That's not true, even if you claim that they weren't built any better "back then" (which is a point I would still argue with).
The reason is that there is literally not a single 2000+ fridge that will be going when it's 50-60 years old. Say that 1960's-1970's fridge broke and needed repair sometime in the last 50-60 years? Or the next? I can still today get plenty of repair parts! You can't get parts for most "modern" fridges over 10 years old today. No way in 50 years. You're simply not going to fix your internet-connected DRM'd in-door water dispenser filter controller board when it's discontinued.
My bold prediction is that in 50 years, you'll still see pre-2000 fridges in about the same % as you do today, with the rest being 0-20 years old (which would be 2050-2070 models).
You'll spend way more in electricity than you'll save by keeping and repairing the same ancient fridge over and over... Their efficiency has vastly improved.
first - I didn't say that you would or wouldn't. I said it isn't "surviorship bias", the reliability and repair-ability difference is absolutely real.
And I don't use a 1960 fridge, mines about 3 years old - why? because the old one broke and I had to get a new one quick (I could not afford the time to repair - plus the old one was post-2000 junk anyhow), I like auto-defrost, and the other monkeys that live in the house need ice+water in the door, or they'll throw poop at me.
At a 4% interest rate, and .12$/KWh, a modern fridge @450KWh/yr for 10 years costs NPV -$933 for electricity and say -$1000 to buy it. And old fridge @1800KWh/yr for 10 (more) years costs -$1750. So you'd save about $200 with the ancient fridge, not counting having to manually defrost it.
And before you say it - there is no "repairing over and over". You need to put about that $200 into like it every 20-30 years, every other generation you hand it down to.
Still if electricity doubled in cost, or you just like auto-defrost, or live with other monkeys, it's probably not worth it. But the difference isn't "vast". It's pretty negligible because on the whole, fridges don't use a lot lot of power.
So - why can't we have a basic $1000 modern efficient fridge that is repairable? because - you'd keep it for 30-50 years and that'd be the end of that business. But what if that company was then encouraged to make a better fridge next year. It's an interesting unintended side-effect of right-to-repair and other repair-ability measures. Instead of buying a new fridge because I have to, I should buy a new one because it's 2x as efficient and it's a better value proposition when faced with rising power costs. It'd spawn the right kind of obsolescence not fake bad design obsolescence.
> first - I didn't say that you would or wouldn't. I said it isn't "surviorship bias", the reliability and repair-ability difference is absolutely real.
Sorry, wasn't challenging that part, just bringing up an adjacent point. I apologize, I should've been clearer. I definitely believe the difference in reliability and repairability.
> At a 4% interest rate, and .12$/KWh, a modern fridge @450KWh/yr for 10 years costs NPV -$933 for electricity and say -$1000 to buy it. And old fridge @1800KWh/yr for 10 (more) years costs -$1750. So you'd save about $200 with the ancient fridge, not counting having to manually defrost it.
Thank you for doing the math here and making a convincing case for it. That's actually quite a bit better than I thought. However, electricity is already up to .25$/kWh in some states, and probably only going to increase in the years to come as fossil energy becomes scarcer. That changes the math a bit, but not drastically so I suppose. Refrigerators don't use all that much power to begin with anyway, considering the utility you get out of it.
> And before you say it - there is no "repairing over and over". You need to put about that $200 into like it every 20-30 years, every other generation you hand it down to.
Conversely, modern fridges in my experience aren't THAT unreliable either. If something breaks it's usually the ice maker or like a door seal, and many people will just let that stay broken. It's rare to see the actual fridge part break completely... in my very limited experience.
> Still if electricity doubled in cost, or you just like auto-defrost, or live with other monkeys, it's probably not worth it. But the difference isn't "vast". It's pretty negligible because on the whole, fridges don't use a lot lot of power.
Hah, sorry, I see now you've said the same thing.
> Instead of buying a new fridge because I have to, I should buy a new one because it's 2x as efficient and it's a better value proposition when faced with rising power costs. It'd spawn the right kind of obsolescence not fake bad design obsolescence.
This would be nice. FWIW, I know of a company that hand-builds ultra-efficient fridges out of a small town in America: http://www.sunfrost.com/
They're not very big... hard to compare with the mass-manufactured Chinese stuff... but just glad there's SOMEONE out there still making old-world hardware.
The reason is that there is literally not a single 2000+ fridge that will be going when it's 50-60 years old. Say that 1960's-1970's fridge broke and needed repair sometime in the last 50-60 years? Or the next? I can still today get plenty of repair parts! You can't get parts for most "modern" fridges over 10 years old today. No way in 50 years. You're simply not going to fix your internet-connected DRM'd in-door water dispenser filter controller board when it's discontinued.
My bold prediction is that in 50 years, you'll still see pre-2000 fridges in about the same % as you do today, with the rest being 0-20 years old (which would be 2050-2070 models).