Brooklyn1 wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 16:49:39 -0500, "cshenk" > wrote:
>
> > Lou Decruss wrote in rec.food.cooking:
> >
> >> On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 15:30:37 -0500, "cshenk" >
> wrote: >>
> >> > LOL! Yes, energystar is almost a reason to replace a still
> working >> > older one. We got rid of a huge beast of a chest
> freezer to a food >> > bank. It's not that it wasnt reasonably
> efficient, it's that it was >> > too big though for it's size it was
> efficient. It was an old >> > farmhouse unit where you butchered a
> whole steer and stored it in >> > there.
> >>
> >> My fridge died Saturday. It's 10 years old and not a scratch on
> it. >> We ordered a new one. Hopefully the electric bill payback
> will be >> worth it. I just couldn't see putting any money in it.
> We got the >> bottom freezer drawer type which I've read is pretty
> economical >> compared to the side by side models. I hope I didn't
> make a $900 >> mistake.
> >>
> >> Lou
> >
> > They are more economical. Doesn't matter if top or bottom freezer
> > but side by sides cost more to run and you have wierd storage size
> > issues. Had an apartment once with a side-by-side and didnt like
> > it. Now, I could deal with one as i have a decent chest freezer
> > for what won't fit in thee but as an only freezer, you will like
> > the bottom or top unit for utility as well.
>
> Bottom freezers are fine if you're a shrimp but for folks of normal
> stature top freezers are far more convenient.

I think it depends on what you are most often going for? Some folks do
not go into the freezer but once a day but may hit the bottom part
crisper 3-4 times a day so for them, freezer on the bottom means less
leaning over.

There is a slight but negligible difference in efficiency between the
top and bottom freezer sorts. Something like 6$ a year in operational
cost?


--