Old Washing Machines Are Less Efficient and Consume More Energy

Automatic Washer - The world's coolest Washing Machines, Dryers and Dishwashers

Help Support AutomaticWasher.org:

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.

 

 

 
 
Water Costs

Where I live in this country we pay the highest water charges in the country, basically because South West Water are an inefficient money grabbing company who,s only interest is profit at any cost..................any way enough of that.

When I installed my water guzzling Hoover 1100 (110 litres for a full cottons wash)

I was suprised after a few months that my water bill was reduced by £5.00 a month.

Even if had gone up I would consider it money well spent.

The only thing I could think is that I was doing less washing overall, the amount of items that came out of Aqaultis with marks etc on them I would just put them back in the wash bin and they would get done again

I remember on a UK TV program about saving stately homes, the presenter walked into the owners kitchen, pointed at his very old Hotpoint machine and stated "That is old and inefficient you should have a modern one" to which he replied "that is over 30 years old, it washes beautifully and is going no where" -)))

I seem to remember that it was Germany that decided we were going to run out of water in the 90s and washing machine water levels plummeted whilst cases of skin complaints and crap cleaning rocketed.

Good old Germany :-)

Right my brain is empty now

Gary
 
Old washing machines clean and rinse better, are better looking, better made, more durable and aren't gimmicky. I would never throw out something that is in perfect working order. That is being wasteful and environmentally unsustainable. Throwing out perfectly okay appliances is also disrespectful to the wonderful people who designed and developed these fantastic, durable, aesthetically valuable and functional items with so much fastidious and loving dedication. How can they even dare to compare their disposable, mass produced, plasticky rubbish to the good stuff? Heathens!

Just look at the Frigidaire 1-18 vid it is laundry poetry in motion. There is not one modern machine that can create that level of synesthesia and euphoria in the laundry room, it is poetry in laundry.

Sorry, not trying to ruffle feathers or anything, but my brain made me write this, I feel so emotional right now and, yes, I have given myself a tick too.
 
smiley-kiss.gif
Since we don't have a kiss emoticon this is meant to symbolize a kiss to the person who gave me the second tick and there is lots more where that came from.
 
Things that make you go "Hmmmmm..."

You can't help but wonder what's really going on. IIRC, laundry is not a significant portion of the average person's total water consumption (direct and indirect combined).

According to the websites below, the "average" urinal uses 150,000 litres/33,000 gallons of water per year. Assuming that figure is accurate, how many households would have to switch from TL's to FL's in order to save that much water in one year? What would the total cost be? Where would the break-even point be? How does that compare to the costs of switching ONE urinal?

Am I missing something or does something here not add up?

http://watersolution.com/benefits.php

http://waterlesscartridges.com/
 
I'd have to agree with Warmsecondrinse; there are far more wasteful activities we *ought* to be targeting before chasing clothes washing. As the saying goes, its like plugging a little pinhole leak in a dyke where there is a gaping hole further along! 

 

(This also circles back to the thread on the EU and vacuum cleaners; Again, we still have industry using copious amounts of water, electricity and gas - but we're targeting microscopic percentages of this total use in the home world. We can go further and say, its all well and good to have manufacturing plants powered by solar and wind, but if we can avoid having to MANUFACTURE stuff in the first place, we can save more. Since when were "durable goods" not something that lasted 15, 20, 25 or more years?)

 

Thanks Rapunzel for your thoughts above. I gave you a checkmark. 

I do not believe in chucking stuff because its still good, and is just "old fashioned." Of course, thats initially it was possible to produce long-lived appliances. I know people who buy new DINING sets, "Oh, that tables lasted 10 years. I got my money's worth, so I'm getting a new one." Its why I've got several computers, doing something within their niche. I mean, sure, they don't have the latest and greatest Windoze, but they still work great for what I need - which is reading forums and LEARNING (about anything, really). 
 
I would never begrudge anyone their vintage appliances, regardless of energy/water usage. That is a matter of personal preference. Were it not for everyone who lovingly collects and restores vintage machines we appliance enthusiasts wouldn't have AW's library of wonderful photos/videos of machines from the past.

For some, though, like me, it makes more sense to own new appliances. And like the vintage collectors here, it's fun to acquire different appliances---in my case, often well before the end of the natural lifespan of its predecessor. My solution to that dilemma is to give the used appliances to people who need them. It keeps them out of the scrap heap and makes the recipients very happy. In turn, I get a nice, shiny, new, feature-laden appliance and do my part to feed the beast that is the U.S. economy. Everyone wins.
 
I agree with much that has been said

Like Gary electron1100 I also have a 36year old hoover 1100, which I've used for the last 16 years, with only a few minor repairs. As for the performance dropping, I can't see how, the machine is clean inside and out with no mould or scum build up anywhere ( this was proved when i had the tub out), the drum speeds, water temperature and levels are still as they always were, so how can wash performance have fallen as the article says.

On the financial side of the argument, yes if I needed to buy a new machine it would be worth buying highly eco machine, but when i've got a machine that only costs at most 20p in electric, as others have said working out the cost of the new one with the number of loads to break even, would the eco washer ever pay back before it was at the end of its life.

If you want to go eco on me, the machine is completely made of metal with only the electrical insulating parts of the switches/timer, hoses and detergent dispenser made from plastic,so easily recylclable plus the whole machine has only travelled 24 miles from the factory. Something no replacement machine can say.

Also from an indulgence point of view, I love the machine and even if the cost of using it trebled I would still use it and enjoy it. I walk to work, we use very little heating, I don't drive a lot of miles and I don't have a pass port. where as many middle classes have eco everything, then jet off on mini breaks several weekends a year.

So the arguments can be made but in the end, yes modern machines are more efficient, but I won't be down grading to a new washing machine anytime soon.

keymatic3203++9-9-2015-13-04-52.jpg
 
I've also

thought over the years if we were to all be inspected to ensure we have eco appliances, then I would say that's ok, if I can't keep my old machine then I just won't have one, I'll wash by hand.

I suppose the `I won't be told what I can use' attitude is basically saying that probably even the most inefficient machine would use less resources than washing by hand in a sink or tub, I'm thinking how much you could wash in one go and how much hot water, detergent and rinsing water you would use to wash the equivalent of a full load in a machine.

Just a thought.

Mathew
 
Jetcone, I'm a little late replying, but I thought I should clarify...

> So your GE uses 47 gallons per wash and its an HE machine?

Actually no, it was a conventional top loading machine. Also, that was total water usage with one wash and one rinse with additional spray rinses.

> And the Huebsch (I'm guessing is identical to my SQ FL uses 22 gallons per wash??

Yeah, I watched the water metre and that's what it said it used. (Nothing else in the house which uses water was being used at the time.)

Although, keep in mind, I've also modified the settings on the pressure switch, so it uses more water. When I adjusted it, I made sure that the water only went up to the rim of the inner tub, completely covering the baffle. Stock, it went only halfway up the baffle.

I wonder though, how are you measuring the water usage of your machine?

Well, even if I had adjusted it to use an extra 40 Litres of water per cycle, all I can say is that its rinsing performance has dramatically improved ever since I made the change, I rarely ever have to use the extra rinse switch now. :-)
 
Stepping back a bit, regarding the OP's original topic...

So, we've kind of established that the cost savings between an older water hogging non-HE machine and a modern HE machine are somewhat negligible. Basically, the difference is the cost of a fast food meal per year, if that.

Now I have to ask, was the process of manufacturing older machines more environmentally unfriendly than the process of manufacturing new machines? We've already established that older machines used considerably more steel, but on the downside, modern machines use considerably more plastic and contain electronics which contain things like lead, arsenic, etc.

I guess more to the point, would everyone agree that the process of replacing a broken down modern machine with another modern machine is considerably more environmentally unfriendly than any resource which that modern machine would use over its lifespan?

If so, doesn't it kind of drive home the point that studies like this are somewhat pointless? The study should focus on machine longevity rather than efficency!
 
I totally agree with the study that older European FL machines did not clean as thoroughly as new (2005) ones while wasting lots of water, energy and in some cases even detergent.

But does it justify to replace a good working machine with some cheap disposable piece of s**t ? I don`t think so !

"This may be due to
the fact that in older washing machines
there is nothing to prevent sump
losses of detergent. Accordingly, large
proportions of the detergent probably
go unused"

While there isn`t much one could do to reduce water and energy consumption of an old washer, there are work arounds for detergent loss. Just use a dosing ball or in case of powder let the washer fill for a few seconds first, then turn it off, add powder to detergent drawer, then resume. That dosing net thing which came with Ariel Futur also made perfect sense back in the days when only few people had the luxury of a system to prevent detergent loss in their new washers.

I also miss a comparison of rinsing performance in the study. While many of the old water hogs did not really shine in the rinsing department because of lack of interim spins and if they did spin there was still no electronics to handle sudslocks. But despite of that I have a feeling that they did a better job at rinsing than today`s washers.
 
Qualin, You did not factor in the energy used to heat the water which is a huge cost for some and which would have been far greater with the GE than your FL.

Jon, you did not factor in the amount of water used to saturate the load in your 12 gallon figure. With heavy fabrics or a large load, it can add up to Qualin's figure.

Detergent lost down the sump: Excellent point with older designs. Even in my Mieles with the ball cock thing, I do not add detergent until the machine has filled a bit. The SQ fills a bit into the outer tub before it starts filling through the dispenser to flush the detergent. I do not use the dispenser in the Creda Supa Speed 1000 because I would imagine that it is the type of machine that would send detergent right into the drain hose during the first part of the fill, much as I like the machine.

Certain solid tub time fill machines would fill long enough for the wash in some situations to overflow the tub, sending clean hot water down the drain.
 
Detergent Losses

I think newer machines do have some technology to alleviate such an issue. 

 

For example, our Miele first flushes the glass door with the spray nozzle, before dispensing first the Pre-Wash, then proceeding to the Main-Wash dispenser (on a typical cycle with no prewash added). 

 

A similar thing often happens to start the rinses on cycles with less than exhilarating spin portions; the sprtiz down the door helps to flush suds straight to the pump, so they aren't caught up as much in the rinse. 
 
Detergent loss

The only time I have seen such an issue is with very old (1960s) machines where the water inlet for the tub is almost at the bottom of the tub only inches away from the outlet, under these circumstances I can see that powders etc could be flushed into the outlet, but even if this happens the water which will be mixed with detergent sitting in the outlet will get drawn back into the water in the tub by the action of the drum turning, so maybe the losses are not as bad as made out remember these claims are made to boost sales.

But on later machines where the inlet to the tub is at about 10/11 oclock on the tub I don't see this as an issue as the water goes into the drum at that angle.

I have never seen a which report on any old machine that says the rinsing was poor or fair most of them all get good ratings for rinsing (uk models)

I see most modern innovations as just fine tuning and not the great innovation they claim to be.

The middle classes are the worst of all in this country, 4x4s with bike racks on the back for the second country home, top brand goods bairly used to there maximum capacity..............the list goes on.

Like Mathew I would choose an old machine over a new one any time, the other makes of the time Hotpoint, Servis, Zanussi all were broadly the same performance aswell

Gary
 
Tom,

You said,

>You did not factor in the energy used to heat the water which is a huge cost for some and which would have been far greater with the GE than your FL.

While I'm certainly in agreement in regards to this, I deliberately left it out, only because I thought that the difference was somewhat negligable.

Even so, you have me thinking now.. Forgive me if my math is out...

My water heater holds 151.4 Litres. Using the formula,
Q = mass x specific heat x delta T

With delta T being 55 degrees C (Input water being 5 C and output water being heated to 60 C) and the specific heat is 4.186 Joules/gram...

For the metric impaired, 1 Litre of water = 1 Kilogram. :-)

Thereby, 151,400 g x 4.186 J x 55 C = 34,856,822 Joules.

Natural gas in my area right now is $3.69 per Gigajoule including fees.

Now, if I then assume that the gas burner on my water heater is 85 percent efficent, it would take about 41,008,025 Joules to heat that water.

If I were to completely drain the tank and refill it with cold water and then heat it, I figure it would cost about $0.15 in natural gas to heat the entire tank up to 60 C or about 140 F. (That's easier than figuring out a percentage.)

Thereby, my GE top loader, had I used a hot water cycle, would cost about 9 cents in Natural gas, while the Huebsch would cost 3 cents instead, a savings of 6 cents.

So, even over 50 loads in a year, the cost of the extra hot water a Non-HE top loader would use over a HE front loader would be pretty close to $3.00.

So, the total savings is $16 instead of $13 per year. :-)

The conversion is easy in this case because I'm using natural gas, but I'm wondering how much more expensive electric water heaters would cost to heat the water.

I'm thinking.. 1 kWh = 3,600,000 Joules.. stepping back, with 85 percent efficency (I'm just pulling a number out of my rear end on this) is 11.391 kWh.

Where I live, 1 kWh is $0.089, so thereby heating an entire tank of the same water with electricity instead of natural gas would cost $1.01 instead of $0.15.

So, using the same machines, a hot water load costs $0.60 to heat, while in the Huebsch it would cost $0.18 .. a cost savings of 42 cents per load. For 50 loads in a year, the cost savings would be a much more considerable $21.00 instead of $3.00.

So, instead the total savings add up to $34.00 a year, which is more considerable, but still sounds like a small amount to me. That's about $2.83/mo.

Does this math sound right? Am I missing something here?
 
water bill savings for me

Well my combined water/sewer bill went down about 50 every 3 months so for me its a pretty good savings and I use about 1200 cf of water vs 1400 before the upgrade. I'll probably upgrade to dual flush 1/1.2 gallon toilets from the builder grade pro flo 1.6 ones the house came with too. The newer ones work well now and don't plug if you get a well designed one with good reviews.
I paid less then 600 for my Kenmore 28102 he washer so not that bad, got a 50 energy saving rebate too.
We'll see how long it holds up but I expect servicing and parts not to be much worse then the old direct drive washer was.
 
I have a device that measures

actual fills on hot and cold water that figure I quoted was for a 4.5 gallon fill after I tweaked the SQ water level switch. Because you have to consider newer machines don't use 100% hot water anymore- hot is an energy efficient combination of hot supply + cold supply. Thats why I bought two devices.

 

It does 1 wash and 2 rinses for a total of 13.5 gallons after I tweaked it to fill just above the lip of the rubber boot.

 

 
 
That's pretty darned good for a old school style SQ. Mine probably uses about that depending on what wash mode its in but my old direct drive Whirlpool used about 50 gallons for a large everything load so happy with my new machine as it also cleans better and is quiet.
 
Jetcone:

I think I know where the discrepency is between what you see and what I see.

I was washing a large load of cottons in my Huebsch and watched the water metre out of curiousity, that's how I came up with that number. I remembered it and used it as a worst case scenario.

So, running on an empty load, I suspect I'd probably be closer to your numbers.

Sorry to geek out everyone, I was pretty curious.

If anything, where I noticed the biggest cost savings wasn't with the replacement of my non-HE top loader with a front loader, but rather switching from an electric to a gas dryer. My utilities bill dropped by nearly 30 percent!

Which then lends the question, what is more efficent, a drying cabinet or a conventional tumble clothes dryer? (See link below)

http://staberdryingcabinets.com/
 
Previous to my last post, actually what I had meant to say is, how much more efficent are drying cabinets compared to regular tumble clothes dryers?
 
I think the most efficient

are drying racks. My mom had drying racks for many years before getting a dryer and I remember the only differences were under the drying rack you had to add two days before you could wear something again and somethings like jeans were crusty so you have to bash them before you put them on. Getting the 1961 GE Clothes Conditioner I first noticed how soft and pliable everything was coming out of it.

But we never had shrinkage problems with the rack either. The conditioner was hot dryer and we had quite the learning curve. 
 
Random related tidbits, all IIRC so please correct me if I'm wrong:

1. Most of the energy (not water) savings of HE and FL machines actually occurs IN THE DRYER as a result of the washers higher spin speeds. There's a thread here somewhere showing:

X increase in spin RPM ---> Y decrease in moisture content ---> Z decrease in joules required to dry

Formulae are given as are the assumptions made for the laundry equivalent of STP.

2. If the dryer is vented, the outside air drawn in to replace it must be heated/cooled. The cost of doing so varies widely depending on location, season, and method of heating/cooling. This is where a condenser dryer has an advantage. There's a thread on that as well.

3. I assume the drying cabinets are not vented. Therefore one is essentially running a 1500 watt electric heater/humidifier in one's home when the cabinet is in use. If this 5120 btuh would be produced anyway, this would be an energy savings. If not, then the cost of running a/c to compensate would be part of the operating cost of the cabinet. Granted this cost could be much lower than running a tumble dryer, but it's still there. I suspect this is why drying cabinets are/were so popular in northern Europe.

4. $1800+$tax+$delivery= a LOT of heating and/or air-conditioning so I suspect the break even point is rather far in the future.

Perhaps one of the many math guru's here can explain all this better than I can?

Jetcone has a good point. Drying racks/line drying is often the most efficient, especially if you already have the major components of a drying rack. For example
-hang clothes over a radiator
-hang clothes in a basement in which there's an old fashioned boiler throwing off a lot of 'waste' heat
-use an HEATED drying rack (see link) to speed dry times.

I plan to buy a unit in the building where I'm presently renting. My most likely set up will be a condenser dryer and 1 or 2 fold-up heated drying racks. I have a dehumidifier running much of the time anyway so that'd speed drying time even more.

Qualin, have I answered your questions?

Ok guys, have I missed anything major? Please jump in.

Jim


http://www.ebay.com/itm/The-Foldawa...s-3-Shelves-/161820091087?hash=item25ad3aa2cf
 
warmsecondrinse wrote:
"X increase in spin RPM ---> Y decrease in moisture content ---> Z decrease in joules required to dry "

You need to also factor-in the diameter of the tub/drum to get the actual G-force, and how well the clothes are distributed around it, to figure out how well the water is being extracted from the clothes. Spin RPM is only part of the story.

That said, a vintage Maytag with it's spin-drain and 3 full minutes at 618 RPM does a pretty darn good job of extraction.

Of course this all matters little if you hang your clothes to dry them. That would save more energy than any fancy new washing machine.
 
Agreed, there are a whole bunch of other factors.

IIRC, the guy who worked out the math went into that and explained exactly how he got those numbers. He assumed a given tub size, etc. and spelled it all out. However, if I understood him correctly, the curve was very similar for most machines, meaning a spin speed increase of 100 rpm would reduce the moisture content by about the same factor in most machines.

How to apply? Again, IIRC ... weigh your clothes before washing and after to determine the amount of water remaining. Plug that number into the equation and you could figure out how much more water you'd get rid of by using a machine with a given higher spin speed.

Am I making sense? I'd look for the link myself but I can't remember enough to do a proper search. Maybe someone here remembers?

Jim
 
I did the math (right?) once and the drum diameter is a very minor parameter WRT velocity, to the point it can be disregarded within the range of practical diameters. E.g., a 3-foot tub @ 800rpm is roughly half as effective as a 1-foot twintub spinner at 1300rpm. That is, 3 times the diameter performs half as well as half the speed.
 

Similar threads

launderess
Evolution of H-Axis Washing Machines From Semi to Fully Automatic
2 3
Replies
76
Views
5K
launderess
launderess
W
The washing machine that doesn’t want to quit, aka Frigidaire FWX833AS1
Replies
2
Views
619
ryner1988
ryner1988
D
Old Bendix washing machine
Replies
0
Views
57
dbn72750
D
R
Add water level control to 2020 Speed Queen commercial washing machine
Replies
2
Views
212
rmbnct_rckhnd
R
Chetlaham
Most Maddening Washer Commerical
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
1K
gelaundry4ever
G

Latest posts

Back
Top