Searching \ for '[OT]The water miser washing machine' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: massmind.org/techref/index.htm?key=water+miser+washing
Search entire site for: 'The water miser washing machine'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT]The water miser washing machine'
2009\06\23@224206 by cdb

flavicon
face
reputed to only use 250ml of water and might be available form next
year if you're a business customer.

No ball park figure of the price though.

www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenerliving/5597786/Washing-machine
-that-uses-one-cup-of-water.html
--
cdb,  on 24/06/2009



2009\06\24@103451 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
cdb wrote:

> reputed to only use 250ml of water and might be available form next
> year if you're a business customer.
>
> No ball park figure of the price though.
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenerliving/5597786/Washing-machine-that-uses-one-cup-of-water.html

"The appliance, which could save billions of litres of water a year, has
been developed at the University of Leeds."

Good luck with achieving its potential.

The appliance that could save billions of liters of water has been
developed at least 50 years ago and is ready to be purchased at least
since that time. If all the vertically rotating washing machines were
replaced by typical horizontally rotating ones, the savings would be as
much if not more. Yet it doesn't happen... for some strange reason :)

Gerhard

2009\06\24@113010 by Herbert Graf

picon face
On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 11:34 -0300, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> The appliance that could save billions of liters of water has been
> developed at least 50 years ago and is ready to be purchased at least
> since that time. If all the vertically rotating washing machines were
> replaced by typical horizontally rotating ones, the savings would be as
> much if not more. Yet it doesn't happen... for some strange reason :)

I don't see the reasons as strange.

The fact is different regions have different factors that influence
appliance design.

In many areas of the world water is a scarce expensive resource. In
others it's not.

Where I live water is so cheap one barely notices when the water bill is
paid (the water bill in my area only arrives every 3 months, and it
often less the $100). As a result, the added expense of a horizontal
washing machine simply makes no sense for most from a purely economical
point of view. While the prices have come down, the fact is they are
still more expensive then the "water wasters", and over the life of the
product, because of our low cost for water, you'll never recoup those
costs.

Now, cost is almost never the only factor, and often isn't the primary
factor, so most mid to upper end machines are now of the "european"
design.

TTYL

2009\06\24@161555 by Richard Prosser

picon face
2009/6/25 Herbert Graf <spam_OUThkgrafTakeThisOuTspamgmail.com>:
{Quote hidden}

A Water Bill - What's that ??
(And we still have a horizontal machine.)

(Water costs are included in our rates, but although there is a meter
outside, it's never read). Water shortages in summertime are covered
by limiting hose usage and are infrequent anyway.

RP

2009\06\24@172337 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Jun 24, 2009, at 1:15 PM, Richard Prosser wrote:

> A Water Bill - What's that ??

A recent report on California water issues (there is mandatory  
rationing (sort of) in some places) pointed out that some areas,  
including the state capital, have large areas where water usage is not  
even metered...

BillW

2009\06\24@180649 by cdb

flavicon
face


:: If all the vertically rotating washing machines were
:: replaced by typical horizontally rotating ones, the savings would
:: be as much if not more.

Coming from Europe I was surprised to find how entrenched top loading
WM's were in Australia - though front loaders are becoming more
popular now.

One of the reasons given is 'It means I have to bend down' (which is a
bit like the queensland/WA excuses for not having summertime hours -
'the extra sunblight would fade the curtains' ).

Bendix under one of their secondary labels used to market a horizontal
drum (aimed at the Japanese markets small kitchen needs) that was
accessed in the same way as a top loader, thereby combining the best
of both worlds. Sadly they only provided it in a 5kg size and never
really marketed it here, and the price didn't help.

I would have liked a Dynex WM the one with the counter rotating drums
and all made out of plastic - sadly it was never imported to Oz and is
now not produced - it also used very little water - my Asko is 15
years old and still going strong.

Yes, that is a deliberate play on words.

Colin
--
cdb, .....colinKILLspamspam@spam@btech-online.co.uk on 25/06/2009

Web presence: http://www.btech-online.co.uk  

Hosted by:  http://www.1and1.co.uk/?k_id=7988359







2009\06\24@220627 by Justin Richards

face picon face
> One of the reasons given is 'It means I have to bend down' (which is a
> bit like the queensland/WA excuses for not having summertime hours -
> 'the extra sunblight would fade the curtains' ).
>
> I think I understand the need to keep politics out of the list as I so much
want to comment on Daylight savings, extended trading hours and pokies here
in WA

Now, where's a good venue to express my backward, hillbilly redneck views.

Justin

2009\06\25@082646 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Herbert Graf wrote:

>> The appliance that could save billions of liters of water has been
>> developed at least 50 years ago and is ready to be purchased at
>> least since that time. If all the vertically rotating washing
>> machines were replaced by typical horizontally rotating ones, the
>> savings would be as much if not more. Yet it doesn't happen... for
>> some strange reason :)
>
> I don't see the reasons as strange.
>
> The fact is different regions have different factors that influence
> appliance design.
>
> In many areas of the world water is a scarce expensive resource. In
> others it's not.

Someone mentioned California. Horizontals are still quite common in
SoCal, for some strange reason.

Besides, it's not only about water. Heating up water is expensive in
terms of electrical energy, too: the more water, the more electrical
energy for heating it up.

> As a result, the added expense of a horizontal washing machine simply
> makes no sense for most from a purely economical point of view. While
> the prices have come down, the fact is they are still more expensive
> then the "water wasters", and over the life of the product, because
> of our low cost for water, you'll never recoup those costs.

Have you factored in the increased electrical energy? The diminished
lifetime of fabric? The increased allergies? (Due to the lower numbers
of clean water cycles after washing, the residues of detergent in
clothes are more. This is probably just one (small) factor that helps
explain the high incidence of allergies in the USA.)

Also, if the prices have come down (I assume you mean in relationship to
the vertical drum machines), it seems that the price difference is not
that much due to differences in construction (which haven't come down).

Gerhard

2009\06\25@123506 by Brooke Clarke

flavicon
face
Hi:

I'm in Northern California and purchased a horizontal drum washing machine a
couple of years ago, mainly to save water (we now have been told to cut our
water use in half: no watering plants (dead lawns), no washing cars, no hosing
driveways, etc.)  It must have a micro controller since the drum speed varies a
lot.

A nephew lives in Sacramento and he says the water company saved a lot of money
by not installing or maintaining meters and more importantly by not hiring
people to read the meters and send bills based on the meter reading.  The money
charged for water service needs to pay all the expenses of the business and a
little profit.  The bill is based on the size of the supply pipe.

Some months back I got a phone call from the water company saying I may have a
leak.  The meter reader saw the dial moving and/or the billing department saw a
step increase.  I fixed the leak.

--
Have Fun,

Brooke Clarke
http://www.prc68.com

2009\06\25@174836 by Volker Soffel

flavicon
face

>From: Gerhard Fiedler <listsspamKILLspamconnectionbrazil.com>


>Someone mentioned California. Horizontals are still quite common in
>SoCal, for some strange reason.

>Besides, it's not only about water. Heating up water is expensive in
>terms of electrical energy, too: the more water, the more electrical
>energy for heating it up.

Hi Gerhard,
all the top loaders I know of in the US do NOT have a built-in
electric water heater
contrary to the European front loaders. They are connected
directly to the house's hot water line and the house hot water
is typically generated by a gas fired hot water heater.

Point being: using gas to heat water is much cheaper (as gas costs less than
electricity for the same amount of energy/heat produced) and more efficient
than using electricity, consequently even if those machines use more
hot water, you actually pay ***less*** for energy than
with a machine with built-in electric heater.

In addition a top loader finishes a standard wash cycle in 20...30 mins;
a front loader takes close to an hour - so more electricity to run
the motor of a front loader.

The built-in heater (or lack thereof) is, btw, one of the reasons
why the top loaders are cheaper. The other is a much simpler
motor and motor control (on- off versus variable speed).

Of course the end result of the front-lader's longer wash cycle is
cleaner cloths
- which may or may not matter depending on how often you replace the
stuff in your closet
with new one. ;-)

Along with the  much lower price to buy a top loader, being done quicker
is actually considered a benefit in a country where time is money.
These factors  seems to outweigh to most people (in US) the drawbacks of
the top loader approach .

--- sarcasm on ----
Who cares that we don't have enough water, as long as you
still only pay pennies for it.  There can't be a water shortage as
long as water still comes
out of the faucet, right ? ;-)

Heck ~45% of the total US ***domestic*** water usage is
used to water the lawn, what's a few gallons  more  to wash your cloths?
---sarcasm off -----

This will only change once the price of a gallon of water
approaches that of a gallon of gasoline. The market will eventually
regulate it
via the price of the resource (water, gas, electricity, whatever).
Just look what a few years of rising gasoline prices did to those car companies
that built their entire future on selling SUVs and pickup trucks.

P.S. don't get me wrong on above - I'm a big fan of the front loaders,
I have one myself, but as usual there are many sides to the story and
no easy solution.
The easy solution would be to just outlaw top loaders ;-), along with
gas guzzling SUVs and having
1/4...1/2 acre lawns in font of every house in the desert (Las Vegas,
Palm Springs, etc..) -
but hey,  then we wouldn't be the land of the free.

P.S2: You are expecting too much from the average consumer to go through
a cost-benefits analysis as you did and consider long-term cost
versus short-term cost
- not to mention impact on the environment - in their buying decision.

Most people only see the upfront price, that's why people buy inkjet printers
and then pay through the nose for new ink. The same principle is
successfully applied to entry level laser printers, Razor blades,
cell phones (IPone for $100
& $2000 for a 2 year cell contract), etc, etc.

It can even get more subtle than this: The other week a Costco:
energy saving light fixture including fluorescent light for only $9.9
-what a deal right?
You do something good for the environment and you save "lots" of money both
in buying the fixture and in your electricity bill.

The catch: The energy saving fluorescent fixture uses a
***circular*** fluorescent tube:
replacement cost $17 (!) versus $1...1.50 if the light fixture would
actually use
a fluorescent  **bulb*** (that is just as energy efficient and bright) .

How do you stop deceptive marketing like this?

best regards
Volker

2009\06\25@192330 by Richard Prosser

picon face
Hi Volker,
I'm not sure I 'd agree that gas is more efficient than electricity
when it comes to heating water. It may be so in the case where a
thermal station is used to generate the electricity to heat the water
using an immersion heater.But what about a hydro plant powering a heat
pump type water heater? Even the simple immersion type water heater is
very close to 100% efficient, while a gas boiler will still have some
heat losses - some of which are required to exhaust the burnt gas up a
chimney or vent or whatever.

I'd agree with most of the rest of what you say however.

RP

2009/6/26 Volker Soffel <.....volker.soffelKILLspamspam.....ucpros.com>:
{Quote hidden}

>

2009\06\25@194514 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Volker Soffel wrote:

>> Someone mentioned California. Horizontals are still quite common in
>> SoCal, for some strange reason.
>
>> Besides, it's not only about water. Heating up water is expensive in
>> terms of electrical energy, too: the more water, the more electrical
>> energy for heating it up.
>
> all the top loaders I know of in the US do NOT have a built-in
> electric water heater contrary to the European front loaders. They
> are connected directly to the house's hot water line and the house
> hot water is typically generated by a gas fired hot water heater.

I've asked a German manufacturer about this. Their response was that the
sudden inshoot of hot water sort of "burns" the existing stains into the
fabric, making them more difficult to remove (requiring more chemicals);
that's why they heat slowly. This applies of course to any washer, no
matter the drum orientation.

> In addition a top loader finishes a standard wash cycle in 20...30
> mins; a front loader takes close to an hour - so more electricity to
> run the motor of a front loader.

This depends. My front loader doesn't run all the time; the motor goes
on and off all the time (even during the washing cycle), and given the
duty cycle, I'd estimate that it's on even less time. Much of the
additional time are the additional rinse cycles; I wouldn't trade them
in.

> Of course the end result of the front-lader's longer wash cycle is
> cleaner cloths - which may or may not matter depending on how often
> you replace the stuff in your closet with new one. ;-)

Cleaner clothes, or equally clean clothes with lower temperature, less
detergent and even lesser of the "hard" chemicals, longer lifetime of
the fabric, less chemical residue on the fabric.

> Along with the  much lower price to buy a top loader, being done
> quicker is actually considered a benefit in a country where time is
> money.

There's no reason why one couldn't choose a fast cycle with a front
loader; it simply means less time washing (same time as the top loader
that's the time standard) and less time rinsing (same time as the top
loader that's the time standard). There's nothing inherent in the drum
position that would require more time, to the contrary: given the
shorter time that's needed until the water level has reached its
operating level in the drum, the active washing/rinsing time is longer
with a front loader than with a top loader with an equivalent program.

Gerhard

2009\06\25@201404 by Herbert Graf

picon face
On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 09:26 -0300, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> Herbert Graf wrote:
> Besides, it's not only about water. Heating up water is expensive in
> terms of electrical energy, too: the more water, the more electrical
> energy for heating it up.

Well, first off, in much of north america the hot water used by a
washing machine is sourced from the water heater in the house. In many
houses the water heater is gas/propane.

That said, I almost never wash in hot water anyways. Most of my laundary
is done with just cold water. The odd time I'll do a very small run of
hot, but that's rare.

> > As a result, the added expense of a horizontal washing machine simply
> > makes no sense for most from a purely economical point of view. While
> > the prices have come down, the fact is they are still more expensive
> > then the "water wasters", and over the life of the product, because
> > of our low cost for water, you'll never recoup those costs.
>
> Have you factored in the increased electrical energy?

Absolutely. Every machine has a sticker on it stating estimated annual
usage. That said, electricity for me is quite cheap (about
$0.10CND/kWh), the difference in the most efficient machine vs. a lesser
machine is perhaps $10-$20 a year.

> The diminished
> lifetime of fabric?

I hadn't considered this. That said, I don't really spend that much on
clothes.

> The increased allergies? (Due to the lower numbers
> of clean water cycles after washing, the residues of detergent in
> clothes are more. This is probably just one (small) factor that helps
> explain the high incidence of allergies in the USA.)

Perhaps, I haven't been affected.

> Also, if the prices have come down (I assume you mean in relationship to
> the vertical drum machines), it seems that the price difference is not
> that much due to differences in construction (which haven't come down).

Absolutely. The vertical machines are "chic", they demand a premium
simply because they are "European better".

TTYL

2009\06\26@012454 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> Point being: using gas to heat water is much cheaper (as gas costs less than
> electricity for the same amount of energy/heat produced) and more efficient
> than using electricity, consequently even if those machines use more
> hot water, you actually pay ***less*** for energy than
> with a machine with built-in electric heater.
>
> In addition a top loader finishes a standard wash cycle in 20...30 mins;
> a front loader takes close to an hour - so more electricity to run
> the motor of a front loader.

Did you really do the calculation? I would guess that the energy
required for heating dwarfs the energy for rotation. (I don't know much
about top loaders, they are extinct over here. Do they rotate all the
time? The front loaders here certainly don't.) Electrical heating in the
machine is ~ 100% efficient, electricity generation ~ 50% (very rough
figures). Assuming that gas-to-water heating is ~ 100% efficient, a
top-loaser must use less than twice the water a front loader uses. I
would guess it uses more.

As for price: do top-loaders dry the wash?

> Heck ~45% of the total US ***domestic*** water usage is
> used to water the lawn, what's a few gallons  more  to wash your cloths?

I would guess that the amount of soap used is a bigger issue that the
amount of water.

PS at what temperature does your average top-loader wash? We typically
wash at 60 C (white underwear, bed clothing, towels, etc), and 30 C (the
rest). I guess this has more to do with the washing powder than with the
machine?

--

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu

2009\06\26@084533 by M.L.

flavicon
face
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Volker Soffel<volker.soffelspamspam_OUTucpros.com> wrote:

> This will only change once the price of a gallon of water
> approaches that of a gallon of gasoline. The market will eventually
> regulate it
> via the price of the resource (water, gas, electricity, whatever).
> Just look what a few years of rising gasoline prices did to those car companies
> that built their entire future on selling SUVs and pickup trucks.


Water will never be expensive in some places i.e. Boston. It rained
for 3 weeks straight. Last I checked oil doesn't drop from the sky
incessantly.

Purifying water, if just enough to be used for non-potable uses, will
always be cheaper than any form of petroleum. I'm pretty sure you knew
this, I just don't like the constantly restated mantra that water will
somehow become more expensive than oil.

--
Martin K.

2009\06\26@085241 by M.L.

flavicon
face
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 1:24 AM, Wouter van Ooijen<@spam@wouterKILLspamspamvoti.nl> wrote:
>> Point being: using gas to heat water is much cheaper (as gas costs less than
>> electricity for the same amount of energy/heat produced) and more efficient
>> than using electricity, consequently even if those machines use more
>> hot water, you actually pay ***less*** for energy than
>> with a machine with built-in electric heater.
>>
>> In addition a top loader finishes a standard wash cycle in 20...30 mins;
>> a front loader takes close to an hour - so more electricity to run
>> the motor of a front loader.
>
> Did you really do the calculation? I would guess that the energy
> required for heating dwarfs the energy for rotation. (I don't know much
> about top loaders, they are extinct over here. Do they rotate all the
> time? The front loaders here certainly don't.) Electrical heating in the
> machine is ~ 100% efficient, electricity generation ~ 50% (very rough
> figures). Assuming that gas-to-water heating is ~ 100% efficient, a
> top-loaser must use less than twice the water a front loader uses. I
> would guess it uses more.

My impression is that side-loaders are more efficient because they
typically use a direct-drive permanent magnet arrangement where the
top-loader uses a multi-speed AC induction motor, some sort of
transmission, and a belt drive (variants exist)

Side loaders are well beyond the technology that cheap top-loaders
use. The last time I looked, the cheap top-loaders still used
electromechanical timers to turn on solenoid valves, the pump, the
motor, etc. Side loaders claim to be able to measure the amount of
clothes in the drum which will then adjust the water to an optimal
level. Most top loaders have a manual "load size" pot at best, at
worst they run a full tank of water for even the smallest load.
(laundromats)

>
> As for price: do top-loaders dry the wash?

No. Most side loaders (in the US) do not either.

>
> PS at what temperature does your average top-loader wash? We typically
> wash at 60 C (white underwear, bed clothing, towels, etc), and 30 C (the
> rest). I guess this has more to do with the washing powder than with the
> machine?

I would guess it's typically the same. I've been washing clothes on
warm (~20-25C) with less detergent. My clothes just aren't that dirty.
I'm not a farmer or mechanic.
-
Martin

2009\06\26@103027 by Herbert Graf

picon face
On Fri, 2009-06-26 at 07:24 +0200, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
> As for price: do top-loaders dry the wash?

The spin cycle extracts as much water as possible, then it's either on
the clothes line or the dryer. Many dryers are also gas powered.

> > Heck ~45% of the total US ***domestic*** water usage is
> > used to water the lawn, what's a few gallons  more  to wash your cloths?
>
> I would guess that the amount of soap used is a bigger issue that the
> amount of water.

Absolutely.

> PS at what temperature does your average top-loader wash? We typically
> wash at 60 C (white underwear, bed clothing, towels, etc), and 30 C (the
> rest). I guess this has more to do with the washing powder than with the
> machine?

I wash in cold water, so whatever the temp of the water is. Considering
how energy conscious Europe is I'm surprised you guys even heat your
water for clothes washing.

When I do a hot load the temp is whatever I have my water heater set to,
usually around 60C (but again, I rarely wash in anything other then cold
water).

TTYL

2009\06\26@105402 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Herbert Graf wrote:

>> PS at what temperature does your average top-loader wash? We
>> typically wash at 60 C (white underwear, bed clothing, towels, etc),
>> and 30 C (the rest). I guess this has more to do with the washing
>> powder than with the machine?
>
> I wash in cold water, so whatever the temp of the water is.
> Considering how energy conscious Europe is I'm surprised you guys
> even heat your water for clothes washing.

It helps reduce the amount of chemicals used to clean the clothes. For a
typical 4kg load I use something like a spoonful of detergent.

Gerhard

2009\06\26@111056 by Herbert Graf

picon face
On Fri, 2009-06-26 at 11:53 -0300, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> Herbert Graf wrote:
>
> >> PS at what temperature does your average top-loader wash? We
> >> typically wash at 60 C (white underwear, bed clothing, towels, etc),
> >> and 30 C (the rest). I guess this has more to do with the washing
> >> powder than with the machine?
> >
> > I wash in cold water, so whatever the temp of the water is.
> > Considering how energy conscious Europe is I'm surprised you guys
> > even heat your water for clothes washing.
>
> It helps reduce the amount of chemicals used to clean the clothes. For a
> typical 4kg load I use something like a spoonful of detergent.

I actually use the same amount of detergent as I do with a "hot" load,
as recommended on the bottle, so for me there doesn't seem to be any
advantage to going "hot".

TTYL

2009\06\26@112447 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
>> As for price: do top-loaders dry the wash?
>
> No. Most side loaders (in the US) do not either.

Most washing machines over here do, although a dedicated centrifuge
might do somewhat better.

> I would guess it's typically the same. I've been washing clothes on
> warm (~20-25C) with less detergent.

At such temperatures I'd expect the energy needed for water heating to
be quite low.

> My clothes just aren't that dirty.
> I'm not a farmer or mechanic.

I am a father of 3 (5,7,9) so some serious washing is sometimes needed.

--

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu

2009\06\26@112700 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> Many dryers are also gas powered.

Funny thing is that gas dryers are unobtainable here (Netherlands). They
were more expensive compared to electric dryers when we bought ours some
10y ago, but nowadays there are simply none in the shops.

--

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu

2009\06\26@115735 by Michael Rigby-Jones

flavicon
face


{Quote hidden}

All the side-loaders ("Front loaders" in the UK) I have ever seen inside
use a universal (brushed) AC motor and drive belt arrangement, though
there may be some very modern ones that build the motor into the drum.
Certainly seems like a reasonable idea, though any strong permanent
magnetic fields extending into the drum might not be so clever as it
will collect any ferrous particles.

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2009\06\26@133354 by Volker Soffel

flavicon
face
At 09:19 AM 6/26/2009, you wrote:
>From: Richard Prosser <spamBeGonerhprosserspamBeGonespamgmail.com>
>
>
>Hi Volker,
>I'm not sure I 'd agree that gas is more efficient than electricity
>when it comes to heating water. It may be so in the case where a
>thermal station is used to generate the electricity to heat the water
>using an immersion heater.But what about a hydro plant powering a heat
>pump type water heater? Even the simple immersion type water heater is
>very close to 100% efficient, while a gas boiler will still have some
>heat losses - some of which are required to exhaust the burnt gas up a
>chimney or vent or whatever.
>
>I'd agree with most of the rest of what you say however.
>
>RP

Hi Richard,
yes a electric immersion heater is almost100% efficient, but where is
the electricity coming from?
and what is the cost per kWh for electricity versus the cost per kWh
(BTU) of gas?

Your electricity is most like produced in an oil/coal/gas fired power plant,
efficiency less than 70%. Then it is transmitted over power lines to
your house -
which means transmission loss.

The gas on the other hand comes to your house with no transmission
loss (assuming no gas leaks) ;-)
and is directly converted into heat. Typical water heater as used in
most US households
is also about 70% efficient. So if you look at the entire energy
chain, both electric and gas
are about the same efficiency.

So the whole thing comes down to the cost of electricity versus gas:
Where I live:
1kWh of electricity = $0.15  (including all the surcharges)
1 term of gas = $1.35
1 term = 100,000 btu = 29.310 kWh
so 1kWh of gas = $1.35/29.31kWh = $0.046 per kWh

To heat one gallon of water it takes the same amount of kWh (energy)
regardless whether you use electricity or gas as the energy source.

So it is $0.15/$0.046 = 3.26 times CHEAPER to heat water with gas
than with electricity.
Assuming electricity is 100% efficient and the gas heater is only
70%, then it is
still 2.28 times cheaper to heat water using gas.

The same is true btw for electric cloths dryer versus gas clothes dryer.

Of course for some more money you can also get gas water heaters that are about
95...98% efficient and if you use a tankless there are also no standby losses.

Using solar hot water (solar collectors, not solar PV), you can get
hot water even cheaper
than with gas, but at the cost of an significant up-front investment.

regards
Volker

2009\06\26@175449 by cdb

flavicon
face


:: I am a father of 3 (5,7,9)

Looks like a mathematical algorithm at work there :)

Colin
--
cdb, TakeThisOuTcolinEraseMEspamspam_OUTbtech-online.co.uk on 27/06/2009

Web presence: http://www.btech-online.co.uk  

Hosted by:  http://www.1and1.co.uk/?k_id=7988359







2009\06\26@175847 by cdb

flavicon
face


:: I have ever seen inside
:: use a universal (brushed) AC motor and drive belt arrangement

I'm pretty sure Fisher and Paykel, and some of the German
manufacturers use a direct drive brushless motor. I know the F&P ones
are in great demand for DIY wind power generator tinkerers.

I never quite imagined that a topic about a water saving washing
machine would get quite so erm heated - it'll all come out in the wash
I'm sure.

Colin
--
cdb, RemoveMEcolinspamTakeThisOuTbtech-online.co.uk on 27/06/2009

Web presence: http://www.btech-online.co.uk  

Hosted by:  http://www.1and1.co.uk/?k_id=7988359







2009\06\26@180824 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:54 PM, cdb <colinEraseMEspam.....btech-online.co.uk> wrote:

> :: I am a father of 3 (5,7,9)
>
> Looks like a mathematical algorithm at work there :)


The number 9 does not look like a prime to me ;-)

Tamas



{Quote hidden}

> -

2009\06\26@212605 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Herbert Graf wrote:

> I actually use the same amount of detergent as I do with a "hot" load,
> as recommended on the bottle, so for me there doesn't seem to be any
> advantage to going "hot".

The "recommended" amount is of course recommended by the manufacturer of
the detergent. I guess we can just guess what their incentives are...
probably not suggesting that any technique might use less detergent :)

Gerhard

2009\06\26@225832 by John Gardner

picon face
>  ~45% of the total US ***domestic*** water usage is
used to water the lawn

Hmm. "Domestic"... Sure that does'nt amount to ~1% of the total ?

The farmers that live an hours drive upstream of me pay a penny
for a dollar's worth of water here. Unless I was an industrial user,
in which case I'd pay 2-20 cents, depending on where I fit into
the pecking order.

You notice the loudest advocates of "markets" don't talk about "free",
or "efficient" markets.

Jack

2009\06\27@043510 by Richard Prosser

picon face
Hi Volker,
It comes down to where you live.
Here in NZ, 80% of the power is generated by hydo, while the gas is
mostly obtained from imported crude IIRC.
Transmission losses are small, but gas has to be delivered by truck -
I don´t  think there is any gas retriculation remaining in the South
Island, and only a little CNG in the North.

I pay about $NZ0.20 per kWh for power and close to $NZ20 for a 9kg
bottle of LPG.

LPG has a gross heating value of about 12000kcal/kg or about 50MJ/kg
so that works out to about 50*9/20 = 22.5MJ/$NZ compared to 3.6/0.2 =
18Mj/$NZ for electricity. Take your 70% efficency for the gas burner
and electricity is actually cheaper.

We also use solar to augment the water heating but it¶ only really
effective in the summertime.

So it depends where you live.

Richard P


2009/6/27 Volker Soffel <RemoveMEvolker.soffelEraseMEspamEraseMEucpros.com>:
{Quote hidden}

>

2009\06\27@091313 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Volker Soffel wrote:

> So it is $0.15/$0.046 = 3.26 times CHEAPER to heat water with gas than
> with electricity. Assuming electricity is 100% efficient and the gas
> heater is only 70%, then it is still 2.28 times cheaper to heat water
> using gas.

Given that a front-loader typically uses less than 20% of the water that
a top-loader uses (for the same cycle)... what's the outcome?

Anyway, I'm not necessarily proposing that it makes sense economically,
but that it makes sense. There's more to life than economy (as expressed
in dollars, whether Canadian or US :)  If "makes sense economically"
isn't aligned with "makes sense", the problem generally is /not/ with
"makes sense"...

Gerhard

2009\06\27@154316 by Volker Soffel

flavicon
face
At 09:19 AM 6/26/2009, you wrote:

>This depends. My front loader doesn't run all the time; the motor goes
>on and off all the time (even during the washing cycle), and given the
>duty cycle, I'd estimate that it's on even less time. Much of the
>additional time are the additional rinse cycles; I wouldn't trade them
>in.

My point was not on how long the motor runs, but how long the entire wash cycle
takes.

I do not disagree with you that the front loaders are
superior in any way and I'm not asking you to trade your front loader
for a top loader,
I wouldn't trade mine either.

I just want to present some of the views
and arguments you get from your "average" consumer as to why, despite
the "superiority" of the front loader, they still prefer to buy a top loader:
Upfront- cost (purchase price) being the top reason and washing cycle time
being a distant 2nd.

Your argument that the front loaders are more energy efficient
and cost less in energy cost does not hold however, as I have demonstrated
with my calculation example on cost to heat hot water using gas
versus electricity
in prior post.

Now if they would make a front loader
with integrated gas hot water heater - that would be it.
They make gas cloths dryers, why can't they make gas heated washing machines?

>There's no reason why one couldn't choose a fast cycle with a front
>loader; it simply means less time washing (same time as the top loader
>that's the time standard) and less time rinsing (same time as the top
>loader that's the time standard). There's nothing inherent in the drum
>position that would require more time, to the contrary: given the
>shorter time that's needed until the water level has reached its
>operating level in the drum, the active washing/rinsing time is longer
>with a front loader than with a top loader with an equivalent program.

Yes of course, but not the point.  Based on my experience
most people never change the "default wash cycle"  Same with dish washers,
how many people ever change the cycle from the "standard wash"?
And in the standard cycle a top loader takes 20 min, a front loader
takes 1 hour. That's what people see, you are asking for too much
sophistication
on the part of the average consumer to try different wash cycle
settings - sad but true.
Not everyone is an engineer tinkering with all the possibilities a
gadget offers.
How many people don't know how to program a VCR, only use
their cell phone to make calls, etc....

But anyway, the overriding factor is cost. If you could get
front loaders for the same price of top loaders, I'm sure much more people
would jump at it.

As someone pointed out "front loaders" are "superior" European technology
and most things with the label "European" in the US carry a 3x...4x mark-up.

I'm building a house right now and wanted to get the "European style"
external roller shutters that you have on every house in Europe.
If you want to have some fun look for prices for those in the US versus what
those are in Germany (US$300+/per window versus <$100) - so the shutter
is actually more expensive than the window itself.

Same with the "European style" towel warmer radiators ($500+ versus $80);-)

best regards
Volker

2009\06\27@183120 by Chris McSweeny

picon face
Can I just point out that the argument over external gas heating of
the water vs. internal electric heating isn't an argument about the
merits of top loaders vs. front loaders. Our old front loader (was
over 12 years old when it finally died due to multiple organ failure
last year) had both hot and cold water inlets, hence used gas heated
water. It's more an argument between older machines and modern ones -
it's just that presumably in the US top loaders are all old tech and
front loaders are new tech (wouldn't really know about top loaders in
the UK - the only ones you see are ancient ones at campsites etc.)
Certainly front loaders here all used to have both hot and cold
inlets, but ISTR there was something with the new machine commenting
about a cold only inlet being more efficient and washing better. The
new machine also uses less water than the old one.

Of course it's also worth pointing out that the original article is in
a UK paper, so the context is that it's far better than the front
loaders we currently have - we live in a country where some parts
regularly get problems with water supply in the summer.

Chris

2009\06\28@140707 by Volker Soffel

flavicon
face

>
>From: John Gardner <RemoveMEgoflo3TakeThisOuTspamspamgmail.com>
>
> >  ~45% of the total US ***domestic*** water usage is
>used to water the lawn
>
>Hmm. "Domestic"... Sure that does'nt amount to ~1% of the total ?

See: http://esa21.kennesaw.edu/activities/water-use/water-use-overview-epa.pdf

Note the graphic on page 3 , the water we are interested in is "total
freshwater withdrawal" in the left column,
NOT the "consumptive use" (which includes sea water and reclaimed
water) in the right column.

Domestic is 7.5% of the total daily fresh water withdrawal.
But you are absolutely correct , farming irrigation with 40% of fresh
water is the lion share and tons
of water are wasted there, because farmers have no incentive
whatsoever to conserve water
or use irrigation methods with less waste/off-run, because, as you
correctly point out,
they only pay pennies.

best regards
Volker

2009\06\28@141807 by Volker Soffel

flavicon
face
At 09:08 AM 6/27/2009, you wrote:
>From: Richard Prosser <EraseMErhprosserspamspamspamBeGonegmail.com>
>
>Hi Volker,
>It comes down to where you live.
>Here in NZ, 80% of the power is generated by hydo, while the gas is
>mostly obtained from imported crude IIRC.
>Transmission losses are small, but gas has to be delivered by truck -
>I don´t  think there is any gas retriculation remaining in the South
>Island, and only a little CNG in the North.
>
>I pay about $NZ0.20 per kWh for power and close to $NZ20 for a 9kg
>bottle of LPG.

Yes Richard you're right, it really depends where you live and whether
or not you have access to a public natural gas distribution system.
If you need to buy LPG, it many times it is more expensive than electricity,
also here in the US.

So as far as washing machines and other appliances that require heat
are concerned, in my opinion the best solution would be
if the consumer actually had a choice whether to use electricity or
gas (domestic hot water) and manufacturers should actually make an effort
to educate the consumer how to determine which option is the most economical.

Here in our area people have access to "cheaper" natural gas,
nevertheless most have an electric clothes dryer because the gas version
is about $100 more (compared to the same electric model)
(and most of our power comes from coal/oil/gas).


best regards
Volker

2009\06\28@144129 by Volker Soffel

flavicon
face
At 09:08 AM 6/27/2009, Gerhard Fiedler <RemoveMElistsKILLspamspamconnectionbrazil.com>wrote:
Volker Soffel wrote:
>> So it is $0.15/$0.046 = 3.26 times CHEAPER to heat water with gas than
>> with electricity. Assuming electricity is 100% efficient and the gas
>> heater is only 70%, then it is still 2.28 times cheaper to heat water
>> using gas.

>Given that a front-loader typically uses less than 20% of the water that
>a top-loader uses (for the same cycle)... what's the outcome?

Really? Where is that 20% number coming from, any references?
The numbers I've seen are more in the range of 40% **less** water
usage for front loaders
compared to top loaders, which would mean a front loader uses 60% of
the water of a top loader.

>Anyway, I'm not necessarily proposing that it makes sense economically,
>but that it makes sense. There's more to life than economy (as expressed
>in dollars, whether Canadian or US :)  If "makes sense economically"
>isn't aligned with "makes sense", the problem generally is /not/ with
>"makes sense"...
>
>Gerhard

I don't disagree with you at all on the "makes sense" part.
I don't even disagree that long term it makes even economically sense,
depending on the energy cost at your location - unfortunately the majority
of people does not base their buying decisions on either criteria.

As far as washing machines are concerned it is for most people:
- why would I pay 2...3x the price to get a front loader?
- why would I even care about lower water usage of my washing
machine, if domestic is
only 7.5% of the total and of that 7.5% already  45% is used to water the lawn
and if the farmer a few miles up from me  has thousands of gallons
wasted in run-off water every day and only pays pennies for his water?

(not that I agree with those viewpoints)

Yes, this mentality is sad, but it is the reality, which is probably one of the
reasons that this world is in such a mess.

best regards
Volker

2009\06\28@164831 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Jun 28, 2009, at 11:17 AM, Volker Soffel wrote:

> Here in our area people have access to "cheaper" natural gas,  
> nevertheless most have an electric clothes dryer because the gas  
> version is about $100 more (compared to the same electric model)

There are also (perceived?) safety issues with gas, and it also  
requires plumbing gas to a location that is frequently far away from  
other gas uses in a household.  I don't think I've ever seen a gas  
clothes dryer, although many of the places I've lived have used gas  
for water and space heating...

BillW

2009\06\28@165237 by Chris McSweeny

picon face
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Volker Soffel<volker.soffelSTOPspamspamspam_OUTucpros.com> wrote:
> As far as washing machines are concerned it is for most people:
> - why would I pay 2...3x the price to get a front loader?
> - why would I even care about lower water usage of my washing
> machine, if domestic is
> only 7.5% of the total and of that 7.5% already  45% is used to water the lawn
> and if the farmer a few miles up from me  has thousands of gallons
> wasted in run-off water every day and only pays pennies for his water?
>
> (not that I agree with those viewpoints)
>
> Yes, this mentality is sad, but it is the reality, which is probably one of the
> reasons that this world is in such a mess.

One part of this world is in such a mess maybe. Why is it different
here in the UK, where you can't even walk into a normal shop and buy a
top loader?

Chris

2009\06\28@173625 by cdb

flavicon
face


:: I don't think I've ever seen a gas
:: clothes dryer

I've never seen a gas domestic dryer, but in the UK certainly most
launderette driers are gas heated.

My washing machine takes domestic hot and cold water (in which case it
only uses it's internal heater if the hot water is not up to temp) or
it can use purely cold water and heat it if necessary.

My only beef with modern washing machines is that they don't have the
flexibility in programs as my mothers' trusty old Hoover Keymatic (the
one with the nice sloping front and the reverse spinning impeller
verses drum rotation).  Only want to spin dry clothes - bung in the
correct lump of plastic in the slot and you had short spin, long spin
etc.

I can only perform a long spin with my Asko if I fill the drum with
last rinse water first, otherwise the only spin easily available is a
short low rotation spin for 'delicates'.

Colin
--
cdb, spamBeGonecolinSTOPspamspamEraseMEbtech-online.co.uk on 29/06/2009

Web presence: http://www.btech-online.co.uk  

Hosted by:  http://www.1and1.co.uk/?k_id=7988359







2009\06\28@180113 by Chris McSweeny

picon face
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 10:36 PM, cdb<KILLspamcolinspamBeGonespambtech-online.co.uk> wrote:
> My only beef with modern washing machines is that they don't have the
> flexibility in programs as my mothers' trusty old Hoover Keymatic (the
> one with the nice sloping front and the reverse spinning impeller
> verses drum rotation).  Only want to spin dry clothes - bung in the
> correct lump of plastic in the slot and you had short spin, long spin
> etc.
>
> I can only perform a long spin with my Asko if I fill the drum with
> last rinse water first, otherwise the only spin easily available is a
> short low rotation spin for 'delicates'.

As with all things, it depends what machine you have. Just been to
double check our modern (<1 year old) machine, and sure enough there
are both slow spin and fast spin programme options on the programme
dial. Strangely the only obvious thing I can think of it doesn't do is
rinse followed by a slow spin!

Chris

2009\06\29@025822 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Jun 25, 2009, at 5:26 AM, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

> Horizontals are still quite common in SoCal, for some strange reason.

I suspect that a big part of this is that often, people don't actually  
"pick" a washing machine.  You use whatever came with the house or  
apartment.  If it happens to break within the time you live in that  
place, you MIGHT think about replacement type, but it's at least as  
likely to get replaced by some nameless entity without much thought in  
between owners/renters.

BillW

2009\06\29@040541 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>All the side-loaders ("Front loaders" in the UK) I have ever
>seen inside use a universal (brushed) AC motor and drive belt
>arrangement, though there may be some very modern ones that
>build the motor into the drum.

I believe LG market a washing machine in the UK, with a direct drive motor,
rather like the NZ made Fisher & Paykel ones.

2009\06\29@080958 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Volker Soffel wrote:

>>> So it is $0.15/$0.046 = 3.26 times CHEAPER to heat water with gas
>>> than with electricity. Assuming electricity is 100% efficient and
>>> the gas heater is only 70%, then it is still 2.28 times cheaper to
>>> heat water using gas.
>
>> Given that a front-loader typically uses less than 20% of the water
>> that a top-loader uses (for the same cycle)... what's the outcome?
>
> Really? Where is that 20% number coming from, any references? The
> numbers I've seen are more in the range of 40% **less** water usage
> for front loaders compared to top loaders, which would mean a front
> loader uses 60% of the water of a top loader.

There is more than one factor involved. One is the washing principle. A
top loader fills up the whole drum, whereas a front loader only fills
the drum to less than a quarter. Hence the (estimated) 20% of water
consumption per wash cycle. The other is that typically top loaders
don't do more than one or at most two rinse cycles, whereas front
loaders usually have five or so. This brings the water consumption of
the front loaders up again, but those are cold cycles, so the additional
amount of water here doesn't count towards heat energy.

Gerhard

2009\06\29@102803 by SME

picon face
> I believe LG market a washing machine in the UK, with a direct drive motor,
> rather like the NZ made Fisher & Paykel ones.

LG just bought a ?20%? share in F&P.


 R

2009\06\29@133156 by Peter

picon face
William "Chops" Westfield <westfw <at> mac.com> writes:
> There are also (perceived?) safety issues with gas, and it also  
> requires plumbing gas to a location that is frequently far away from  
> other gas uses in a household.  I don't think I've ever seen a gas  
> clothes dryer, although many of the places I've lived have used gas  
> for water and space heating...

Most gas safety issues are history since pilot lights were invented (precisely
for that reason). Most large installation (including laundromats) use gas fired
dryers and a common gas fired water heater (shared between all the machines).
This is a strong hint for washing machine makers who should start making
machines that connect to both cold and hot water lines and thus save on
electrical power (if the main house heating is not electrical). In fact they are
already making those but they are selling them to laundromats, hospitals, hotels
etc. I was surprised to see that the price premium of a semi-industrial coin-op
washer is quite low when compared with consumer washers with similar
characteristics. And it is a very sturdy and long-lived piece of equipment, AND
the washing cycle is much shorter because the machine does not need to load
water and heat it inside at a snail's pace using expensive electricity. Also all
the gimmicky 'green' 'holistic' 'cat sleeps on top' etc elements were missing
from the ad/marketing/sales pitch. Instead, support for over 10 years (parts and
manuals) was promised. And they were not even made in China. Unbelievable :) (as
unbelievable as the fact they are still using motor driven cam programmers which
seem to survive power glitches and occasional drenching for their rated 10 year
life)

Peter


2009\06\29@135919 by Dwayne Reid

flavicon
face
At 11:31 AM 6/29/2009, Peter wrote:

>I was surprised to see that the price premium of a semi-industrial coin-op
>washer is quite low when compared with consumer washers with similar
>characteristics.

Can you provide the make & model of the machine that you are
describing?  Web links would be cool as well, if you have them handy.

I assume that those are particular units aren't available to me (I'm
in Canada) but it would at least let me see those units on the Web,
and perhaps find something comparable.

Our ancient top load washer still works well but it is getting
old.  I don't plan to replace it until I can't economically repair it
but its convenient to have information on suitable replacements
handy.  Yes - I fully expect our next washing machine to be a front-loader.

Thanks!

dwayne

PS - FWIW - I wind up fixing (or helping others fix) at least one
washing machine per year - usually more.  They are ALL old and all
have been easy to repair.  Specialized parts (pumps, clutches,
transmission parts) are readily available - that really surprised me
in at least a couple of cases.  The only front-load machines that I
have worked on have been Italian-made machines used in Dry-Cleaning
businesses - huge machines.  Also easy to repair!

dwayne

--
Dwayne Reid   <EraseMEdwaynerspamEraseMEplanet.eon.net>
Trinity Electronics Systems Ltd    Edmonton, AB, CANADA
(780) 489-3199 voice          (780) 487-6397 fax
http://www.trinity-electronics.com
Custom Electronics Design and Manufacturing

2009\06\29@160000 by Peter

picon face
Dwayne Reid <dwayner <at> planet.eon.net> writes:
> Can you provide the make & model of the machine that you are
> describing?  Web links would be cool as well, if you have them handy.

I don't remember the model but one brand that came up was "Speed Queen", and it
was front loading drum type. See:

http://www.speedqueen.com/home/about/

I am not affiliated to them in any way, and I have seen their and other NA
manufacturer's products working in laundromats in several countries, not just in
NA.

Peter




2009\06\29@180346 by Chris McSweeny

picon face
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Peter<@spam@plpeter2006@spam@spamspam_OUTyahoo.com> wrote:
> This is a strong hint for washing machine makers who should start making
> machines that connect to both cold and hot water lines and thus save on
> electrical power (if the main house heating is not electrical).

You mean re-start, since my as I said before, my old machine had both
hot and cold fill (as they generally did back then).

Anyway, from my washing machine handbook:

"Benefits of cold fill
- Modern detergents are designed to give the best cleaning results at
low temperature. biological detergents contain enzymes which are
active between 30C and 53C giving greater results at lower
temperature.
- Cold water relaxes fabrics, whilst hot water can seal in stains.
- Improved stain removal with cold water.
- The most commonly used programme at present is 40C, which will take
on cold water even if hot and cold were available.
- You can heat the water required to finish the wash cycle, which
makes it more economical than taking water heated in a tank by an
immersion heater or gas boiler."

I'd imagine big commercial washing machines have rather different user
requirements to home ones.

Chris

2009\06\29@181205 by Chris Smolinski

flavicon
face
{Quote hidden}

FWIW, the water coming out of my tap is about 55F (13C).  We've tried
washing with cold water, with poor results (I can't remember if this
was with the old top loader or new front loader, maybe I should
repeat the tests).  We did find a noticeable improvement in cleaning
with the front loader (4 kids here, ages 2,4,5,6, subtract a year for
ages when we switched washers).




--

---
Chris Smolinski
Black Cat Systems
http://www.blackcatsystems.com

2009\06\29@182859 by Chris McSweeny

picon face
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Chris
Smolinski<.....csmolinskispam_OUTspamblackcatsystems.com> wrote:
> FWIW, the water coming out of my tap is about 55F (13C).  We've tried
> washing with cold water, with poor results

Yes, but you don't wash with cold water with a cold fill machine. You
can heat up the cold water in the machine, you can't cool down the
hot.

2009\06\29@190018 by Carl Denk

flavicon
face
Our 9 year old Maytag (USA) top loader has both hot and cold water
supplies, and a water saver. The front panel controls allow for
selection of both wash and rinse water temperatures. The water saver has
a hose (drain hose size) that goes to the bottom of the adjacent wash
tub sink. By selecting the water saver, wash water is pumped into the
sink. Wife washes cleaner items first, saves the wash water, then uses
that water for a later load of dirtier laundry like my workshop clothes.
This also saves soap, since much of the soap is still active. Hot or
cold water can be used to adjust the reused water temperature. The water
temperature settings include a hot warm and cold. The size of the load
also can be adjusted as small, medium, large, and extra large. The unit
has been very reliable, and with the flexibility of controls, we feel it
does and adequate job including overall economy.

Chris McSweeny wrote:
{Quote hidden}

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2009 , 2010 only
- Today
- New search...