• snooggums
    link
    English
    761 day ago

    Reliability tends to be in opposition to efficiency for mechanical stuff. Yeah, it sucks more energy which is bad, but if you use 50% less stuff for an efficient unit but end up replacing it 4 times while the old one still runs you end up using more materials.

    We need a happy medium between as efficient as possible but only last for a few years and reliable but very inefficient.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      12 hours ago

      The flip side is we don’t think about the old ACs that destroyed themselves inside the expected lifetime, we only see the freaks that blast on regardless of damage and just never deteriorate. If the old ones all lasted 50+ years, we wouldn’t see people needing to buy new ones.

      It’s still probably the case that older devices without plastic control boards lasted longer, but it’s worth remembering that we only see the edge cases.
      Also, some of the old appliances will keep trying to function even when they’ve degraded to the point of being nearly inoperable, where the new device will be able to detect that it’s not working right and shutdown, probably before it’s not worth it to run anymore, but probably in time to be reparable.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      1110 hours ago

      Cost is the third point of the triangle. You can get good efficiency and reliability if it costs more.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      716 hours ago

      That might be true for materials but a large percentage of those can likely be reused while energy inefficiency is a much larger problem.