Friday 22 July 2016

Getting the least out of your fridge

When we go to the local electrical store, especially to buy something, I'll often start asking questions about the design or manufacture of their products. This will usually result in blank faces or repetition of advertising dogma from the sales rep, and a kick from my better half, with a suggestion that I write to someone in the company rather than bothering the staff.

This happened when we recently went to get a new fridge. Our old fridge was thawing and on its last legs. Probably the compressor going. I suppose we could have got it fixed, but it wasn't a very good fridge to start with. They had replaced it for our old fridge, which had had problems with the ice maker, but the replacement never seemed very satisfactory. It was about ten years since we bought a fridge, and I was expecting a few quantum leaps in the technology, but the main evidence was for incremental improvements in insulation and compressor efficiency. Fridges are major domestic electricity users (10-20%), and the improved efficiency probably makes the new fridge worth it, at least in economic terms. The sales staff in the electrical shop were certainly enthusiastic to tell us this. Evidence from Kakaku.com suggests three times less energy use between 2003 and 2013 models in Japan. And here's a graph showing electricity consumption of fridges in the US rising from their mass production in 1940s to a peak in the 1970s to a return to 1940s consumption around 2002, at a much larger size and for less money. (The flat part corresponds almost exactly to Bill Clinton's presidency, which may just be a coincidence.)


I had expected fridges to get a bit more intelligent. There has been some talk of smart grids, and now many houses are loaded with solar panels, which they were trying to sell in the very same shop. I expected the noble fridge, leader of the white goods, would be rising to this challenge by making more coolth when power is available, and using less power when it is not.

Blank faces.

Another question: why is the door for the fridge the same thickness as the door for the freezer? It's colder in the freezer, so wouldn't it make sense to have a thicker door with higher insulation?

More blank faces.

My answer to that question would be that it makes manufacturing easier, and fridges cheaper.

This article from Proud Green Home has some useful information on buying and using low energy fridges. It points out that smaller fridges use less energy, and that fridges full of food, or even bottles of water, will have less air to escape when the door opens and they will be much more efficient. This is in contrast to what the people in the electrical shops say: don't fill your fridge too full or the air will not be able to circulate and it won't cool your food properly. 

Why would they say such a thing?

Perhaps because they want you to spend more money on a bigger fridge!

Not only do smaller fridges use less power, they also contain less food. A significant proportion of bought food is thrown away uneaten, so unless you are able to guarantee none of your food is wasted, a bigger fridge probably just means you are going to throw away more food.

One technical development they seemed pleased with in the shop was a sensor inside the fridge looking at how cold things were. I don't understand how much of an improvement this is over a thermostat unless you are putting hot pans in there. As long as the insulation layer around the fridge is good, and heat is being pumped out, the temperature inside is going to be uniform soon after the door closes.  I will further investigate exactly what the control circuitry of the fridge is doing and what the green light on the door means.

The article also makes some interesting comparisons between different configurations. French doors would seem to be more efficient since you only need to open one door at a time, and therefore only lose half the cold air. However people often open both doors, and the doors may in fact be open longer as you are trying to remember which side of the fridge you left whatever you're looking for.

Also they show how more doors and more complicated configurations basically mean more heat loss. This will be no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention to my posts about thermal bridges. They point out that any fridge with ice and water going through the door will be less efficient than any fridge that doesn't do that. (Compare and contrast with the world's first passive house cat flap.) So if you're choosing for energy efficiency, they recommend getting one with a freezer at the top and no cat flap for water or ice.

Of course different countries have different shapes and sizes of fridge preference. Another question I had for the long-suffering sales rep was why their shop only had Japan-made fridges. A little searching on the web reveals that about the only universal in the global fridge market is that different markets favour products from different countries.



Tuesday 19 July 2016

Japan sees the future and it is zero-energy homes - Nikkei Asian Review

At least that's what this article in nikkei says!

This is great news, but the silver has a little bit of a cloudy lining.

According to the article:
"Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry has set criteria that a house must meet before it can be dubbed zero-energy. It has to:
  • Be at least 20% more energy efficient than an ordinary home.
  • Be airtight and adiabatic enough to increase the efficiency of air conditioners and water heaters.
  • Allow for efficient ventilation.
  • Have a solar power or other renewable energy system that can keep the house from sipping electricity from the grid, or even spit some electricity back onto the grid."
Interesting definitions, but wouldn't it make more sense to determine a zero-energy house as one that uses less energy than it produces?

The article does mention insulation, but only after talking about solar panels, energy management monitors and fuel cells. That's a bit like only mentioning malaria mortality after talking about terrorist attacks and aircraft accidents. (Oh, yeah, that happens in the media all the time!)

In the definitions quoted above, I guess "adiabatic" is only possible with insulation, but that's not exactly a widely used term outside school physics lessons, and even there it is not universally understood. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say: "Japanese houses are cold in the winter and hot in the summer because they are not very adiabatic." People frequently lament the lack of insulation though.

The other really big question with "zero energy" homes is how much energy they are allowed to generate. You could balance any level of energy use if you add enough solar panels, as long as you ignore how much energy was used to make the solar panels. So it's nice that zero energy homes have to be 20% more efficient than ordinary homes. But what if ordinary homes become 20% more efficient?

I could also complain about them using the term "energy efficiency". You could fill one house with energy efficient appliances, and have another house with just one appliance that is not so efficient. The house with more appliances will use more energy. Selling energy efficient air conditioners is much more appealing to the market economy than not using air conditioners at all!

It's easy to be cynical. I'd really like to see Japan's future in zero-energy homes too! I know that's where my future is.

Friday 15 July 2016

Or maybe we should not be worrying about storing solar energy

There's a conventional wisdom on solar power in particular, and renewables in general, that we need storage to make it work properly. According to brave new climate that will probably stop them from being effective. 

They look at the energy return on energy investment (EROEI) and cite the low score for solar. In other words, the amount of energy that will come out of solar panels is not really enough to make solar panels. This means they are not sustainable and rather than contributing energy, they are using up energy created elsewhere. He suggests we should not just talk about the actual energy used in the process of manufacturing the solar panels, but also things like food and education for the people who are making them. 

Anyway, an energy source with an EROEI of one would just produce enough energy to support itself, and would be of no use to the society. The threshold for useful energy sources is something like 7. 

I have sometimes watched fish jumping out of the river to catch a fly, and wondered whether they were using more energy to catch the fly than they got out of eating it. EROEI is a bit like that. 

He quotes an EROEI of 3.5 for solar panels in Germany. This is already marginal, and if we have to store energy from renewables, then we also need to add the battery infrastructure into considerations of the EROEI, which could make solar a net user of energy rather than supplier. 

There are two other considerations. First is that solar production costs are falling all the time, and this includes embodied energy. The other is that we may soon have batteries parked outside each house in the car.