EGAT Energy Labels

[matchar]

I'm curious about these egat energy labels as I was comparing two Samsung refrigerators (both of them digital inverters).

 

If I'm reading the labels correctly; it seems like the smaller fridge uses more electricity and yet it has a 2 star rating...but the bigger fridge uses less energy and only has a 0 star rating?

[MJCM]

That 2nd picture is not 0 but it has a 5 star rating. That Thai written says  number 5!

[matchar]

54 minutes ago, MJCM said:

That 2nd picture is not 0 but it has a 5 star rating. That Thai written says  number 5!

Yes they both have level 5 rating (as nearly all modern appliances do) but there is also a new sub rating between 1 and 3 stars which is indicated at the top.

[MJCM]

12 hours ago, matchar said:

Yes they both have level 5 rating (as nearly all modern appliances do) but there is also a new sub rating between 1 and 3 stars which is indicated at the top.

That New Sub rating as you say is even on our 3 year old Fridge.

 

IMHO those 1,2,3 stars are LOW ratings and the best you can get is the Number 5 Rating (yellow sticker with Number 5 in Thai written on it)

 

And please do know the numbers written on it, kWh usage per year and THB per year are just an indication and could fluctuate, for example on our fridge it says 477.06 kWh usage per year, but it's closer to 600. (approx 2 kW per day)

 

Edit: If you want a Fridge that is efficient with Electricity buy an Inverter

[Rimmer]

Moved to electrical forum as per OP request

[KhunBENQ]

Forget the stars, make your own????

Second one has bigger volume (258 liter vs 208 liter) and less power consumption.

Just do math: volume/power consumption.

The higher the number the better.

For the second one:

258.5/269 = 0.96

First:

208/369 = 0.56

Much worse.

 

Rule of thumb 

Volume in liters equals power consumption per year: very good one.

[matchar]

2 minutes ago, KhunBENQ said:

Forget the stars, make your own????

Second one has bigger volume (258 liter vs 208 liter) and less power consumption.

Just do math: volume/power consumption.

The higher the number the better.

For the second one:

285.5/269 = 1.06

First:

208/369 = 0.56

Much worse.

Yes I agree the second one is better I was just curious how EGAT decided it gets a lower number of stars.

[matchar]

I believe the best rating is a level 5 with 3 stars.

[KhunBENQ]

10 minutes ago, matchar said:

Yes I agree the second one is better I was just curious how EGAT decided it gets a lower number of stars.

I have no idea why they use this visualization.

As far as I remember in the past it was simply like a clockwise meter (1-2-3-4-5).

[KhunBENQ]

From our older fridge:

(and here the color coding is questionable. The better the greener would make more sense not "red alarm"????)

 

[matchar]

11 minutes ago, KhunBENQ said:

From our older fridge:

(and here the color coding is questionable. The better the greener would make more sense not "red alarm"????)

 

Yes the old labels don't have stars and nearly every product received a level 5 rating so it was difficult for consumers to compare between them.

 

Hence the new labels were introduced with 0-3 stars above the level 5 but clearly something went wrong as the fridge with 2 stars is worse than the fridge with 0 stars.

[unheard]

@matchar

You're reading the labels correctly.

The problem is with the labels - somehow they've managed to print the second one with an incorrect star rating.

At the egat's own site both models carry the same efficiency rating - 5★★

The energy consumption numbers are also messed up as printed on the labels.

 

[unheard]

2 hours ago, matchar said:

I believe the best rating is a level 5 with 3 stars.

You're correct!

[matchar]

1 hour ago, unheard said:

@matchar

You're reading the labels correctly.

The problem is with the labels - somehow they've managed to print the second one with an incorrect star rating.

At the egat's own site both models carry the same efficiency rating - 5★★

The energy consumption numbers are also messed up as printed on the labels.

 

Thanks for the clarification, I wonder who prints these labels.

 

Probably a good idea to check the figures match on the EGAT website before making any future purchases.

[unheard]

26 minutes ago, matchar said:

Thanks for the clarification, I wonder who prints these labels.

 

Probably a good idea to check the figures match on the EGAT website before making any future purchases.

I was wondering the same thing.

Who, where and when prints and attaches those labels.

And yes, not a bad idea to spend a few minutes to verify the label numbers against the database at the egat's website:

 

http://labelno5.egat.co.th/new58/?taxonomy=language&term=en

 

[KhunBENQ]

3 hours ago, matchar said:

Yes the old labels don't have stars and nearly every product received a level 5 rating so it was difficult for consumers to compare between them.

Technical progress. Same reclassification in the EU.

It was almost all "A++" (A to D?).

Now not many come above "F"

I am not a EU fan but this is surely better visualized then here.

[MJCM]

Wow what a .... show

[sometimewoodworker]

9 hours ago, MJCM said:

it says 477.06 kWh usage per year, but it's closer to 600. (approx 2 kW per day)

My math teachers would say about 1.6 kW per day so 130 kW less ????