Wave (no pun intended) of the future? And a pox on that guy for calling laundry BORING! Someone slap him into next week for me.
Article on Waterless Washing Machine
- Thread starter frigilux
- Start date
Help Support :
Intersting how some cultures actually refuse to use water.
Funny, but when I learned about water in school, it was said to be a renewable resource and we ultimately use the same water repeatedly.
And doesn't photosynthesis and combustion use and release (respectively) "new" water constantly?
So let's see......
a top-loader uses water but does not need a heater (excess electricity) or phospahtes.
But a front-loader needs a heater (electricity) and phospahtes and TONS OF TIME (more electricity) to be effective.
So which machine exactly is using more (non-renewable) resources?
Funny, but when I learned about water in school, it was said to be a renewable resource and we ultimately use the same water repeatedly.
And doesn't photosynthesis and combustion use and release (respectively) "new" water constantly?
So let's see......
a top-loader uses water but does not need a heater (excess electricity) or phospahtes.
But a front-loader needs a heater (electricity) and phospahtes and TONS OF TIME (more electricity) to be effective.
So which machine exactly is using more (non-renewable) resources?
mistervain
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2005
- Messages
- 66
I agree. Lots more electricity is to wasted by home front loaders to compensate for the insufficient amount of water.
My electricity bill has always been way more expensive than my water bill, btw.
My electricity bill has always been way more expensive than my water bill, btw.
Mistervain-would think the "waste" of electricity in FL machines would be for water "reheat" cycles?the heater would take more power than the motor.Maybe you need to get a VINTAGE TL washer.If you have space-go for both-keep your FL and also have a vintage TL.I am considring that.My laundry area is large enough for both.
mistervain
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2005
- Messages
- 66
Yeah I just wish I could have one that did it all. I like the FL because they are gentle on my clothes and the colors don't fade. So it's a toss up.
Designgeek
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2004
- Messages
- 865
Realistically it helps to have both. For example a TL for most purposes, and an FL with heater for a) washing large fluffy things like pillows and comforters, in warm water and b) sanitary-washes in very hot water when someone in the house is sick. Or an FL for most purposes and a TL for washing stuff you want to give the extra water treatment, such as sweaty shirts.
Electricity is a renewable resource if it comes from uranium, wind, or sunlight. And all the electrons in the universe are ultimately recycled
Electricity is a renewable resource if it comes from uranium, wind, or sunlight. And all the electrons in the universe are ultimately recycled
LOL.
But not when from coal, oil, or natural gas!
But not when from coal, oil, or natural gas!
I've never owned a FL washer with a heater and have no plans to. Now that I wash everything in cold water, the point is moot, anyway.
I'm not sure a FL uses more electricity than a TL. The motors are quite small on FL'ers, aren't they? Or maybe this has changed in the age of the giant tub FL...
I'm not sure a FL uses more electricity than a TL. The motors are quite small on FL'ers, aren't they? Or maybe this has changed in the age of the giant tub FL...
they say that F/L-er use less electricity in general -when there is no heater.
I am not convinced. LOL
I am not convinced. LOL
The benefit is in the Hot water
The cost of running a FL machine with cold water is negligible, the motors are small in comparison to a TL machine.
The saving comes from the fact, that when washing in 60deg C water, you're only heating about 10-15 litres instead of 80L.
When they first introduced FL machines with Energy labels in AU, the FL machines were shown to use more electricity than the TL machines. This wasnt taking into account that the hot water for the TL machine was being heated elsewhere. At that stage, the cost of running was based on the consumption of the machine, not on the total cost.
Now the labels show the energy use for both a cold and a warm wash, and it takes into account the cost of heating the water be it in the Machine or in the water tank.
In my Pre Miele days, I used to only wash business shirts in hot water, and everything else in cold.
Since getting the Miele, our water bill is down to 400L/day (From 900L/day) for the household, and I now wash everything at 40deg C except for towls and business shirts which I wash at 60deg C, our power bill is about $80/quater cheaper than it was previously.
The savings come from the reduced cost of heating the water.
The cost of running a FL machine with cold water is negligible, the motors are small in comparison to a TL machine.
The saving comes from the fact, that when washing in 60deg C water, you're only heating about 10-15 litres instead of 80L.
When they first introduced FL machines with Energy labels in AU, the FL machines were shown to use more electricity than the TL machines. This wasnt taking into account that the hot water for the TL machine was being heated elsewhere. At that stage, the cost of running was based on the consumption of the machine, not on the total cost.
Now the labels show the energy use for both a cold and a warm wash, and it takes into account the cost of heating the water be it in the Machine or in the water tank.
In my Pre Miele days, I used to only wash business shirts in hot water, and everything else in cold.
Since getting the Miele, our water bill is down to 400L/day (From 900L/day) for the household, and I now wash everything at 40deg C except for towls and business shirts which I wash at 60deg C, our power bill is about $80/quater cheaper than it was previously.
The savings come from the reduced cost of heating the water.
frontloadfan
New member
Electrical Usage
All new washing machines are rated for energy efficiency. This testing takes into account all energy used by a given machine. It factors in the energy (electricity) that the machine uses directly as well as the energy being required to heat the water prior to it be used for the wash cycle.
My front loader has the internal heater and larger volume (3.8). Its energyguide label shows that it is tested to use 312 kWH/year for energy use. This on a scale that ranges from 113 (least energy) to 680 (most energy). I could be wrong, but I am assuming that those machines that use up to 6 times the energy as mine, are top loaders.
For instance, my machine is calculated to cost me $27 a year to operate when used with an electric water heater and $15 a year if used with a natural gas water heater. Take those figures and multiply by up to 6 to figure out how much the least efficient washing machines would cost you to operate.
I will readily admit that top loaders have some advantages compared to front loaders, but energy use is not one of them!
All new washing machines are rated for energy efficiency. This testing takes into account all energy used by a given machine. It factors in the energy (electricity) that the machine uses directly as well as the energy being required to heat the water prior to it be used for the wash cycle.
My front loader has the internal heater and larger volume (3.8). Its energyguide label shows that it is tested to use 312 kWH/year for energy use. This on a scale that ranges from 113 (least energy) to 680 (most energy). I could be wrong, but I am assuming that those machines that use up to 6 times the energy as mine, are top loaders.
For instance, my machine is calculated to cost me $27 a year to operate when used with an electric water heater and $15 a year if used with a natural gas water heater. Take those figures and multiply by up to 6 to figure out how much the least efficient washing machines would cost you to operate.
I will readily admit that top loaders have some advantages compared to front loaders, but energy use is not one of them!
I can see the "Waterless" washing machine for good wool suits mens/ladies and then a three or four times a year dry-cleaning, (assuming a suit is worn every day to work).
But for undies and t-shirts?
uh, no.
Where do they think the body oils are going to go?
But for undies and t-shirts?
uh, no.
Where do they think the body oils are going to go?
So with this washer, we substitute water pollution for air pollution?
Just don't stand too close to the machine when it does a load of underwear...
Just don't stand too close to the machine when it does a load of underwear...
It does seem that a machine like this requires a leap of faith. I wonder if they truly use NO water, or if there is at least one fill to rinse or something. Does some electrostatic filter collect all the body oils and other gobble-de-gook? Does it all just magically go into the atmosphere?
I'd love to see a demonstration of one of these machines. I still don't think I'd actually WANT one, but I'd love to see how it works. And IF it works....
I'd love to see a demonstration of one of these machines. I still don't think I'd actually WANT one, but I'd love to see how it works. And IF it works....
