Nighed@sffa.community
on 20 Nov 2023 11:55
nextcollapse
Even reading the article, I’m not clear - when they say dumping, do they mean that these are used units that they are effectively recycling by reselling to other countries (good?) Or companies deliberately building piles of bad units that don’t meet local standards to export (bad)?
TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
on 20 Nov 2023 11:56
nextcollapse
Yes
Marsupial@quokk.au
on 20 Nov 2023 12:02
nextcollapse
Dumped air-cons refer to those produced by various brands that do not meet the minimum energy performance standards (MEPS) in the brands’ own domestic markets. They end up being exported to places with less stringent standards.
I’d go by the explanation offered under the subsection “What is a dumped air conditioner”
Nighed@sffa.community
on 20 Nov 2023 17:28
collapse
Not sure how i missed that bit…
JeffKerman1999@sopuli.xyz
on 20 Nov 2023 12:07
nextcollapse
Stuff cheap to make but impossible to sell to westerners because of stringent laws. Just like cigarettes and asbestos.
QuinceDaPence@kbin.social
on 20 Nov 2023 15:48
collapse
Especially considering you don't really trash these I don't understand what "dumped" is.
Air conditioners are very valuable as scrap, if we're talking about bad units
korewa@reddthat.com
on 20 Nov 2023 14:01
nextcollapse
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.
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
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.
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
threaded - newest
Even reading the article, I’m not clear - when they say dumping, do they mean that these are used units that they are effectively recycling by reselling to other countries (good?) Or companies deliberately building piles of bad units that don’t meet local standards to export (bad)?
Yes
I’d go by the explanation offered under the subsection “What is a dumped air conditioner”
Not sure how i missed that bit…
Stuff cheap to make but impossible to sell to westerners because of stringent laws. Just like cigarettes and asbestos.
Especially considering you don't really trash these I don't understand what "dumped" is.
Air conditioners are very valuable as scrap, if we're talking about bad units
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.
If some of these are older, there have been several increases in minimum efficiency as well as switching away from older refrigerants
— 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
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.
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
Low capital cost for high operating cost. Where have I seen this before?