The Globalists/WEF/Elites will tell you what you can and cannot use and you will be happy. Period!
Meanwhile, I will continue to enjoy my old machines in blissfull non-compliance to the totalitarians!
If only I could give this post an award!
Biden admin proposes more stringent efficiency standards
- Thread starter logixx
- Start date
The Globalists/WEF/Elites will tell you what you can and cannot use and you will be happy. Period!
Meanwhile, I will continue to enjoy my old machines in blissfull non-compliance to the totalitarians!
If only I could give this post an award!
If only I could give this post an award!
I SECOND IT!!!
I SECOND IT!!!
sudsmaster
Well-known member
On the other hand,
<blockquote>
Every story has two sides. The DOE admits these new appliance standards will require the industry to invest upwards of $2 billion to comply with them, but counters that the rebates and incentives baked into the Inflation Reduction Act will more than offset that amount in terms of increased sales. It’s impossible to know who is right, as predicting the future is a fraught exercise under the best of circumstances. ...
Fridges/freezers: The proposed rule would reduce energy use by around 12% on average across product classes, with some product classes being required to reduce energy use even further than that.
Clothes Washers: The proposed rule would reduce energy use by around 35%, and would reduce water use by around 40%, on average, compared to existing standards. ...
</blockquote>
https://cleantechnica.com/2023/02/1...ds-more-efficient-wind-turbine-manufacturing/
Fridge freezers
Given I currently work in the central global development for cooling appliances for a major EU player, US cooling appliances are SO FAR behind the world and there is NO development needed to reach those efficiency standards.
The standards currently in place basically match the lowest efficiency requests for the EU - like, as in any US design would basically be illegal to sell by March next year over here.
It's as simple as fucking reducing your profit margin a bit and adding an inch of foam or an inverter compressor.
You don't even have to go the expensive route and use vacuum insulation panels like we do for our top rated appliances.
Given I currently work in the central global development for cooling appliances for a major EU player, US cooling appliances are SO FAR behind the world and there is NO development needed to reach those efficiency standards.
The standards currently in place basically match the lowest efficiency requests for the EU - like, as in any US design would basically be illegal to sell by March next year over here.
It's as simple as fucking reducing your profit margin a bit and adding an inch of foam or an inverter compressor.
You don't even have to go the expensive route and use vacuum insulation panels like we do for our top rated appliances.
I thought I was just grabbing numbers ofv the top of my head
But no - it REALLY is that bad for refrigeration.
My original source was a slide that was distributed internally a few weeks ago at my workplace where - along the more important markets for us like India, China and the EU - it showed US ratings.
Those were normalised numbers for one model to what the equivalent rating would have been under each system.
And that was absurd.
But looking at it now, it REALLY blows me off my socks.
Luckily (though I personally despise that trend) the US-style side by side has become the next status symbol in EU Kitchens.
And luckily, manufacturers like LG sell similar sized units on both sides of the pond:
https://www.lg.com/us/refrigerators/lg-lrsxc2306s-side-by-side-refrigerator
https://www.lg.com/de/kuehlschraenke-gefrierschraenke/lg-gslv31mcxm
Those are the same dimensions basically, same internal volume more or less, both have an ice maker.
And either your testing procedures are inherently so different that it is beyond my comprehension, but the US equivalent uses 600+kWh a year compared to the 400+kWh in the EU - and that model is F-rated, so won't be legal to sell after next March here.
Edit:
Findung and understanding testing methology takes some time, but I got there eventually.
So, most fridges in the EU are tested at both 16C and 32C ambient temperatures.
DOE testing runs at 32C non stop to simulate door opening.
The EU has a very convoluted calculation system, and the values behind that aren't usually made public - BUT there are a hadfull of listings that show the values.
The one model I could find info on that made sense was a Beko side by side.
It's sizing is comparable to that LG, and it's rated F aswell, features are similar.
It uses 1.508kWh in 24h at 32C under EU testing.
That is more or less exactly 550kWh yearly - still 100kWh less than the US LG.
And again, F-rating is the worst of the worst so to speak.[this post was last edited: 2/19/2023-12:24]
But no - it REALLY is that bad for refrigeration.
My original source was a slide that was distributed internally a few weeks ago at my workplace where - along the more important markets for us like India, China and the EU - it showed US ratings.
Those were normalised numbers for one model to what the equivalent rating would have been under each system.
And that was absurd.
But looking at it now, it REALLY blows me off my socks.
Luckily (though I personally despise that trend) the US-style side by side has become the next status symbol in EU Kitchens.
And luckily, manufacturers like LG sell similar sized units on both sides of the pond:
https://www.lg.com/us/refrigerators/lg-lrsxc2306s-side-by-side-refrigerator
https://www.lg.com/de/kuehlschraenke-gefrierschraenke/lg-gslv31mcxm
Those are the same dimensions basically, same internal volume more or less, both have an ice maker.
And either your testing procedures are inherently so different that it is beyond my comprehension, but the US equivalent uses 600+kWh a year compared to the 400+kWh in the EU - and that model is F-rated, so won't be legal to sell after next March here.
Edit:
Findung and understanding testing methology takes some time, but I got there eventually.
So, most fridges in the EU are tested at both 16C and 32C ambient temperatures.
DOE testing runs at 32C non stop to simulate door opening.
The EU has a very convoluted calculation system, and the values behind that aren't usually made public - BUT there are a hadfull of listings that show the values.
The one model I could find info on that made sense was a Beko side by side.
It's sizing is comparable to that LG, and it's rated F aswell, features are similar.
It uses 1.508kWh in 24h at 32C under EU testing.
That is more or less exactly 550kWh yearly - still 100kWh less than the US LG.
And again, F-rating is the worst of the worst so to speak.[this post was last edited: 2/19/2023-12:24]
vacerator
Well-known member
Ah, those globalist's!
Well, I guess we all live on this globe for now. Possibly, they will have the next generation all speaking Mandarin too. They're mostly all renters in housing blocks.
I'll be dead, so will you, so I can't worry about it. We can't do anyhting to change it now.
I saw a cip of Britsh elementary sudents in the 60's the other day being asked what they think the future would be like. One said he thought he night be controlling robots, or that a computer might control him. One said maybe working/Living on the moon, or Mars. Several thought that a madman would start wars, and or would set of nukes, and earth would become a giant fireball.
Half nice presidents day all!
Well, I guess we all live on this globe for now. Possibly, they will have the next generation all speaking Mandarin too. They're mostly all renters in housing blocks.
I'll be dead, so will you, so I can't worry about it. We can't do anyhting to change it now.
I saw a cip of Britsh elementary sudents in the 60's the other day being asked what they think the future would be like. One said he thought he night be controlling robots, or that a computer might control him. One said maybe working/Living on the moon, or Mars. Several thought that a madman would start wars, and or would set of nukes, and earth would become a giant fireball.
Half nice presidents day all!
Last time harping about that
I was at work today and had a few minutes to check something.
Being right at the source of such data is very convenient, not gonna lie.
We have one class A bottom freezer model in our 2 main channel brands on offer.
Class A and B cooling appliances are very low market penetration at this point in time, simply because they are to expensive to recoup the additional cost in a reasonable timeframe. If you compare within one brand, usually, depending on product category, class D or C is the most reasonable buy. They usually recoup their additional cost to the lower end models within 10 years, give or take. That is at German electricity prices.
Since very recently, if you aren't brand centric, you can get B class appliances from reputable brands for prices that start to make sense.
Both A and B class appliances will come down in price this and next year because manufacturers have to use way more vacuum insulation panels for the new models coming up.
The more you buy, the cheaper these get and currently, they are like several times more expensive compared to the usual foam insulation used.
But that's not the point.
The point is that the major development - at least for fridge freezers - HAS been done already.
Our A class bottom freezer models use 0,395kWh at 32C in 24h - that's just shy of 145kWh in a year.
That's the current pinnacle of efficiency that is on the market right now. No experimental technology.
That is "only" for a 3.6cuft freezer, 9.2cuft fridge, 12.8cuft total NoFrost fridge freezer.
Again, you don't have to, and probably shouldn't, go quite that far efficiency wise.
But we are already there.
All you have to do is use these known, proofen at scale technologies in your next product refresh.
I was at work today and had a few minutes to check something.
Being right at the source of such data is very convenient, not gonna lie.
We have one class A bottom freezer model in our 2 main channel brands on offer.
Class A and B cooling appliances are very low market penetration at this point in time, simply because they are to expensive to recoup the additional cost in a reasonable timeframe. If you compare within one brand, usually, depending on product category, class D or C is the most reasonable buy. They usually recoup their additional cost to the lower end models within 10 years, give or take. That is at German electricity prices.
Since very recently, if you aren't brand centric, you can get B class appliances from reputable brands for prices that start to make sense.
Both A and B class appliances will come down in price this and next year because manufacturers have to use way more vacuum insulation panels for the new models coming up.
The more you buy, the cheaper these get and currently, they are like several times more expensive compared to the usual foam insulation used.
But that's not the point.
The point is that the major development - at least for fridge freezers - HAS been done already.
Our A class bottom freezer models use 0,395kWh at 32C in 24h - that's just shy of 145kWh in a year.
That's the current pinnacle of efficiency that is on the market right now. No experimental technology.
That is "only" for a 3.6cuft freezer, 9.2cuft fridge, 12.8cuft total NoFrost fridge freezer.
Again, you don't have to, and probably shouldn't, go quite that far efficiency wise.
But we are already there.
All you have to do is use these known, proofen at scale technologies in your next product refresh.
Henrik, a 12.8 cu. ft. refrigerator/freezer is a compact model on the U.S. market, not a valid direct comparison to what the consumer/howeowner purchases. What do you have in a 25 to 28 cu. ft. size? (although I suspect the energy comsumption would easily beat U.S. standards).
We do have your size fridges
The point I was making was the technology is there.
Sure, an A class Side-by-side would use more.
But it's the same basic way of doing it: Vacuum insulation panels all around, double them up on the freezer side, micro-channel condenser, inverter compressor.
We (BSH, Bosch) DO make Side-by-sides - at least kind of - but they are more of a niche market for us and thus we don't put a lot of research into them.
So they are only available in E class or lower from what I remember.
Keep in mind the Bosch North America is COMPLETELY separate in terms of refrigeration from the rest of the world of BSH cooling appliances.
The EU however DOES have C class Side-by-sides from other brands like Samsung.
These are 22.5cuft total with an 8cuft freezer.
Since I don't have access to Samsungs engineering data, I can only guestimate what these would use under US testing.
They are rated at 225kWh a year under EU testing.
Thats 0.616kWh a day with an average 50/50 mix of 16C and 32C ambient temperature. Of course, it's not certain what either value is. But let's make it worse than it probably is and say 0.9kWh a day at 32C.
That would be 326kWh a year probably.
If we make the appliance that bit bigger, lets make 350kWh a year.
Having a quick look at some other Side by sides on your side of the pond, most hover around 600-650kWh a year - the lowest your energy guide even appraises is above 500kWh.
Or different way of thinking about it:
Having 2 of the A-class fridge freezers side by side would give you the capacity you are asking for, at below 300kWh.
And one large fridge freezer would be more efficient than 2 smaller ones (since the surface area is smaller per volume).
Again, it's about the outcry the industry would have to spend so much money to create these appliances.
No, they don't.
Almost all US brands have EU offerings.
And in many - if not all - cases, the EU has brought up technology that can be transferred to the US market with little effort to reach efficiency standards that make sense today.
And you don't have to go all the way EU extreme.
But, like, come on - our fridges are almost as much more efficient energy wise as our dryers are, and there is no cycle time argument to be made for that.
The point I was making was the technology is there.
Sure, an A class Side-by-side would use more.
But it's the same basic way of doing it: Vacuum insulation panels all around, double them up on the freezer side, micro-channel condenser, inverter compressor.
We (BSH, Bosch) DO make Side-by-sides - at least kind of - but they are more of a niche market for us and thus we don't put a lot of research into them.
So they are only available in E class or lower from what I remember.
Keep in mind the Bosch North America is COMPLETELY separate in terms of refrigeration from the rest of the world of BSH cooling appliances.
The EU however DOES have C class Side-by-sides from other brands like Samsung.
These are 22.5cuft total with an 8cuft freezer.
Since I don't have access to Samsungs engineering data, I can only guestimate what these would use under US testing.
They are rated at 225kWh a year under EU testing.
Thats 0.616kWh a day with an average 50/50 mix of 16C and 32C ambient temperature. Of course, it's not certain what either value is. But let's make it worse than it probably is and say 0.9kWh a day at 32C.
That would be 326kWh a year probably.
If we make the appliance that bit bigger, lets make 350kWh a year.
Having a quick look at some other Side by sides on your side of the pond, most hover around 600-650kWh a year - the lowest your energy guide even appraises is above 500kWh.
Or different way of thinking about it:
Having 2 of the A-class fridge freezers side by side would give you the capacity you are asking for, at below 300kWh.
And one large fridge freezer would be more efficient than 2 smaller ones (since the surface area is smaller per volume).
Again, it's about the outcry the industry would have to spend so much money to create these appliances.
No, they don't.
Almost all US brands have EU offerings.
And in many - if not all - cases, the EU has brought up technology that can be transferred to the US market with little effort to reach efficiency standards that make sense today.
And you don't have to go all the way EU extreme.
But, like, come on - our fridges are almost as much more efficient energy wise as our dryers are, and there is no cycle time argument to be made for that.
North American refrigerator, energy efficiency
I do not believe North American refrigerators are any less energy efficient than those sold in the rest of the world.
When I made trips to the UK, France, Germany, Geneva, and Australia, I made a point of going into stores and comparing appliances and energy labeling, and all those places showed that large American refrigerators were actually extremely efficient in their energy usage, when you could find anything even close to comparable in size from these different countries, they often used more energy than the US models.
US refrigerators have a huge advantage because of they’re so large and we can afford to have 3 inch thick walls and doors filled with insulation. So any type of comparison should include energy efficiency per cubic foot of cooled area.
It could be much more efficient to have a large refrigerator and reduce shopping trips as well. The amount of energy expended even riding a metro system use many times as much energy as you little bit of extra energy to keep a slightly bigger refrigerator running.
We also have been using inverter compressors LED lights inside waste heat to eliminate condensation on the outside and ultra efficient ECM motors so I don’t see how there could be any real difference. Different rating methods can give different results, Maybe that’s the difference you’re seeing. This is why the US is only striving to reduce energy usage about 12% because we really have gone about as far as we can go without some radical new technology, which is not being used in Europe either by the way.
John
I do not believe North American refrigerators are any less energy efficient than those sold in the rest of the world.
When I made trips to the UK, France, Germany, Geneva, and Australia, I made a point of going into stores and comparing appliances and energy labeling, and all those places showed that large American refrigerators were actually extremely efficient in their energy usage, when you could find anything even close to comparable in size from these different countries, they often used more energy than the US models.
US refrigerators have a huge advantage because of they’re so large and we can afford to have 3 inch thick walls and doors filled with insulation. So any type of comparison should include energy efficiency per cubic foot of cooled area.
It could be much more efficient to have a large refrigerator and reduce shopping trips as well. The amount of energy expended even riding a metro system use many times as much energy as you little bit of extra energy to keep a slightly bigger refrigerator running.
We also have been using inverter compressors LED lights inside waste heat to eliminate condensation on the outside and ultra efficient ECM motors so I don’t see how there could be any real difference. Different rating methods can give different results, Maybe that’s the difference you’re seeing. This is why the US is only striving to reduce energy usage about 12% because we really have gone about as far as we can go without some radical new technology, which is not being used in Europe either by the way.
John
Increased energy efficiency is a good and necessary goal with which I fully agree but it's not always efficient to replace a working appliance for that purpose.
My 2003/4 GE SxS per the Energy Guide labeling is rated 686 kWh/year, $57/year at a 2001-based cost of $0.0829/kWh, $4.74/month. My January 2023 bill is $0.1609/kWh so $9.20/month. (Feb 2023 is $0.1486.)
A new GE today of the same size (and less features) would cost $2,211 at one of the big-box stores and have an energy rating of 615 kWh/year, $8.25/month at the current (LOL) rate. An insignificant reduction of $0.95 energy cost per month. It'd take 2,322 months, more than 193 YEARS to recoup the purchase cost in electric savings (if I'm calculating that correctly) ... although without considering future increases in electric service cost.
Double the efficiency, raise the purchase cost by $300, reduce the yearly kWh to 307, reduces the purchase cost recoup to 41 years. Seems unlikely a refrigerator bought today will run for 41 years without multiple and increasingly costly repairs. Yes, there's a bigger picture and a beneficial reduction in overall electric consumption if everyone in the country did that ... but consider that many people can't conjure the $$$$ in up-front funds to replace a working refrigerator for the sole purpose of reducing electric usage.
North American refrigerator, energy efficiency
I do not believe North American refrigerators are any less energy efficient than those sold in the rest of the world.
When I made trips to the UK, France, Germany, Geneva, and Australia, I made a point of going into stores and comparing appliances and energy labeling, and all those places showed that large American refrigerators were actually extremely efficient in their energy usage, when you could find anything even close to comparable in size from these different countries, they often use more energy than the US models.
US refrigerators have a huge advantage because of they’re so large and we can afford to have 3 inch thick walls and doors filled with insulation. So any type of comparison should include energy efficiency per cubic foot of cooled area. It could be much more efficient to have a large refrigerator and reduce shopping trips as well. The amount of energy expended even riding a metro system as many times as much as you little bit of energy cost to keep a slightly bigger refrigerator running.
We also have been using inverter compressors LED lights inside waste heat to eliminate condensation on the outside and ultra efficient ECM motors so I don’t see how there could be any real difference.
Different reading methods to show different results. Maybe that’s the difference you’re seeing.
This is why the US is only striving to reduce energy usage about 12% because we really reached about as far as we can go without some radical new technology, which is not being used in Europe either by the way.
John
I do not believe North American refrigerators are any less energy efficient than those sold in the rest of the world.
When I made trips to the UK, France, Germany, Geneva, and Australia, I made a point of going into stores and comparing appliances and energy labeling, and all those places showed that large American refrigerators were actually extremely efficient in their energy usage, when you could find anything even close to comparable in size from these different countries, they often use more energy than the US models.
US refrigerators have a huge advantage because of they’re so large and we can afford to have 3 inch thick walls and doors filled with insulation. So any type of comparison should include energy efficiency per cubic foot of cooled area. It could be much more efficient to have a large refrigerator and reduce shopping trips as well. The amount of energy expended even riding a metro system as many times as much as you little bit of energy cost to keep a slightly bigger refrigerator running.
We also have been using inverter compressors LED lights inside waste heat to eliminate condensation on the outside and ultra efficient ECM motors so I don’t see how there could be any real difference.
Different reading methods to show different results. Maybe that’s the difference you’re seeing.
This is why the US is only striving to reduce energy usage about 12% because we really reached about as far as we can go without some radical new technology, which is not being used in Europe either by the way.
John
But it's not about replacing for efficiency
As you said, there has been close to NO progress in efficiency in the past 20 years in US refrigeration.
The EU has seen another 20% or more reduction in the past few years due to the new label alone.
And replacing just for efficiency is almost NEVER a good idea.
Taking into account the carbon footprint of production and disposal, it's almost always more environmentally friendly to keep an appliance unless it needs replacement anyway.
However, you also said, it's unlikely that any appliance today lasts 20 years or more.
That also means that in about 30 years, give or take, you will probably have a close to 100% replacement rate for these appliances.
Which in turn means again that you'll have most of the efficiency gains as a country down the road.
A more personal note on that.
My mum is moving from her flat in our house into my grandparents old flat in our house on the ground floor some time this year.
She bought an all new kitchen and on my advice is buying a freestanding fridge-freezer combo for her new kitchen. The kitchen is quite "upper middle class" already.
So I showed her 2 options.
One was an upper MOL model from the BSH freestanding range.
It's class "C", costs around 800-900€.
As an "nice, but expensive" option, I also showed her a Liebherr Class "A" model. These start at 1500€, but are top efficiency and come with a 10 year warranty on the entire appliance.
She liked the more expensive one more even though I repeatedly told her that it probably won't pay for herself.
But she said she likes it much more, and if it saves energy, that's a great plus.
The difference between a C and an A is about 60-70kWh.
So, let's say something like 25-30€ a year.
So - best case - it takes 20 years to recoup.
Dosen't make sense.
But if you are already spending 5 figures on a new kitchen, you might as well spend the few hundred bucks on a nice, efficient fridge.
As you said, there has been close to NO progress in efficiency in the past 20 years in US refrigeration.
The EU has seen another 20% or more reduction in the past few years due to the new label alone.
And replacing just for efficiency is almost NEVER a good idea.
Taking into account the carbon footprint of production and disposal, it's almost always more environmentally friendly to keep an appliance unless it needs replacement anyway.
However, you also said, it's unlikely that any appliance today lasts 20 years or more.
That also means that in about 30 years, give or take, you will probably have a close to 100% replacement rate for these appliances.
Which in turn means again that you'll have most of the efficiency gains as a country down the road.
A more personal note on that.
My mum is moving from her flat in our house into my grandparents old flat in our house on the ground floor some time this year.
She bought an all new kitchen and on my advice is buying a freestanding fridge-freezer combo for her new kitchen. The kitchen is quite "upper middle class" already.
So I showed her 2 options.
One was an upper MOL model from the BSH freestanding range.
It's class "C", costs around 800-900€.
As an "nice, but expensive" option, I also showed her a Liebherr Class "A" model. These start at 1500€, but are top efficiency and come with a 10 year warranty on the entire appliance.
She liked the more expensive one more even though I repeatedly told her that it probably won't pay for herself.
But she said she likes it much more, and if it saves energy, that's a great plus.
The difference between a C and an A is about 60-70kWh.
So, let's say something like 25-30€ a year.
So - best case - it takes 20 years to recoup.
Dosen't make sense.
But if you are already spending 5 figures on a new kitchen, you might as well spend the few hundred bucks on a nice, efficient fridge.
Reply number 40
Hi Glenn, thanks as usual for your very detailed analysis of the refrigerator you have and its equivalent replacement.
I wouldit’s equivalent replacement.
I would never suggest replacing a product for energy efficiency alone when there’s so little difference.
However, there’s actually a lot more difference than you think when your current refrigerator was made, they did not run the icemakers etc. when they were doing the energy rating now they do so the standards have changed and you would probably find more of a two dollar or a little more difference per month. An operating cost still not enough to replace a perfectly good well-made refrigerator.
The other factor is your refrigerator with state of the art when it was built, it was better than many, so it’s a little bit ahead of the time it always pays to invest in a high-efficiency product when you are buying one.
John.
Hi Glenn, thanks as usual for your very detailed analysis of the refrigerator you have and its equivalent replacement.
I wouldit’s equivalent replacement.
I would never suggest replacing a product for energy efficiency alone when there’s so little difference.
However, there’s actually a lot more difference than you think when your current refrigerator was made, they did not run the icemakers etc. when they were doing the energy rating now they do so the standards have changed and you would probably find more of a two dollar or a little more difference per month. An operating cost still not enough to replace a perfectly good well-made refrigerator.
The other factor is your refrigerator with state of the art when it was built, it was better than many, so it’s a little bit ahead of the time it always pays to invest in a high-efficiency product when you are buying one.
John.
stringent energy regulations
This now means no more hot water or high water levels. This is just so stupid!
This now means no more hot water or high water levels. This is just so stupid!
Why?
My clothes are perfectly clean with low water levels. I would never use a TL again with low water levels, but my FL's are fine. I get the impression you do not pay the bills, but water costs a good deal and in vast portions of this country it's in short supply. Why make matters worse when there are alternatives out there.
My clothes are perfectly clean with low water levels. I would never use a TL again with low water levels, but my FL's are fine. I get the impression you do not pay the bills, but water costs a good deal and in vast portions of this country it's in short supply. Why make matters worse when there are alternatives out there.
sudsmaster
Well-known member
Well, I looked through the DOE proposal and didn't see much on the effect on hot water clothes washer results. But then it's a long tome and didn't have time to read everything in it.
Here's a link to the DOE proposal. Hey, it's only 376 pages!
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-02/rcw-ecs-nopr.pdf
Here's a link to the DOE proposal. Hey, it's only 376 pages!
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-02/rcw-ecs-nopr.pdf
If there’s only front loaders available one day, there WILL for sure be an antitrust suit since that’s taking one’s decision away what they want and that’s called a MONOPOLY. Sure, it’s not one company making appliances but there might as well be a monopoly since they only “choice” there will be is a brand and nothing else since all front loaders are virtually the same.
givemehotwater
Well-known member
@sudsmaster - All these newer machines barely use the "Hot" Line, unless you are choosing a Clean Machine, or Sanitize Cycle. Almost all of them that I've seen, no matter what manufacture turn Hot to Warm and Warm to Cold. Cold = Cold.
@mattl... I happen to pay my own Water Bill, and I can tell you, it's really not a big deal. My Water Company charges everyone for Minininum Usage, and I still do not generally ever use enough (even using a Conventional TL) to ever go over that point. I actually should try to find a way to use the unused water I am paying for, in some capacity, but that's for another time. I'm a household of Two, and I pay about $45 a month.
@mattl... I happen to pay my own Water Bill, and I can tell you, it's really not a big deal. My Water Company charges everyone for Minininum Usage, and I still do not generally ever use enough (even using a Conventional TL) to ever go over that point. I actually should try to find a way to use the unused water I am paying for, in some capacity, but that's for another time. I'm a household of Two, and I pay about $45 a month.
washing full loads
I swear, you cannot wash full loads with a cup of water. Who thought of that idea?
I swear, you cannot wash full loads with a cup of water. Who thought of that idea?
Reply # 47
Hi Sean, you post docent make any sense at all, washer energy regulations have NOTHING to do with antitrust regulations or monopolies, LOL
John
Hi Sean, you post docent make any sense at all, washer energy regulations have NOTHING to do with antitrust regulations or monopolies, LOL
John
sudsmaster
Well-known member
GMHW:
So, if you want a hot water wash, just chose the Sanitize cycle.
BFD!
So, if you want a hot water wash, just chose the Sanitize cycle.
BFD!
Washing in a cup of water. Jerome, you are exaggerating with your outrage. There are no washers on the market that wash a full load in 8 ounces of water. Way more than that is needed just to saturate a full load dripping wet, plus enough to fill the tub to trigger the water level pressure switch even to a minimum HE level.
givemehotwater I was responding to gelaundry4ever who is a younger member. I'm a one person household and pay $230 per quarter, so about $70/mo. I've got a new efficient KA DW, replaced all 4 toilets with high quality Toto dual flush toilets and that is my current bill. I have a couple of TL machines that I run a couple times a year to keep them lubricated, and I cringe when I see them fill with water. For some time I was doing a lot of laundry and saw my bill drop by 20-25% when I switched to my Duets. My clothes last much longer and stains that were in various item for years came out with the steam cycles. Wins all the way around, plus I used much less detergent, another win.
We all can get set in our ways and beliefs, but I'm willing to explore other options and in this case I have found ZERO down sides to any of the improvement I've made- and my bank account is much happier. If you don't feel the same -fine- but as water becomes pricier get back to me then.
We all can get set in our ways and beliefs, but I'm willing to explore other options and in this case I have found ZERO down sides to any of the improvement I've made- and my bank account is much happier. If you don't feel the same -fine- but as water becomes pricier get back to me then.
Reply #50
Well, when you take the choice away from what one wants, it IS being a monopoly along with being anticompetitive. My post may not seem like it makes sense to you, but I see everything differently from most people. Taking away choices from what people want IS being monopolistic.
“Washer energy regulations have NOTHING to do with antitrust regulations or monopolies, LOL”.
Again, when you DO NOT let ANYONE have ANY sort of choices in what THEY want, IT IS being a monopoly and being anticompetitive since you are only allowing people one choice or very few choices.
Well, when you take the choice away from what one wants, it IS being a monopoly along with being anticompetitive. My post may not seem like it makes sense to you, but I see everything differently from most people. Taking away choices from what people want IS being monopolistic.
“Washer energy regulations have NOTHING to do with antitrust regulations or monopolies, LOL”.
Again, when you DO NOT let ANYONE have ANY sort of choices in what THEY want, IT IS being a monopoly and being anticompetitive since you are only allowing people one choice or very few choices.
What does the word Monopoly mean?
Apart from the board game...
A monopoly is one company being the only supplier. That is what the word means.
If there are two or more companies supplying the product or service, it is not a monopoly, no matter how similar their products of services.
Words have meanings. You can't just decide to define a word differently to everyone else. The whole point of language is to transfer an idea, thought or information from one person's brain to another person's brain, via the medium of written or spoken words. If everyone defined each word uniquely, then communication would be impossible.
Limited variety of products in the market is unfortunate, undesirable, for sure. But it does not constitute a monopoly.
Manufacturers have been trying to make top loading automatics more competitive in terms of water use and electricity use for decades, but they have had limited success. Front loading washers, and top loading tumble washers, are actually very clever in that they achieve a lot of the desired outcome (soil removed from clothes) with dramatically less water, detergent and electricity than fill-to-the-top top loader washers. The manufacturers have tried reduced water levels; spray-only rinsing; two-stage washing with a low level fill, recirculating concentrated detergent solution pumped over the wash before filling with cold water to complete the wash; and novel ways of agitating in low water levels. They have had disappointing results, with various combinations of poor rinsing, tangling, poor washing, and unreliability. Who knows what new top loading marvel that actually works is just around the corner?
The increasing market share of front loaders, and top loading tumble washers, seems inevitable. It's not just a matter of regulations, as energy prices increase and some regions have increased water shortages, the efficiency (that word again..) of tumble washers becomes more appealing. Setting a minimum efficiency standard puts pressure on manufacturers to lift their game and make something better. This will also have a side-benefit of making US-made machines saleable in export markets again. There is one US-made top loader that gets a lot of love on this website, when tested by Choice it is consistently one of the worst performers, sometimes even featuring in "What Not To Buy" lists. Its sales here are minuscule.
There are some quite efficient top loaders, Fisher and Paykel are a prime example of a really excellent and clever top loading automatic washer. They are lightly constructed, the casing is quite light and "tinny" but they are a very proven design and use clever technology to get a very good result whilst keeping resource use down somewhat. (but still use more water and detergent than a front loader.) They also seem to last for many years, on average.
[this post was last edited: 3/6/2023-04:41]
Apart from the board game...
A monopoly is one company being the only supplier. That is what the word means.
If there are two or more companies supplying the product or service, it is not a monopoly, no matter how similar their products of services.
Words have meanings. You can't just decide to define a word differently to everyone else. The whole point of language is to transfer an idea, thought or information from one person's brain to another person's brain, via the medium of written or spoken words. If everyone defined each word uniquely, then communication would be impossible.
Limited variety of products in the market is unfortunate, undesirable, for sure. But it does not constitute a monopoly.
Manufacturers have been trying to make top loading automatics more competitive in terms of water use and electricity use for decades, but they have had limited success. Front loading washers, and top loading tumble washers, are actually very clever in that they achieve a lot of the desired outcome (soil removed from clothes) with dramatically less water, detergent and electricity than fill-to-the-top top loader washers. The manufacturers have tried reduced water levels; spray-only rinsing; two-stage washing with a low level fill, recirculating concentrated detergent solution pumped over the wash before filling with cold water to complete the wash; and novel ways of agitating in low water levels. They have had disappointing results, with various combinations of poor rinsing, tangling, poor washing, and unreliability. Who knows what new top loading marvel that actually works is just around the corner?
The increasing market share of front loaders, and top loading tumble washers, seems inevitable. It's not just a matter of regulations, as energy prices increase and some regions have increased water shortages, the efficiency (that word again..) of tumble washers becomes more appealing. Setting a minimum efficiency standard puts pressure on manufacturers to lift their game and make something better. This will also have a side-benefit of making US-made machines saleable in export markets again. There is one US-made top loader that gets a lot of love on this website, when tested by Choice it is consistently one of the worst performers, sometimes even featuring in "What Not To Buy" lists. Its sales here are minuscule.
There are some quite efficient top loaders, Fisher and Paykel are a prime example of a really excellent and clever top loading automatic washer. They are lightly constructed, the casing is quite light and "tinny" but they are a very proven design and use clever technology to get a very good result whilst keeping resource use down somewhat. (but still use more water and detergent than a front loader.) They also seem to last for many years, on average.
[this post was last edited: 3/6/2023-04:41]
Well...
You know what I mean. You cannot wash clothes in 6 inches of water!
You know what I mean. You cannot wash clothes in 6 inches of water!
“Limited variety of products in the market in unfortunate, undesirable, for sure. But it does not constitute a monopoly”.
Not a monopoly in the sense that it’s one company making and marketing such products, but a monopoly on choice. Reason why I say there’s a monopoly is all machines are virtually the same these days (yes there’s a few exceptions but referring to mainstream machines), have the same cycles, same options, and overall are similar to one another.
Not a monopoly in the sense that it’s one company making and marketing such products, but a monopoly on choice. Reason why I say there’s a monopoly is all machines are virtually the same these days (yes there’s a few exceptions but referring to mainstream machines), have the same cycles, same options, and overall are similar to one another.
deep water wash
Deep water wash is a joke because you can't wash a big load of clothes. For real!
Deep water wash is a joke because you can't wash a big load of clothes. For real!
Similar threads
