Old Washing Machines Are Less Efficient and Consume More Energy

[launderess]

Interesting thesis out of Germany regarding older washing machines.

http://www.landtechnik-alt.uni-bonn.de/ifl_research/ht_7/huw3_2005124_131_oldwm.pdf

 

[frigilux]

Team Launderess sets up her spot for a leisurely afternoon at the beach.

[this post was last edited: 9/3/2015-07:27]

 

[iej]

Of course they do as European shoppers pick machines by efficiency and that's how they've been marketed for nearly 25 years at this stage.

You're always looking for triple A rated performance - wash, spin, energy.

The A rating is also a sliding scale that moves with technology development so, as machines become more efficient the bar is moved higher and higher.

So, basically the A+++ ratings are being determined by the latest high end machines and everything else follows.

Before that system came into existence, there were no such ratings and people wouldn't even have been aware of energy consumption or water consumption, unless a manufacturer made it a unique selling point like the old Zanussi Jet System range in the 1980s

 

[tomturbomatic]

I can see that in the older Miele machines, and other brands, that gave several rinses after the wash before any spins. WHICH used to rate machines on rinsing and in the 60s and 70s, none got a higher score than fair.

 

[2packs4sure]

Anyone factored in the billions of dollars wasted ?????????

I wonder if anyone has ever factored in the billions of dollars wasted by consumers buying those thousand dollar front loaders from the 2000 - 2010 era that lasted 5 or 6 years with many breakdowns in between only to junked in year 7 and then buying another $1000.00 front loader.

 

[realvanman]

Yes, or the Energy and other resources wasted

Constantly scrapping those machines and building new ones.

*Recycling*, while better than the landfill, is a very wasteful process.

Keith

 

[2packs4sure]

Yes, or the Energy and other resources wasted

Also the fuel costs in transporting those beasts with their cement balancing weights.
More fuel used to ship new, then haul off to the junkyard, not to mention the sprained backs of the fools trying to install and position those things.

 

[kb0nes]

Just skimmed the article a bit so far, I intend to read it in depth. I have a hunch that there will be a lot of negative comments here posted by people that didn't fully read and comprehend the article.

What say we give these three authors the benefit of the doubt before we bash the study?

 

[realvanman]

Ours is a Special Group

So naturally we are going to be extra defensive about our beloved vintage machines

We are unusual in as much as we see and appreciate the quality in both design and execution of most things of the past. While most will holler the mantra of "dated", we appreciate things that last, and that look good, and even feel good. One can feel the difference in quality between today's flimsy plastic and yesteryear's quality, merely by handling the machines, and their controls. Heck, one can see the difference before they even touch lol.

What I'm saying is only that we're biased (or informed?) in ways that the majority are not, and so some nitpicking from us is to be expected I don't have children, so I probably save some resources just by using my old machines less? I don't know, some of those modern front loaders are admittedly VERY efficient.

Still, it's an interesting article. I too have only skimmed it so far, but do look forward to reading it in it's entirety.

Keith

 

[bradross]

Hear, hear, Keith!

Keith, you've made some great points! I cannot STAND front loaders - I don't think they get laundry anywhere near as clean as a good toploader - or furthermore - an old wringer washer! I think you need a significant amount of water to really clean clothes, and using a wringer - or a top loader with suds-saver feature - is not wasteful of water.

I got back recently from England, where front loaders are the norm, and in 3 weeks, never felt that I was getting clean laundry. Additionally, I don't think they rinse efficiently, PLUS they take so long to complete a cycle.

That's my "two cents" worth!

 

[iej]

Rinsing is primarily about forcing clean water through the clothes and removing it.

Multiple saturate and spin cycles are probably a lot more effective than just a big deep rinse.

Front loaders definitely get the clothes very clean. It's scientifically proven. The rinsing issue can depend on cycle and option selections though too.

 

[realvanman]

My Mom has a Front Loader

That's why I have her nice '80's Whirlpool

I don't *feel* like her front loader gets clothes very clean, but admit that, of course, *feel* is very unscientific She likes it, so that's what matters.

I do like the rippin' fast spin speed it can do. The clothes come out damn near dry lol.

But I too do not like how LONG it takes to run a cycle.

And, her machine in particular (LG, I believe), draws the water in little bursts, a practice which her flash water heater does not agree with lol.

Keith

 

[philr]

I would like to see tests done here in North America with old front and top-loaders and also test of new washing machines (top and front loaders)  with old detergents, and the same done with new detergents!

 

Not that I care that much (or at all!) about efficiency.

 

In fact, I'd like if some scientific tests were done on the entertainment factor and consumer appreciation of vintage vs new appliances. I don't care much about how clean my clothes are, I want a machine that is fun to touch, fun to operate, fun to look at and fun to watch (or even to listen to!)!

I hope a few others think like me, at least here!

 

;-)

 

[turquoisedude]

Uh-Oh, sounds like I should be formalizing the results from those 'Totally Unscientific Laundry Tests' from now on... LOL 

 

 

 

[launderess]

To be fair

Paper was released over ten years ago (2005) and much as changed since.

Study covered washers from IIRC the 1980's and perhaps earlier (cannot recall atm), much has changed since 2005 including various mandates about energy use affecting appliances sold in Germany.

Also IIRC the paper does account for the particular habits/traits of Germans; they are shall we say thrifty and often demand value for money. In short want something that will give service and usually hold onto it until the thing cannot be repaired.

Love both my older Miele 1070 and more modern Oko-Lavamat 88840; but would have to say in terms of overall performance the latter comes out slightly ahead.

In terms of rinsing the Miele only has one short pulse spin after three rinses with the only full spin taking place between the fourth and fifth rinse. OTOH the Lavamat spins after each of the rinse cycles. It has been known going back to the days of mangles/wringers that laundry comes out cleaner if water is extracted after the main wash and between each rinse.

That being said the Lavamat like many modern machines will do at least two deep rinses before spinning if "Sensitive" or "Fine" rinsing is selected; just as with the older machines.

Have always assumed one reason older European washers didn't spin after the first few rinses was both to cool down laundry after a hot to boiling wash. That and to prevent suds locking by diluting out as much detergent/soap from the wash before it was spun.

In terms of overall water use European H-axis washing machines for both commercial and domestic had long been decreasing water use during wash cycles. This came about as it was found wash results were better as concentrated soap/detergent and water solution being forced though the wash gave better cleaning than it swirling in a tub of water. You want high water levels for rinsing

 

[wayupnorth]

Thanks, but my nearly 33 year old Maytag uses 40 gallons for an ex-large load and everything still comes out perfectly clean. Sometimes I think its better to keep what you have as long as it works just fine. I am not doing several daily loads in it, so it works for me.

 

[abcomatic]

BRAD

I agree with you 100%! You have to use WATER to clean clothes and washing in our wringer machines is a way to save water and get CLEAN clothes. That's my 2 cents worth too.

 

[launderess]

Adding to my above post.

Modern European front loaders now often have sensors that can tell the machine when the laundry temperature is "hot" and perhaps cool it down via rinses before spinning. That or one can select from various options to cool down the wash water such as the addition of cold water before draining. This once was standard but now is a feature often turned off by default but can be reactivated via programming.

As for suds lock modern washers with fully electronically controlled motors can easily deal with too much froth/water whereas older machines may have had problems.

My Miele will simply stop spinning if the pump/sump is overwhelmed but keep the pump running to get rid of things. Once that period has passed the machine is given the all clear to begin spinning again. If too much froth still remains the process is repeated. However should the timer "time out" of that spin portion; tant pis, the machine will now enter rinsing regardless.

Now the AEG will slow the spinning down and or stop while continuing pumping in response to suds lock. More importantly it seems to hold the timer so spinning will continue on full cycle once conditions are right.

 

[electron1100]

Propaganda

Just sounds like propaganda to me, probably financed by a large corporation in the back ground.

But as I refuse to be guilted into an "eco" lifestyle I will carry on with my 34 year old machine, I want clean clothes at the end of the day

I have said it before I will say it again, none of the Three modern "eco" washers I had (Hoover, Bosch, Hotpoint) can touch my old Hoover 1100 with its high water levels on wash and rinse for cleaning or rinsing, and come to think of it the Hotpoint with its constant spinning of clothes to get the suds out used to crease them far more.

Gary

 

[e2l-arry]

Your time is also worth something!

If I do 5 loads in my front loader it would take 4.25 hours. I can do the same 5 loads in 1 hour in my Maytag wringer. Physically it's much more work but time has got to be worth something. And I do think I get a cleaner wash in the wringer. That thing has just one speed: CLEAN!

 

[gregingotham]

frigidaire jet spray rinse

I've noticed with my 1-18 that the tub can be full of suds on the wash, and after the first spin spray rinse the water in the rinse is clear. No need for a second, third or however many rinses some of these machines use and the cycles is done in 30 minutes or less. I'd say that's pretty efficient and also produces clean clothes. Something I can't say for many high efficiency machines. They may look clean, but over time you'll notice a dingy, discolored looked. My two cents.

 

[philr]

About the 1-18, they seem to work better than most vintage top-loaders with lower water levels. They still use more water than in a front loader or today's HE top-loaders but they seem quite efficient for 1970s machines. And the loooooong spray rinses are also using some water but clothes need to be rinsed and it's certainly no worse than any overflow rinse!

 

And for the entertainment factor, I have a lot more fun when I'm using one of these machines than when I'm cleaning the swimming pool (which I hate and rarely do!), and cleaning the pool with the filter on "drain" uses a lot more water than a washer! The pool's filter also uses a lot more energy than the washer does!

 

Here's the entertainment machine!

;-)

 

[pierreandreply4]

me i grew up with vintage washer in my family an inglis superb washer year from my birth so would estimate 1972 since it was a dial skirt model and it was a very good washer not a waste of energy and was very efficiant ps the washer is not viewed in this pic but look at the dryer it was the matching dryer to the washer that you can see a glimps on the right

 

[tomturbomatic]

If the Miele W1986 can't balance or has too much froth when it tries to spin after the wash, the time remaining changes from 38 to 45 and the machine adds an extra rinse easy peasy. It goes into a high speed spin after the wash, no matter the temperature and after each rinse on the cottons cycle to give excellent extraction without which you cannot have the most efficient rinsing.

 

[warmsecondrinse]

FL every 7 years vs. TL once every 20

At the risk of playing Freud, I wonder if some members of aw.org (and I include myself)are less pissed off because actual machine performance and MORE pissed off because the costs incurred and resources consumed as a result of the TL's the shorter life span are not 'counted' as consumed by the FL's when in fact, they are consumed.

This reminds me of an argument I had with my sister a number of years ago: If gas, oil, etc. to drive to my parents' house for the weekend is $50 round trip AND I give up a $200 freelance job I could've taken that weekend, the cost of my trip is $250, not $50. She insisted the $250 figure was 'mine' and was a result of how I 'looked at' the situation. To be fair, I did hear her make a comment recently to suggest that now understands that the $250 cost was never 'mine' nor did I ever do any of the 'looking' she stated I had.

Jim

 

[jetcone]

Interesting article and comments here

Interesting the German's on the whole load the machine to 75% capacity not 100%. There is some waste there.

Also the authors overlook the energy of production for 1980' machines versus todays machines. It could be wildly different then again it might not. But if you are still using a 1980 machine today there has to be some accountability for the production energy saved over those 30 years versus the production energy used to create the odd 4 machines you might have purchased every 7 years. Purchased due to early failure of later technology machines which is a real factor. These new machines are not as durable. That is something that should be looked at. 

We know from Car magazines driving a car into the dust is the cheapest way to drive a car, trading in every 5 years is not.

I believe water consumption has improved; and in the new machines I have; stain removal has improved because today's He machines work more like your dishwasher than your mom's washer did. 

But when it comes to removing oily soils and rinsing - hold your horses!! New machines can fail drastically in that department. And I'm not so sure its the users fault here , you really have to get your head inside the egineering of the new machines to get the maximum benefit of the way they wash; and as we ALL know too well  the majority of laundry-meisters out there don't even know the brand of machine sitting in there basements right now!

 

 

 

[dartman]

I like old stuff but couldn't afford the water bill

I bought a HE top loader becuase I like top loaders, it's made by whirlpool, and our water rates here are stupid high so anything I can do to drop the bill helps my bottom line. My old Whirlpool Direct drive super capacity washer was real easy to fix and did a fine job on the clothes though it was extremely noisy and used a TON of water per load.
I probably would still be using and fixing it if it wasn't for the 300 buck combined sewer/water bills we were getting every three months.
New machine is very quiet, clothes come out very clean, and it's huge capacity compared to the old one so can do more clothes per load which also helps.
Doubt it will last as long as my old tank but I did have to replace the pump 2 times, the coupler once, and the agitator dogs, and it needed a new door switch I bypassed when I finally sold it off.
All the parts were cheap though and it was pretty easy to service, just a hassle having to pull it apart to deal with it in a small space.
Our old house the water bill was just over 30 bucks for two months use so if I was there the old dog would still be in service till unfixable. At least a semi pro apliance guy bought it from me cheap to rebuild and sell again so I'm sure it lives on cheaply and happily some where else not concerened by water usage.

 

[qualin]

Math...

Doing some math...

Water where I live is $1.7175 per 1 m3 (1000 Litres) of water.
My 2004 GE TL used 180L of water per load, my Huebsch uses 83L of water per load.
Thereby the cost of water per load is $0.309 and $0.143 respectively.

A box of Tide 60-load 2.3 kg laundry detergent is $11.39. Assuming I only need to use half the amount of soap as the old HE, the cost of soap per load is $0.189 and $0.095 respectively.

I won't count Fabric softener since I rarely use it. Nor will I count the cost of heating water because who knows what it actually costs anyway.

Let's assume that I do 50 loads of laundry in a year. Almost once per week, not counting Christmas and New Years.. The cost of doing that laundry is $24.90 per year with the GE and $11.90 with the Huebsch.

Thereby, we can say that for every 50 loads of laundry, I save $13 in water and supplies.

Over the span of 20 years worth of use, it really doesn't add up to a lot, does it? The savings over that time works out to about $260.

So, realistically, even if machines have become more efficent, how much have we really saved? Am I missing something here?

 

[arbilab]

Save a cheeseburger lunch for two with onion-ring upgrade, per year. In a (typical) machine that becomes landfill in 5 years instead of 15 or well more using 'actual' water. Who do these eco-knotzies think they're fooling?

There's a point at which squeezing the lime harder into your iced tea just makes your knuckles sore and doesn't make the tea taste any different.

 

[jetcone]

Let get this STR8

Your GE TL : 

"My 2004 GE TL used 180L of water per load, my Huebsch uses 83L of water per load. "

 

So your GE uses 47 gallons per wash and its an HE machine? And the Huebsch (I'm guessing is identical to my SQ FL uses 22 gallons per wash??

 

MY SQ on wash + 2 rinses uses 4 gallons each fill for a total use of 12 gallons per wash.

 

Something is out of whack and I can't see it.