But looking at the photo, it appears the bottom module may contain the refrigerating “guts.” If so, you have a different set of problems. First, how do you get the “cold” from the cooling module to the storage modules stacked above it? If this is a compressor-based or absorption system, you can’t just circulate refrigerant through additional sets of heat exchangers that somehow connect to pipes from the cooling unit. Those systems are completely and permanently sealed, so “plug’n'play” refrigeration is not, as far as I know, possible.

Circulate cold air? Well, maybe, but there are two problems with that. First, these mostly-enclosed storage modules don’t lend themselves to good air circulation. (Think: why do most refrigerators have wire shelves?) You’d have to bring cold air up a duct from the back of each module. That would take away usable space from the storage module’s interior. And it would have to be fan-forced, meaning still more power consumption–and constant noise.

But there’s more. Cold air isn’t enough, because for this concept to be really useful, you must allow both freezing and refrigeration in each of the storage modules. That means you must maintain a temperature of 0 degrees F *and* a temperature of 37 degrees F. in subsections that are less than an inch apart. This is very difficult to do without freezing your eggs or melting your ice. You can use insulation to separate the subsections, of course… but that wastes still more interior space.

Let’s talk about space. In a conventional refrigerator, a shelf subtracts only about a quarter inch from the usable interior space. But in this design, any module could be on the top or bottom, so each module has to have substantial insulation in its ceiling and floor. The result is that each of the three storage modules adds about four inches of needless insulation, increasing the overall size of the refrigerator. In short, this design offers much less usable space on the inside than a conventional fridge of the same exterior dimensions.

I could go on, but you get the idea. Energy-inefficient, space-inefficient, materials-inefficient… this design, as Matt said, was not well thought out.

Greets Darren