repair or Replace section for refrigerators (to view it on the website you must be a subscriber):

-start- REPAIR OR REPLACE? When to pull the plug on your old fridge

Simple do-it-yourself repairs such as replacing a refrigerator or freezer gasket nearly always make sense. Typically, you'll also find a troubleshooting section for more serious problems in owners' manuals and on many manufacturers' Web sites. Should you pay for a repair or buy a new model? The answer depends mostly on the age of the refrigerator, its cost, and the cost of the repair. Here are some guidelines from our in-house experts:

When repairs make sense.

Your fridge is under warranty or less than four years old (three years for top-freezers). Those under warranty may require a factory-authorized technician; readers have found them on a par with independent repairers.

When repairs might make sense.

Your refrigerator is out of warranty and is between four and seven years old. Readers paid between $100 and $200 for repairs. But you might want a new model even at this stage, given today's quieter models and added features. Better energy efficiency is another plus: Energy Star models built in the past year are about 40 percent more efficient than conventional models built before 2001 and 50 percent more efficient than those built before 1993.

When it pays to replace.

The repair costs more than half the price of a comparable new refrigerator. Our data also show that it doesn't pay to fix a less-expensive top-freezer refrigerator six or more years old or a bottom-freezer or side-by-side eight or more years old. Thanks to better recycling programs, less than 10 percent of your old refrigerator is likely to end up in a landfill. Check www.GreenerChoices.org for the nearest recycling program. -end-

Hope that helps,
Rhodes

Rhodes Yepsen,
Associate Editor
BioCycle magazine
www.BioCycle.net
Advancing Composting, Organics Recycling & Renewable Energy
(610) 967 4135, ext. 27
www.FindaComposter.com
Compostable Organics Out of Landfills by 2012!
www.COOL2012.com

Decisions on when and whether to replace old, less efficient, but working appliances are very complex, and I think that we can't count on our instinct to preserve rather than throw away. In this I have relied on the utilities, but I live in a city where old appliances are taken apart. The invisible pollution from electric generation can trip us up--we don't see the coal mining, the toxic materials emitted, etc. We do see our junked appliance on the street awaiting pickup. The invisibility of electricity pollution is one of the real social marketing issues. I don't know the answers to the upstream, downstream issues--just want to say they are complicated. With washing machines, of course, there are issues beyond the electricity--the new machines use less water, do a better job (so people are less tempted to use hot water when they wash), are easier on clothes (so they last longer), and come out drier (so if people use a clothes dryer they don't need to run it as long). Some of these benefits are not as relevant if the household routinely uses cold water and hangs clothes to dry. That is just one of the ways in which the equation is complicated. Another complication arises from the electricity source--here it is coal and oil, and peak use is a big concern because that's when really dirty plants come on line, but in places where electricity is much cleaner, the answers might be different.

Hi John,

However, when one takes account of the operating hours it may well be worth changing an inefficient item to a more efficient unit. ..... At these energy and cost savings the new high efficiency motor will quickly recoup the embodied energy contained in the motors and have a relatively quick payback period. But that is only part of the total equation, and relates only to the economic cost of purchasing and operating a new appliance. Your formula does not include the 'invisible' resources (a) absorbed by manufacturing the new appliance or (b) already consumed in manufacturing the older one, nor does it face (c) the knock-on effects of destroying, recycling or burying the old one somewhere. Reality is that we have already fitted out much of the world with appliances that are less than optimally efficient, certainly in the environmental sense, and we cannot just ignore them all and begin again making and distributing new ones for everyone. What on earth is to happen to all the old things that ideally need replacing? - Except perhaps raise NE a little, and assuage Adam's fear of imminent flooding.

Elizabeth Griffin
(Victoria, BC)

I really agree with the point being made here. I constantly hear people urging us to replace our "old" appliances and "old" cars with newer, more energy-efficient models. Unfortunately, I have yet to see a calculation that tells me how long I would have to own my new washer before the energy/GHG savings would compensate for the energy used/GHG produced in producing the materials to build the new washer, transporting those materials from around the world to the factory, manufacturing the new washer and transporting it from the factory to the dealer to my house. I suspect that, long before that time of GHG payoff is reached, someone will be urging me to replace my new "old" washer.

Leslie Taylor

Councillor
Town of Banff
Banff Town Hall,
110 Bear Street Box 1260,
Banff, Alberta, Canada T1L 1A1
[email protected] 

I do think its time to make "our" position known - by writting of our discontent with "buy...but...buy"!!! The revolution can't be bought!

Lucille 

Excellent post, one of the few articles Ive read today that said something unique! One new subscriber here :)


bond alex
marbi21
United States

Not specifically to do with fridges or air conditioner but you may want to check out:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2010/nov/25/carbon-footprint-load-laundry

An excerpt from "How Bad Are Bananas" by Micheal Berners-Lee. He quotes 10% as the embodied energy of washing clothes. The article does not show his source but I know his book includes sources for his figures. He is very clear in the book that the numbers are his best estimates and also keep in mind he is only accounting for the carbon, not the pollution created by producing the appliances or the effects on water quality of using more soap than required etc. Not sure if he includes disposal transportation and recycling energy.

I echo the comment that this is a complicated calculation and that we can't just rely on the "common sense" that it is better to keep/repair older working appliances.

The replacing old fridges and air conditioners is further complicated by the coolants used contained within them which can be 10000 times more powerful greenhouse gases than the carbon produced manufacturing and using the appliances. So make sure this is captured if you are doing a buy back program.

Bill MacKinnon
Project Technologist, Smart Buildings and Energy Management
BC Housing
Canada
www.bchousing.org

The DEER resource linked above by Pamela sounds like it is considering the Estimate Useful Life, which is at least part of the equation.

A famous scientist I know, who works on ecological footprinting, recently went to buy a new fridge. Naturally he asked for Energy Star. The salesperson hemmed and hawed, and in discussion gave the opinion that he would be happy to sell an Energy Star fridge--and then sell another one in five years, and another one five years after that and so on--whereas the conventional fridge would last for 25 years. So the lower operating energy comes with five times the embodied energy. My friend bought the conventional fridge.

Ruben Anderson
Communications Specialist
Metro Vancouver
Canada

I have to agree with the concept that "making new stuff" is at the very root of sustainabilty issues that our society / civilization faces. If our appliances are inefficient wha cant we retrofit them? I believe strongly that having "people" work on what we have is going to be critical to a sutainable civilization. If theres a "better" compressor technology for refirgerators, why can't I replace or retrofit my compressor? Why does the whole fridge have to go? why aren't new parts compatable for basic systems like this...

Continually buying new stuff and "getting rid of" the old stuff just consumes resources, energy and creates pollution.

If all we are doing is conserving power so that it can be sold elsewhere, then where are no sustainability gains? even if there is no additional power production, it is enabling the use of more power consuming "stuff" somewhere else.

If appliances can't be retrofitted or repared, well that to me is the big problem.

I don't think more new "stuff' with short useful lifespans is the answer. We somehow need to be equipping ourselves with efficient tools and appliances with long useful lifespans and they need to be repairable.

and if they do break, all the components should be recoverable / recyclable.

and everybody should be nice to each other.

there you go - thats my utopia


James Spankie
Canfor Pulp & Paper
Canada

I have to agree... the article is well written and just a pleasure to read ! I honestly really like this blog and from now on will visit it everyday. Cheers !

sonia shah
soniashah655
shah group
Pakistan