• AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months 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