Depeche Mode.

An interesting point. My first thought was that the fridge was probably less energy efficient due to the lower R value of glass. I'd love for someone to collect data on actual energy use, and whether the lowered need to open the fridge door outweighs any negative properties from using glass.
p.s. The quote is from Depeche Mode.

depeche mode

Depeche Mode?
(i cheated with google)

Bonus points to all of you! Lets say... 10 points each, except for those that cheated; for those, 11 points for showing initiative and using the tools at their disposition properly!

Who said life was fair? (I almost went for a William Goldman/Princess Bride quote here...)

But what about that light in the fridge? I get the impression that it is constantly on, in order for you to see inside, unlike the lights in regular fridges which only come on as needed... or is there some button or switch on the outside?

Honestly, I'm skeptical as to the tree-hugger value of opening the door less frequently, given that the glass is surely a lesser insulator, and that issue about the light. Having said that, perhaps the production of the glass and disposal / recycling of the glass is better for the environment compared with regular doors?

their site says the models use less energy than a 100W lightbulb. pretty incredible... just wondering if that's for all models or everything but the 601 series (like the one in your pic-- which still has it's condenser on the bottom) all the other ones on the page don't (putting a condenser on the bottom --so it heats up the same box it's trying to cool as soon as the doors been opened and all the cold pours onto the floor-- is one of those things you would only design if you're too lazy to think, or also own the electricity plants. same for the whole side door thing, it's just rediculously inneficient, but hey, at 100W a day i guess you get some wiggle-room)

These are good questions.

I assume that the glass of the door is double or triple glazed and that they did everthing they could to make it as well insulated as possible. It is also probably tinted pretty darkly and the light inside probably needs to be turned on with a switch.

I'll try to find some confirmation of this.

littleCatalyst - that would be 2400W a day.
And 100W for a refrigerator seems kind of high to me. How much were the side-door comparison models getting when we were talking about top-opening fridges?

...but it's obvious that if hundred of millions of people spent a few minutes less per day with the fridge door open, a significant amount of energy would be saved

The only problem is that there aren't hundreds of millions of people who can afford a $10,000 refrigerator.

Todd,

Exactly. This is why I talked about the feature trickling down to more affordable models.

Not so long ago people couldn't afford cars with airbags and ABS brakes either.. (not that it's a perfect comparison, but you get the idea).

It seems that the jury is still out on the green-value of this fridge. But am I the only one who shudders at the thought that my guests could see all my science experiments?

Mjones,

I assume that when the light is turned off all you can see is the dark tint of the glass, so your science experiments would probably be safe.

As for the green value, some research is indeed needed. In the meantime, lets all try to keep our fridge doors open as little as possible.

But what DM song? People Are People?

Chris,

The song is "Everything Counts".

Lyrics are here:

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/d/depeche-mode/39280.html

This fridge isnt really "See Thru", its "See In"!

I reckon we need to mount a campaign to redress this frankly unforgivable faux pa... unless any of you can see the wall behind the fridge, in which case: I'm sorry, so very sorry.

I seriously have to question any savings with this type of a fridge window. I will break down my response into a few sections: insulation of the glass, the energy cost from opening the door, and the overall energy performance.

Glass insulation levels: To take a guess at the insulation value of the glass in this fridge (Sub Zero 648 PROG), I looked at the description: a triple-pane low-E coated unit. To estimate an insulating (R) value, I looked around for similar residential windows, for a ballpark number. The Efficient Windows Collaborative gives a center-of glass U value of 0.14, which is equal to R-7. However, according to this APS document, a whole window (including frame) is more in the range of R-4 to R-5.

In comparison, according to Home Energy Magazine, regular fridge insulation is about R-15. Bottom line: the window is a hole in the front of the fridge with 1/3 of the insulating value, tops.

Energy costs from door opening: This idea of opening the door clobbering your energy bill has always bothered me, because of the fact that air has a really low thermal mass. E.g., you can stick your hand in a 350 F oven; sticking your hand into a 350 F fryolator is not a good idea. I did a few calculations comparing the thermal mass of the air in the fridge with, say, an equivalent amount of water. The specs say the fridge portion is 18.4 cubic feet, or 0.52 cu meter, or 0.62 kg. The equal thermal mass of water is 0.15 kg, or 0.15 liters, or 0.62 cups. So: if you dumped out all the air from the fridge and replaced it with room temperature air, that's about equal to putting in 2/3 of a cup of room temperature water. So it's some energy, but trying to save big amounts by not opening the door sounds questionable to me.

This is not to say that you should leave the door open, or not repair leaky gaskets--those are continuously dumping cold air that needs to be conditioned. My parents had a Japanese fridge back in 1991 that dealt with this well: it would have a beeping warning if the door was open for more than a minute, and it would shut off the cooling while the door was open, so it wouldn't be wasting power there.

Incidentally, in terms of the lighting inside the fridge, based on the specifications and installation guide, the lights are LEDs, which are not adding much cooling load.

Overall Energy Use: The web description of this model is pretty cryptic: it consumes "less energy than a 100 watt lightbulb." Most refrigerators are described in terms of kWh (kilowatt-hours) per year--they're giving an answer in mph, while everybody talks about miles. If we assume that it means the equivalent of a 100 watt light bulb running all year, that works out to 876 kWh per year. If you go to the Energy Star Appliance website, you can compare this use to equivalent-size fridges. This model is in the ridiculously oversized high end (29.8 cu ft combined fridge + freezer), but Energy Star rated fridges in the same size range are around 590-650 kWh. Meaning: this fridge is a real power hog, as would be expected by the lousy insulation on the front (see previous section).

But, you might ask, what about the fact that it "conforms to rigorous Department of Energy standards for residential use"? I would guess that on one of those yellow Energy Guide labels, it doesn't actually go all the way off the right hand side of the scale. By analogy, when people talk about a house "that is built to code" as an example of quality, I have to reply that a house that just meets the building code is the worst house you can legally build without getting thrown in jail.

Remember to think of fridges the same way you think of cars and houses: if you're buying bigger, you'll be paying more to run it. Ultimately, I recommend a refrigerator that meets Energy Star--see this Home Energy Magazine article on why a even a 1990's fridge should probably be replaced for energy reasons.

Sorry, some of my HTML tags were broken in my previous post:

Energy Star Appliance Website:
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=appliances.pr_appliances

Home Energy Magazine article on fridge replacement economics:
http://www.homeenergy.org/consumerinfo/refrigeration2/article.htm

BuildingGeek, will you marry me?

Awesome comment, do you have a website where I can read more?