Talk:Energy Star

message: This section doesn't seem to include any citations and some of the language is ambiguous, particularly in the LED section.  For example "Brightness is equal to or greater than existing lighting technologies "  What is meant by brightness?  Luminance, lumen output?  Also, " Efficiency is as good as or better than fluorescent lighting. ".  This probably should be efficacy, not efficiency, but I'm not sure.  If someone can point me to where these bullet points came from, I could update to be a little more clear.   
Mskincaid (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Lighting

message: Has anyone ever heard of EnergyGuide, it is kind of like Energy Star. In fact Energy Star may own EnergyGuide. Im not for sure. Can anyone give any info, maybey right an article about it.--Alex Arnold 02:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  EnergyGuide 

message: I just gave this page some new life but it still needs a lot of work. I encourage somebody to use the information at this page or others to document some of the specifications electronic equipment must meet to gain this seal (now, in the past, and in the future). — GT 00:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specifications 

message: I remember old BIOSes where a logo was always shown. The logo is to the right. I like this logo. Could we use it perhaps?  --Ysangkok 21:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about this one?http://files.support.epson.com/pdf/sc86__/sc86__qr.pdf page 35 PromyLOPh (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Icon and BIOSes 

message: Hi. My name is Karen Schneider. I work for the EPA in the ENERGY STAR program. I'd like to make some additions to the ENERGY STAR article. I'd also like to make some minor edits to what is already there (like always typing ENERGY STAR in all caps). Kschneid 15:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your concern, considering the recent news about "inappropriate edits". IMO, as long as you're not censoring information or inserting propaganda, you shouldn't be worried and should jump right in. Do be careful to consider whether something is a fact or a point of view, but I doubt that should be too much of a concern on this article. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benhocking (talk • contribs) 15:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the all caps ENERGY STAR into Energy Star, per WP:MOS. Rien (talk\stalk)  00:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I completely agree with the above comment by Jamesmelzer, the article should be ENERGY STAR instead of being a redirect to Energy Star, can we come to a concensus on this?  If I don't hear back from anyone in 3 months I'll just change it myself figuring no one cares. Camelbinky (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  The all-cap version looks stupid and is not even used on the Energy Star logo.  I have no idea why it was chosen in the first place, but in normal use (I am editing a book on the subject at the moment and awash in googling) it is "Energy Star," and that is what Wikipedia should reflect. Languagehat (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing the ENERGY STAR article 

message: I added information on various ENERGY STAR product specifications.  Pretty much all of the info was from energystar.gov.  In fact, all of my updates were directly from ENERGY STAR.  Is that bad? Should there be more diverse references? Muffinon (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specifications Addition 

message: This whole Energy Star thing is complete nosense. I today analyzed a pair of cellphone chargers, one from 1996 and without "Energy star", the other being a recent (2008) NOKIA charger with "Energy star" save-the-planet seal. Result (I'm an engineer): The old charger is (in the best case - the specificaions on the NOKIA are not clear) about TWICE as energy efficient as the "Energy star" charger. In the worst case (interpreting the ambiguous specifications the other way), it is 4 times as energy efficient.
I just wonder how much you have to pay to put this "Energy star" crap on your product :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.196.68 (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The criticism section (which may benefit from the image I added to the right - agree?) addresses this; many products are self-certified by the manufacturer, who simply sends a form to the EPA (or to the corporation that runs the program for the EPA!)  I managed to get one de-certified recently, as I proved that the application had been fraudulent.  However, as an engineer myself, I'd like to know exactly what makes you say it's 2x - 4x as energy efficient.  NiCd and Li-ion chargers are very different...  --Elvey (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

text: IP user .68 is probably confused; because NiCd batteries can't charge as fast as Li-ion batteries, a NiCd charger will draw less energy per second than a Li-ion charger, even if the latter is 'Energy Star'.  But it's still less efficient than the Energy Star one, which will turn itself off once the batteries are charged, which won't take long; the old one will keep drawing power for many more hours to charge the NiCd, and will keep drawing power after that, as it won't switch itself off. Adding the image. --Elvey (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete nonsense 

message: Energy Star test conditions and procedures for refrigerators are very complicated, obscure, confusing, hidden, and controversial. This article should address these matters in some detail, and/or link to another more detailed article.
The test conditions bear little resemblance to ordinary usage, and are so peculiar that it is nearly impossible for an ordinary user to test their appliance to see if it conforms to the ratings claims.
Typical usage of vertical refrigerators involves many daily door openings, which impact energy consumption, but the test procedure does not include any door opening: the test simulates normal operation at 70, by running with the door closed at 90. (This would result in the test exaggerating the benefit of very good insulation.)
"Test Criteria: Residential refrigerator manufacturers must self-test their equipment according to DOE’s test 
procedure defined in 10 CFR 430, Subpart B, Appendix A1. Residential freezer manufacturers must self-test 
their equipment according to DOE’s test procedure defined in 10 CFR 430, Subpart B, Appendix B1. When 
determining energy performance for purposes of ENERGY STAR certification, the following principles of 
interpretation should be applied to the existing DOE test procedures. The energy test procedure simulates 
typical room conditions (approximately 70ºF) with door openings, by testing at 90ºF without door openings. 
Except for operating characteristics that are affected by ambient temperature (for example, compressor 
percent run time), the unit, when tested under the DOE test procedure, shall operate equivalent to the unit in 
typical room conditions. Energy consuming components that operate in typical room conditions (including as a 
result of door openings, or in response to humidity levels), and that are not exempted by this standard, shall 
operate in an equivalent manner during energy testing under the DOE test procedure, or be accounted for by 
all calculations as provided for in the standard. Examples: (i) energy saving features that are designed to 
operate when there are no door openings for long periods of time shall not be functional during the energy 
test; (ii) the defrost heater should not either function or turn off differently during the energy test than it would 
when in typical room conditions; (ii) electric heaters that would normally operate at typical room conditions with 
door openings should also operate during the energy test; and (iv) energy used during adaptive defrost shall 
continue to be tested and adjusted per the calculation provided for in this standard. "
The real (confusing) regulations are here:
www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/10/430/subpart-B/appendix-A
Title 10 › Chapter II › Subchapter D › Part 430 › Subpart B › Appendix A
10 CFR 430, Subpart B, Appendix A to Subpart B of Part 430 - Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Electric Refrigerators and Electric Refrigerator-Freezers
Some superficial info is here: www.energystar.gov/specifications.
-96.233.20.116 (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refrigerator testing 

message: Looks like the WP:MOSTM archives have a lot of info on this discussion.  Whew!  I don't think I have time to correct what I perceive as a mistake, especially since it's been debated so much.Timtempleton (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Follow up to requested move 

message: Dr. Gillingham has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
We believe Dr. Gillingham has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:
*Reference : Gillingham, Kenneth & Newell, Richard G. & Palmer, Karen, 2009. "Energy Efficiency Economics and Policy," Discussion Papers dp-09-13, Resources For the Future.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Gillingham's comment on this article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Energy Star. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110225085418/http://climate.org/climatelab/Energy_Star to http://www.climate.org/climatelab/Energy_Star
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100329023011/http://www.popularmechanics.com:80/technology/industry/4350335.html to http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4350335.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Energy Star. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4350335.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070703110036/http://www.energystar.gov.au/ to http://www.energystar.gov.au/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The opening paragraph of the article claims, "Energy Star provides simple, credible, and unbiased information that consumers and businesses rely on to make well-informed decisions to save money and reduce emissions. A widely recognized symbol for energy efficiency..." and so on.  I think that "A widely recognized symbol for energy efficiency" reeks of ad populum and weasel words.  And I think that the first sentence in that quote is pretty dubious (citation needed!) and possibly violates WP:NPOV.  It reads like something someone's marketing department put together.  Thoughts? --129.105.244.179 (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry this is so long after the original post, but I noticed this myself. This seems like a case of puffery. Rocky Role (talk) 01:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: Maybe include facts from: https://www.energystar.gov/about/impacts Lectrician1 (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add impact of energy star program