this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
77 points (97.5% liked)

World News

39046 readers
4055 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] korewa@reddthat.com 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In the us market there is a new standard for evaluating efficiencies seer2 and hspf2. The minimum standards are only 1.3 seer higher than the old standards. In that sense it’s a bit sensationalized.

The article touched on the upcoming change in the US market to switch to lower global warming potential refrigerants. The new ones are about a fifth lower.

These might be coming from Europe as the us is still transitioning. Additionally the old refrigerants are not barred from being manufactured and will be continued to be used to maintain older systems. Again this is somewhat sensationalized.

We already created the equipment and ‘spent’ carbon emissions to manufacturer these. It would be a waste to throw it away.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If some of these are older, there have been several increases in minimum efficiency as well as switching away from older refrigerants

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=40232

Story time: at the beginning of this year, my brother got a new air conditioner. However he got it dirt cheap because of surplus inventories that could no longer be sold, unless he bought “last year”. While jump in efficiency from this past increase in the minimum standard may be small, it was significant enough to make a huge difference in pricing and supply

[–] korewa@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Certainly, the equipment might become unusable, but rather than disposing of it, they are repurposing it elsewhere. Considering the environmental impact, whether the efficiencies and lower global warming potential (GWP) outweigh the benefits of discarding an already manufactured system, which would necessitate manufacturing anew for compliance, is uncertain.

I would estimate payback period to align with a lifespan of around 10 years, matching the expected duration of some of these systems. This estimate entirely anecdotal.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

payback period to align with a lifespan of around 10 years

That’s the critical fact: what is the payback in terms of cost were deployed to drive the decision, and in environmental impact which needs to constrain the decision.

It’s also important to know wether more inefficient units continued to be manufactured because there was still that secondary market, but calling it “dumping” implies not