Front loading washers: Do they really save energy?

[Sly]

I was just at Home Depot looking at washing machines, I was just going to get a cheap $300 one for the time being but the lady started talking to me about the more expensive front loading ones. The cheapest was about $800, but apparently the city has some special program where they give you $175, plus I get free delivery, installation, and take-away service, plus a $50 gift card. So all in all, after taxes, parts and such I'm still looking at about $700 for something I only wanted to spend about $450-500 on.

But, I'm told this thing uses like half the water a standard washer does, plus its a little larger than a standard washer so it would probably cut into the loads. I don't know if it would use less gas/electric or not.

Do these really save energy? Is it worth talking about? I was planning on getting something nice in a couple years, but this city rebate is a pretty nice deal to get in on.

Any input?

[Screaming]

You just got upsold.

Enjoy your new clickcash membership.

Scan for zango.

[BV]

Traditional top-loaders. These fill the tub with water, then agitate the clothing. They use more water than other types of washers, and thus consume more energy to heat the hot water. They also extract less water from laundry during the spin cycle, which results in longer drying time and higher energy costs. Because they need to move the laundry around to ensure thorough cleaning, these machines hold about 12 to 16 pounds, which is less than large front-loaders and top-loaders without agitators in the center of the tub.

On the plus side, they make it easier to load laundry and to add items mid-cycle. You can also soak laundry easily. This type of machine has the shortest cycle times and is the only one that gives the best results with regular detergent. They also cost the least overall. But most top-loaders are noisier than front-loaders, and there's a risk of loads getting unbalanced. Price range: $300 to $650.

High-efficiency top-loaders. These newer designs incorporate wash plates, discs that lift and tumble laundry, and other replacements for the traditional agitator. Washing performance is usually better than with regular top-loaders, and capacity is generally greater as well. These top-loaders work somewhat like front-loaders, filling partially with water and spinning at very high speeds. Most are more efficient with water and energy than regular top-loaders, but the high spin speeds that reduce drying time (and energy consumption) can make clothing more tangled and wrinkled. These machines work best with low-foaming, high-efficiency detergent. What's more, they aren't cheap. Price range: $800 to $1,200.

Front-loaders. Front-loaders get clothes clean by tumbling them in the water. Clothes are lifted to the top of the tub, then dropped into the water below. They fill only partially with water and then spin at high speed to extract it, which makes them more efficient with water and energy than regular top-loaders. Most handle between 12 and 20 pounds of laundry. Like high-efficiency top-loaders, front-loaders wash best with low-sudsing detergent. But the best still outperformed the best high-efficiency top-loaders overall. Many front-loaders can be stacked with a dryer to save floor space. Price range: $700 to $1,600.

http://www.mysimon.com/Consumer-Repo...5-5077622.html

[StarkReality]

The more expensive ones often save alot of energy/water, and keep in mind they last longer as well.

From my experience, a quality washer saves you alot over time, especially if you have a family and wash almost every day.

[TSGlider]

We picked up a front-loader about a year ago. Haven't noticed much of a difference in energy cost or water usage.

[Sly]

I just called my dad who has one and he said the front loaders are great. Extremely quiet, use much less water and energy, and even use less soap.

This city rebate is almost too good to pass up on. I'm getting a green thumb.

[Jace]

they use half the water BUT load more? wouldn't that be using the same amount of water?

I only have so many clothes in each load, so I am using the same amount of clothes whether I have a huge washer or small one

[GatorB]

While you're at it don't foget to switch to compact flourecent bulbs. Saves energy and money. Nice stopgap until LED bulbs become the norm in 5-10 years.

[Sly]

While you're at it don't foget to switch to compact flourecent bulbs. Saves energy and money. Nice stopgap until LED bulbs become the norm in 5-10 years.

Yep, already did that. Need to get more though. Little bastards are damn bright too.

I know I could save a lot on my electric bill if I could get the rental agency to put insulation in the attic. Fat chance of that happening.

[aico]

Yep, already did that. Need to get more though. Little bastards are damn bright too.

I know I could save a lot on my electric bill if I could get the rental agency to put insulation in the attic. Fat chance of that happening.

no fucking shit I switched mine out and it's way too fucking bright, I unscrewed about 1/2 of them. Maybe that's where the energy saving comes in.

[Sly]

no fucking shit I switched mine out and it's way too fucking bright, I unscrewed about 1/2 of them. Maybe that's where the energy saving comes in.

My bathroom vanity has 4 sockets. I went down to 2 because it was just way too bright every morning. These things use a quarter of the watts too, its crazy. The energy department should setup some bulb trade day or something, heh. Seriously, its crazy, they only cost 50 cents a piece at Costco for the generic ones too.

[nekrom]

Yuppers. Front loaders are quieter, use less power, water and I rekon even clean better because they're not agitating like a toploader.

-N

[GatorB]

My bathroom vanity has 4 sockets. I went down to 2 because it was just way too bright every morning. These things use a quarter of the watts too, its crazy. The energy department should setup some bulb trade day or something, heh. Seriously, its crazy, they only cost 50 cents a piece at Costco for the generic ones too.

Each bulb saves about $40-$50 over the lifetime of the bulb.

LED lights use 1/3 the electricity of compact fluorescent bulbs. They also last 100,000 hours. It'll be a few years before they'll be ready for home use.

[notabook]

The energy department should setup some bulb trade day or something, heh.

ROFL.. like they would do that. Look how much money they would lose!

[Sly]

ROFL.. like they would do that. Look how much money they would lose!

The ENERGY DEPARTMENT. As far as I know, the Department of Energy receives most, if not all revenues from taxes/Congress.

I'm sure you're talking about the energy company/provider I purchase energy from. Its quite common for energy companies to have swap programs like that. My refrigerator was free from my energy company, got it about 3 years ago, they gave out thousands. They gave out bulbs, too.

[Ace_luffy]

thanks for the info...

[BV]

Sly is on top of his game!

[Superterrorizer]

My bathroom vanity has 4 sockets. I went down to 2 because it was just way too bright every morning. These things use a quarter of the watts too, its crazy. The energy department should setup some bulb trade day or something, heh. Seriously, its crazy, they only cost 50 cents a piece at Costco for the generic ones too.

I have the Philips natural light florescent bulbs in just about every socket in my house (Maybe 5 or 6 left to go) and they are just awesome. It's like being outside when you are inside, I love them. Everything looks better, and I suspect since it's "full spectrum" light it's better for you and plants, etc. Makes a huge difference over the regular incandescent or florescent bulbs in any case.

I haven't noticed any kind of decrease in my power consumption though. I'm not an environmentalist or a fucking hippie but if I can save a few bucks on my bills I'm all for it.

[aico]

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...src=rss&rpc=22

[GatorB]

I haven't noticed any kind of decrease in my power consumption though.

You may have fluctuation in other areas that negate some of the savings. Also if your bill is $5 to $10 less you're most likely not going to notice it but it adds up. If you say have 10 bulbs that are repalcing 60 watt old fashion bulbs and they are on an average of 6 hours a day, you'll save about $100 a year. Not much, but hell I can think of 1000 things I'd rather spend that $100 on that giving it to the electric company, if I don't have to.

[Sosa]

We like our Kenmore front loading set. Make sure it gets installed even though (balanced), or it will be pretty loud during the spin cycle.

[GatorB]

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...src=rss&rpc=22

Australia is already doing this. I don't see why people WON'T switch. You save money. It'd be different if it was costing you money. Also CFLs put out much less heat so if you use a lot of bulbs then one can assume you're cooling costs in the summer should decrease some. 95% of a standard bulb's energy is dissipated as heat not light.


By 2012 LED bulbs should be for sell for the home market at reasonable prices or shortly thereafter. An LED light can be left on 24/7 for 11 years and uses 1/30 the energy of an old fashion bulb.

[rowan]

GatorB, there are several issues involved with replacing incandescent bulbs with CFLs. I'm already seeing one - my fittings are obviously not ventilated sufficiently as the CFLs slowly cook. I pulled out one that started buzzing yesterday, and the top of the case is browned and it smells burnt.

At the moment my CFLs are probably only lasting 1.5 - 2 times that of a typical incandescent lamp (which is a tenth of the price). It's not really saving anything.

[breaker]

I've only seen frontloaded machines here. Noone uses toploaded. You can get a new frontloaded washer from like $250 and up. Don't know they were so expensive in the US.