Thread Number: 70885  /  Tag: Modern Automatic Washers
water temps in "energy efficient" washers....?
[Down to Last]'s exclusive eBay Watch:
scroll >>> for more items
Post# 938795   5/16/2017 at 09:56 by firedome (Binghamton NY & Lake Champlain VT)        

firedome's profile picture
excuse the perhaps obvious ? don't pay much attention to non-vintage machines...
so our 1 yr old BOL Hotpoint top loader has the usual 3 water temps, but on the Hot setting the water is merely warm, at best. Is regulating (lowering) water temps one of the "features" on new machines to make them more "efficient"? I like to wash whites in really hot water, Sears detergent, and a bit of bleach, and the temp at the faucet of the adjoining laundry sink comes out steaming hot... what gives?

Post# 938797 , Reply# 1   5/16/2017 at 10:04 by Yogitunes (New Jersey)        

yogitunes's profile picture
well, in this case, YES, your machine has a dubbed down setting, that you can't actually change....

not one choice will work for all machines....but we have done a few, some work, some don't....

some have tried to turn off the cold side when it fills, but doesn't work on all machines, as some will detect that the cold side is not available, and shut the machine down.....

you can try unplugging or removing the thermistor to see if that allows an all hot fill...

some machines have it built into the timer, when hot is selected, it allows for one minute of hot water, and then switches to either warm or cold for the rest of the fill....

you have to try different options....and still may not be able to get the temp you want....

one advantage you do have is the sink, as you can always hook up a hose to it, and fill the machine manually for the wash...that may be your only option....

Post# 938813 , Reply# 2   5/16/2017 at 11:23 by Revvinkevin (Between Mickey Mouse & the Queen Mary (So. Cal.)        

revvinkevin's profile picture



I have a 2005 LG washer and this thing really "dumbs down" the wash temps. If I want a "warm" wash, I have to select "hot", as "warm" is maybe luke warm at best. The thing I really don't like is, no matter what temp you select, it always flows cold water about 8 seconds when you start it. I've tried adding hot water with a hose through the dispenser, but at some point, if the water is "too hot", it will start adding cold water again.


My "hot wash work around" has been, turning the cold water valve down to a trickle and adding hot with a hose through the dispenser. I have the cold at a trickle so I know when the water level has been reached. If I add too much water, it will start draining after only a few minutes of wash time. Fortunately this isn't my only washer, so if I want a "real" hot wash, I'll use another machine rather than baby sitting this one.



  View Full Size

This post was last edited 05/16/2017 at 16:40
Post# 938826 , Reply# 3   5/16/2017 at 13:38 by firedome (Binghamton NY & Lake Champlain VT)        
just did the hose fill...

firedome's profile picture
to do a load with the super hot water as it comes from our tap, set around 170-180, and what a difference! When that load was done checked the water temp when on just the "Warm" setting, 105-110 at best.. sheesh! So to get Warm we need to set on "Hot", and manual fill to get truly hot water...not sure SWMBO will willingly go thru that rigamarole, I need to fix the 1:18 and put it on line!!

Post# 938839 , Reply# 4   5/16/2017 at 14:48 by Yogitunes (New Jersey)        

yogitunes's profile picture

can you post a pic and model number.....

just wondering if there is a way to 'override' this somehow......all we can do it try.....

what does it do when you select HOT?.....does it cycle back and forth, or hot only for a short time, and then warm/cool mix to complete the fill....or what happens if you turn the cold faucet off?.....

I don't expect a BOL machine to have intricate programming or wiring for getting past this, but then again, anything is possible...

probably the best thing you have going, which many overlook to start with, is having your water heater set to a high setting, like 160-180......I have mine set like that, always have, always will.....most machines with internal heaters can't compete with that....KUDOS to you for that one!

many people select hot, when their water heater is set to 120....their not starting with real hot water to start with....WTH?

I only have one machine that dubs down, and the loss is only 10 degrees....its a Cabrio, tried pulling the internal thermistor out of its socket, but that affected the warm setting......found it best for this machine to remove the restrictor on the hot valve side....

ironic, Auto Temp Control was only for raising cooler temps....making sure warm was warm, and cold was raised for proper detergent activation, hot was never controlled.....odd how we have gone in a opposite direction......I expect the next generation of machine to have an ice maker dropping cubes into the tub!

Post# 938840 , Reply# 5   5/16/2017 at 14:48 by chetlaham (United States)        

IF your machine is just a knob, chances are it can be wired up to fill with true temps. I know BOL GE machines often have 3 water valves, and if you unhook the right one I believe you will get a hot fill.

Post# 938854 , Reply# 6   5/16/2017 at 16:32 by COLDSPOT66 (Plymouth, Mass)        

Why would you launder anything at 170-180 degrees?

Post# 938942 , Reply# 7   5/17/2017 at 06:15 by askolover (South of Nash Vegas, TN)        

askolover's profile picture Miele will actually heat up to 190F!  It's great for getting greasy stains out and also sanitizing certain things if one doesn't want to use chlorine bleach.  I frequently do my towels on 190F.  Just did a load two days ago and they are so white now.

Post# 938947 , Reply# 8   5/17/2017 at 07:09 by foraloysius (Groningen, the Netherlands)        

foraloysius's profile picture
Yes, such high temperatures and oxygen bleach make things whiter than hot water (140F) and chlorine bleach!

Post# 938948 , Reply# 9   5/17/2017 at 07:10 by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)        
Why would you launder anything at 170-180 degrees

launderess's profile picture
Sanitation, disinfection, stain removal, heavy soils/oils, these are just off the top of one's head.

For European washing machines they were designed with those countries methods of washing in mind; that of the old ways which is to use very hot to boiling water for at least whites and colourfast.

In the old days you did such things to get best cleaning with what was available (soap and basically soda), but then came oxygen bleach (sodium perborate) which really only gets going at temps >140F.

By the 1970's or 1980's bleach activators came along (they were introduced due to the energy crisis) enabling one to get boil wash results even at hot or warm water temperatures.

Americans OTOH never really went in for oxygen bleach, but instead use chlorine based agents. Chlorine bleaches work in hot, warm or cold water and are well suited to the short cycles other features of top loading automatic and semi-automatic washing machines. Indeed boiling went out for most American housewives when washing machines came in.

If have badly soiled/stained laundry it goes into either Miele or AEG; set the machine to 180F or 200F, add a bit of Persil "universal" (Henkel), and that is that.

Post# 938975 , Reply# 10   5/17/2017 at 08:39 by firedome (Binghamton NY & Lake Champlain VT)        
model # HSWP1000MWW

firedome's profile picture
3.6 cu. ft. cheapy BOL model, think we paid maybe 320-ish, delivered? We assume that we won't be in this house for more than 1-2 yrs and will leave it behind. Not a bad machine, actually, has a ribbed tub plus a 2 stage agitator: lower paddle, screw top, and it seems to move water around pretty well. Puts a fair amount of H2O in the tub and although far from state-of-the-art, except for the temps it does a reasonable job, no complaints all things considered.

I misspoke on temps, on the Hot setting it's more like only 110-115 degrees, on Warm it feels more or less like Cold to me, even after filling for some time, and the temps remain constant thru-out fill.

Rather than futz around with internals think I'll just teach swmbo to fill it with a hose using tap water that comes out steaming hot, it may be more like 190+ degrees. For whites I like the old fashioned way of really hot water, NaClO, and use big orange box Sears detergent we picked up on sale 2 yrs ago on the recce of some folks here. The load done yesterday came out great. Best of all it's finally hang-on-the-line time in upstate NY... gotta love the way everything smells soooo fresh!

  Photos...       <              >      Photo 1 of 3         View Full Size
Post# 938982 , Reply# 11   5/17/2017 at 09:13 by chetlaham (United States)        
Easy peasy

Getting hot water on this model is by far the easiest. No need to cut wires and re-splice others as with most other models. All you have to do is unhook one of the water valve terminals. This model has 3 water valves, and when set to hot a single cold valve simultaneously opens giving warm- when warm is selected two valves open to give cool. I am unsure which terminal to unhook (dont have the schematic in front of me)- I believe the one with the yellow-black wire- but you can confirmed via the tech sheet in the control panel.

Post# 938984 , Reply# 12   5/17/2017 at 09:19 by chetlaham (United States)        
Here is the link to the water valve:

Post# 938985 , Reply# 13   5/17/2017 at 09:24 by philcobendixduo (San Jose)        
Warning Notices On Hot Faucets?

philcobendixduo's profile picture
Hey, Roger,
I hope you have warning notices on faucets that house guests might use informing them that the hot water coming from the tap can scald them within a second of contact.
170-180 is a WAY too hot water temperature for a home setting.
I'd hate to be in the shower when someone opens a cold tap somewhere in the house!

Post# 939031 , Reply# 14   5/17/2017 at 16:18 by firedome (Binghamton NY & Lake Champlain VT)        
Yah we warn 'em!

firedome's profile picture
I'm guessing, it may be less than 190. Everything is Moen single handle mixer valve though, so it's easy to adjust.

Chetlaham - thanks for that useful info!

Post# 939040 , Reply# 15   5/17/2017 at 17:18 by Yogitunes (New Jersey)        

yogitunes's profile picture
yeah, I got those temperature adjustment valves on the tub/showers....or rather, they refer to them as Anti Scald valves....

actually its a little disc under the handle, that you can adjust to 'set' the actual highest temp that would be allowed...all it does is control how far the knob can be turned towards the hot side...

to save even more water, at least in the kids bathroom, a flow restrictor is installed, 2 gallons per minute was still too much for my liking, so I used a dime, and drilled a tiny hole, to reduce usage to 1 gallon per minute....still plenty of pressure for the hand shower.....flushing a toilet has little effect on temps....

Post# 939042 , Reply# 16   5/17/2017 at 17:33 by rinso (Meridian Idaho)        

rinso's profile picture
Like most new energy star machines, our new LG top-loader has the dumbed down hot water, even on the "Bright Whites" load. I love the way the machine works otherwise, and it can be set to use extra water, except that, of course, it is cold.

Post# 939051 , Reply# 17   5/17/2017 at 18:03 by cuffs054 (GA)        

Day dreaming here about my new GE. If it has the three valve set-up and I figure out which wire to pull, could I then put in a small line switch that would let me have hot when I want and back to normal when not?

Post# 939056 , Reply# 18   5/17/2017 at 18:23 by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.)        

dadoes's profile picture
Calypso and Neptune TL have ATC for cold and warm (not dumbed-down quite as much as current machines) but hot is tap-temp on both.  I always select Hot and adjust my tankless water heater to the exact temp I want.

Post# 939405 , Reply# 19   5/19/2017 at 16:47 by jerrod6 (Center City Philadelphia Pennsylvania, U.S.A)        

If the machine was made with 2018 EPA regulations in mind you won't be able to modify anything to get more hot water, or water into the machine

Post# 939623 , Reply# 20   5/21/2017 at 07:18 by combo52 (Beltsville,Md)        
2018 DOE regulations

combo52's profile picture

If the machine was made with 2018 regulations in mind you won't be able to modify anything to more hot water or water into the machine.


Well, maybe not by making different selections, but there is no way to stop anyone from modifying the machine in any way one wants.

Post# 939646 , Reply# 21   5/21/2017 at 09:35 by Yogitunes (New Jersey)        

yogitunes's profile picture
in just about any given newer HE machine, its usually the NORMAL cycle that is the most stringent on water savings....

I doubt a machine made a year ago would have restrictions for upcoming 2018 just yet...

most of us have found ways around the lower water usage and dubbed down temps...

any other option would be to look into returning to an older traditional washer and dryer...theres still plenty to find on CL

Post# 939665 , Reply# 22   5/21/2017 at 13:27 by warmsecondrinse (Fort Lee, NJ)        

Someone I know (here on AW?) had this problem. Here's how he solved it:

Put a Y-valve with individual taps on the hot water in flow. One leg of the Y outflow went to the machine. The other went to the second Y-valve.

The second Y-valve was installed inverted, i.e. 2-into-1. One leg of the inflow was hot water (see above) and the second leg of inflow was from the cold water tap. The outflow of this second Y-valve went to the machine's cold water inlet.

He set the machine to 'warm' so both inlets would open and he regulated the incoming temps by opening and closing the taps of the Y-valves. Since this worked, I assume that this machine dumbed down the temps through the use of timers (see Yogi's comment in reply #1) with no actual temp sensing involved.

Granted this is complicated. If I had a sink adjacent to the machine I'd first try adding hot water with a hose from the sink. If that didn't work, I'd try the Y-valve option once I;d determined that timers controlled all.

Heads up: Owner's manuals sometimes lie. The washer-that-shall-not-be-named that brought me into AW had an instruction guide that clearly stated water levels were determined by 'sensing' the load. However, the REPAIR manual emphasized the importance of keeping the filter screens of the inlet hoses clear at all times because initial water fill was timer controlled so clogged screens could lead to insufficient water fill. I do know that I was able to manually add water and the machine seemed not to notice either the temp or quantity added.

If a company would print contradictory info on water levels, why not on water temps?


Post# 939666 , Reply# 23   5/21/2017 at 13:32 by warmsecondrinse (Fort Lee, NJ)        
Another Thought:

If you are averse to depending on a vintage machine, I believe at least one of the Avanti (and clones) machines Yogi's discovered does NOT dumb down temps. Yogi, please verify.

I've used these machines and am a devoted cheerleader.


Post# 939693 , Reply# 24   5/21/2017 at 19:26 by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)        
Sad thing is

launderess's profile picture
These "energy saving" regulations do not save that much on average. Maybe between ten to thirty dollars per year (if that), depending upon how one heats water. That is the fly across behind of Obama/USA government when these rules were thought up. Oh and the cost of energy for drying laundry in a clothes drier.

Given the ever increasing costs of these "energy saving" machines, it would take perhaps nearly two decades to recoup any savings on energy. When you consider the average lifespan for most new washing machines is barely ten years you can see whole thing is a con.

Post# 939696 , Reply# 25   5/21/2017 at 20:31 by combo52 (Beltsville,Md)        
Energy Savings Of New Energy Star Washers

combo52's profile picture

Are HUGE compared to machines built only ten or more years ago, Newer machines use just 1/4 the water on average [ filtering and supplying and cleaning water afterwards uses a HUGE amount of energy ]


Newer machines consume less than 1/2 the electricity to run them.


Newer ES washers use as little as 5 gallons of hot water compared to over 50 gallons of hot water, which is a 10 fold improvement.


New ES washers can extract twice as much water from clothing which saves a lot of electricity drying the clothing.


Hopefully there will be a standard encouraging consumers to switch to Natural gas dryers, doing so would save a HUGE amount of carbon dioxide emissions going into the atmosphere.


There is no going back, most consumers love their new ES washers, AND washers are lasting longer than ever before in automatic washer history, ask the guys that repair machines.


John L.

Post# 939699 , Reply# 26   5/21/2017 at 21:15 by earthling177 (Boston, MA)        

"Hopefully there will be a standard encouraging consumers to switch to Natural gas dryers, doing so would save a HUGE amount of carbon dioxide emissions going into the atmosphere."

Well, while I admire the sentiment, I hope people will *not* press so it comes true.

It may have been true in the past that generating electricity consumed a huge amount of oil/coal, but it's not anymore, particularly in places where they use the exhaust heat.

And also, at least around here, there are plenty of homes whose solar panels generate more than enough electricity to power the electric dryers and still sell energy back to the utilities.

I would prefer a more balanced approach, where people say things along the lines of "if your situation is like this, a gas dryer makes more sense, but if your situation is more like that one, an electric dryer will cause the least amount of pollution".

Post# 939701 , Reply# 27   5/21/2017 at 21:23 by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)        

launderess's profile picture
One is always leery whenever anyone throws around superlatives like "Huge", or "Bigly" and so forth.

Energy savings a household will experience is directly tied to how it produces hot water and heats the clothes dryer and costs for said fuel.

Here in NYC aside from multifamily housing (apartments) where connections are not possible, a majority of dryers run on natural gas. Given the rather dear rates in this state and especially city that is no surprise.

Hot water supplies are a mixed bag; larger buildings with steam heating often get their hot water from a coil in boiler. That boiler more often than not as oil, but many are converting to natural gas. Again it varies by location and what is available but in NYC most homes use gas or oil for hot water (where it does not come from a side arm off boiler).

Federal government "Energy Star" website speaks in terms of "average" and savings that "can" be reached. Even then an energy efficient washing machine is only rated to save on "average" $45 per year on utility bills.

Average life span of new washing machines sold in USA is between 7-14 years, with between 10 to 11 most common.

In order for an energy efficient appliance to "pay for itself" the savings must be reached during if not well before the thing requires major service/wants rubbishing.

Forty-five dollars over course of one year is only $3,75 per month. IMHO not nearly enough motivation to bother with wash times measured in nearly two hours or more, machines that require "cleaning" cycles to keep mould and whiff at bay, and most of all being forced into being led and managed like a child who does not know how to do laundry.


Post# 939703 , Reply# 28   5/21/2017 at 21:59 by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.)        

dadoes's profile picture
HE / EnergyStar washers are all fine and well ... but the dumbed-down temperatures are not.  Hot water usage should not be limited being that the machines are by design saving many gallons of water over old-style, non-HE toploaders.

Post# 939752 , Reply# 29   5/22/2017 at 10:47 by firedome (Binghamton NY & Lake Champlain VT)        
getting hosed...

firedome's profile picture
well it turns out swmbo seems to actually like filling it via hose from the sink tap, it saves time since she likes to let the washer fill up somewhat before adding Sears Ultra Plus powder and bleach. The tap water is steaming hot and the whites are coming out so much cleaner and fresher now.

As far as gas vs elec drying, the most efficient is hanging outside, which we can do March/April to November, even in central NY. Nothing can beat that fresh-air smell and we love scratchy towels - yymv.

Post# 939757 , Reply# 30   5/22/2017 at 12:12 by earthling177 (Boston, MA)        

"As far as gas vs elec drying, the most efficient is hanging outside, which we can do March/April to November, even in central NY. Nothing can beat that fresh-air smell and we love scratchy towels - yymv."

Mileages definitely vary, yes. Because around here, for most people, there's no space for hanging laundry outside -- in fact, it took me a very long time to understand why people even like the smell of laundry dried outside, because it takes enough space for the place the laundry is hanging from to be away from trees and the flight path of birds, not to mention anything to do with car traffic.

Between the dirt from cars and the birds pooping on clothes, I would be spending an awful lot of more energy and money rewashing a significant amount of laundry.

And let's not forget the folks (me included) who are allergic to pollen, grass etc.

I don't want to take anything away from people who *have* room outside to dry their clothes and do not need to rewash them and also do not have allergies.

But I do want to avoid the situation where people are *shamed* into drying stuff on the line even if it would need to be rewashed -- just like for decades people shamed others into hand washing the dishes despite the fact that in the last 2-3 decades it has been true that a dishwasher can do the job better using less water and energy than hand washing.

Post# 940047 , Reply# 31   5/24/2017 at 14:33 by firedome (Binghamton NY & Lake Champlain VT)        
nobody's shaming...

firedome's profile picture
merely stating the simple fact that it's more efficient to sun/air dry, obviously, and that we happen to like the smell and scratchy towels, exactly why we said yymv... sheeesh. In 40 yrs of outside drying 1/2 of the year never had a bird poop on it, but maybe we're just lucky.

Post# 940053 , Reply# 32   5/24/2017 at 15:27 by earthling177 (Boston, MA)        


Sorry, I did not mean to make anyone feel bad, in fact I thought I had been rather explicit in saying that I did not want to take away anything from people who *can* and *like* to hang dry their clothes.

And I do not know if you were lucky that birds did not poop on your laundry.

I am very happy for you, honestly.

But I still remember one home we've lived when I was a kid, it took us a while to be able to install the hook up for the dryer (the home did not have one), and my mother was rewashing more than half the clothes she'd hang on the lines. The lines themselves were not under any trees, but they could not be moved and they were under the flight path for birds.

Our cost for detergent, water and energy fell a whole bunch as soon as the electric dryer was installed, and even after paying for the energy to machine dry the clothes, it was still way cheaper than line drying in that location.

I feel like when talking about costs one should consider the entire system/situation. For example, I have friends now who are using an electric dryer (and lots of other electric equipment, for that matter) for free because their home roof is situated in such a way that most days they sell excess energy back to the electric company using the solar panels. Sure, one must consider how much solar panels cost in resources and energy to manufacture. Then again, if we do that, we need to consider the total costs to produce the natural gas (drilling equipment, drilling itself, environmental impact and mitigation, pumping the gas to our homes), because the price we consumers pay per therm of natural gas is heavily subsidized and you can't count on that price to cover the full costs.

   -- Paulo.

Post# 940214 , Reply# 33   5/25/2017 at 12:13 by firedome (Binghamton NY & Lake Champlain VT)        

firedome's profile picture
can be utilized in 2 ways, directly on a clothes line, if one has the appropriate spot, or with PV panels. We do the former now when weather permits, and are in the process of adding the latter... 4.2 kW to start. Yes, pretty expensive, but nowadays the up-front cash investment for PV solar gives a far better monthly return at current interest rates than the alternatives.

Post# 940303 , Reply# 34   5/26/2017 at 06:51 by combo52 (Beltsville,Md)        
Economical and Environmentally Responsible Clothes Drying

combo52's profile picture

Hanging up clothing to dry is obviously the most economical and responsible way to dry clothing, I fully support anyone that wants to do so.


However using an electric dryer 1/2 the year instead of a natural gas dryer all year still does more harm environmentally in terms of using oxygen from the atmosphere and the amount of carbon dioxide you put into the atmosphere.


Like wise it makes no sense to use an electric dryer even though your roof is covered with solar panels, if again you have natural gas available. As long as you are connected to the grid it is better to let the excess power go back into the grid and dry your clothing in an environmentally better way with a NGD.


My home has 42 collector panels on the roof and they generate as much power as my home uses per year, but it is much better for me to use the gas dryer, as long as any power in the grid is produced by burning any type of fuel it will always make more sense to use the NGD. I is very unlikely that we will ever see a time in any of our lifetimes when all electricity will be generated by solar, wind and maybe nuclear power.


John L.


Post# 940360 , Reply# 35   5/26/2017 at 16:03 by earthling177 (Boston, MA)        


I am not disagreeing with you.

I am, however, *encouraging* you and everyone else to make more helpful and productive statements in the future.

I remember when Steve (Toggleswitch) would talk at length about how electric drying was bad and gas drying was good. He and I had a few conversations and it became clear to him that all his notions about how electricity is generated were not only antiquated, they were very localized. His info, for example, was that every Kwh of electricity needed at least 3 to 4 Kwh of energy (gas, coal etc) to be generated. Newer generators are using less than 2X the gas, and the plants that use the exhaust heat and tilt the equation even further are now common.

We, here in the Northeast part of US tend to think everybody else shares the same infrastructure. It should be clear we don't just by observing the price structure of utilities.

There are plenty of places in US where the cost of electricity is *much* lower than around here because the power is not coming from any thermoelectric power plants, but, for example, from hydroelectric power plants.

Also, please keep in mind that as far as I am aware, there are *no* natural gas infrastructure burning gas in engines to pump the gas (that would in any case be just about as inefficient, given that the problem is that regular internal combustion engines are usually less than 30% efficient) -- they are *all* powered by electric motors. That part is essentially invisible to customers, all they see is that they have a hookup from their homes to the electric and gas utilities, and usually we only care, as customers, about how much things cost us to run. Someone is generating electricity to run very powerful pumps to send natural gas our way.

Natural gas also leaks from old infrastructure, some cities are worse at keeping up with maintenance than others. Natural gas that leaks poses risks to plants nearby, and even though most of the time it doesn't ignite and causes problems (although some buildings around the Boston area have exploded in the last 25 years due to NG leaks from the utilities thru the soil into the buildings' basements), methane (Natural Gas) is *also* a problem that increases global warming thru the Greenhouse Effect.

If we consider the *entire* system, and we should, we should avoid sentences like "it's always better to use a gas dryer" because there are times when an electric dryer will be causing less pollution and less environmental damage.

   -- Paulo.

Post# 940673 , Reply# 36   5/28/2017 at 15:57 by combo52 (Beltsville,Md)        
I Am Going To stick With My Statement That It Is

combo52's profile picture

Always Cheaper and More Environmentally Sound To Use A Natural Gas Dryer Over An Electric Dryer In The US For Homes Already Supplied By Natural Gas Service.


[ The only exception would be homes that are totally off the grid ]


Hi Paulo, you have made some good points and some that have nothing to do with this discussion. But none of your points bring the efficiency of using 6 KW of power to run an electric dryer even close to being as sensible as using less than a 1/2 KW of electric power to run a NGD.


Even if electric power plants are now 50% efficient that does not come close to 100% efficient heat use in a NGD. You must remember that around 30% of electricity is wasted in transmission lines and transformers alone. Even the 10 Ga. copper wire in your home [ after your power meter ] gets warm when the dryer is running wasting more power.


Leaks in gas transmission lines are a problem, but the lines are going to leak whether you use a gas dryer in your home or not. Also the amount of electricity used to pump NG through pipelines is extremely small. There is for example is no measurable heat build-up in the gas pipe running to your dryer caused by the friction of the gas flowing through it when the dryer is in operation.


If the day ever comes that an electric dryer makes more sense to use than a NGD people would have also abandoned NG furnaces, gas water heaters, gas pool heaters and NG all together in their homes, as a NG clothes dryer is the most efficient gas appliance built for use in the home.


John L.

Post# 940700 , Reply# 37   5/28/2017 at 19:36 by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room)        

lordkenmore's profile picture

Hopefully there will be a standard encouraging consumers to switch to Natural gas dryers, doing so would save a HUGE amount of carbon dioxide emissions going into the atmosphere.


I won't necessarily argue against gas dryers. But I will admit I get a little concerned with the thought of a "push" for gas dryers. A gentle push/encouragement is fine. But I worry about something getting jammed down people's throats, like it or not. Using a gas dryer is attractive on a number of levels. But there may be places and times where gas is not a viable choice. Indeed, there is zero gas service where I live. Past that, there are houses that don't have gas installations. Installing gas may be a painful cost and hassle for many "normal" Americans, such as the people barely holding on. "You'll save in utility bills!" may be true, but slightly higher utility bills per month might be more financially palatable than trying to find the $$$ for gas installation. (Particularly if it comes at the same time as buying a new dryer.)


Post# 940706 , Reply# 38   5/28/2017 at 20:09 by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.)        

dadoes's profile picture
There's no natural gas in my rural neighborhood.  Only choice for anything gas would be propane.

Post# 940710 , Reply# 39   5/28/2017 at 20:49 by combo52 (Beltsville,Md)        
Forcing A Switch To NG Dryers

combo52's profile picture

I totally agree that people should not be forced to have a NGD, and it would not make sense to run gas to a home just to have a NGD.


Propane heated dryers work well but it is less clear if using propane is a great advantage environmentally or for cost of operation, propane is usually about twice the cost of NG, but if you are using propane and buying at a good cost it may still make sense.

Post# 940749 , Reply# 40   5/29/2017 at 02:39 by foraloysius (Groningen, the Netherlands)        

foraloysius's profile picture
The winning of natural gas takes a huge toll on the environment. I live in an area with big resources of natural gas. But exploiting those resources caused many earthquakes and damaged many houses. Natural gas is not such a environmental friendly source of power as many think. Think also about the fracking that happens in a lot of areas and the chemicals that are being used for that.

Overhere the government has decided we can't go on like that. We're going to change to more environmental friendly power sources like wind energy and solar energy. And a lot of research will be done towards other forms of energy so we will no longer be dependant on natural gas. The same applies for oil.

Heatpump dryers are the most popular dryer here now. In combination with eco friendly energy, that will be a much better choice than a gas dryer with all the negative aspects of it.

Post# 940938 , Reply# 41   5/30/2017 at 01:00 by earthling177 (Boston, MA)        
"Assume a spherical cow"

OK, please forgive me my ignorance here, but let's try to talk about this in stages.

First, let's "assume a spherical cow", as the joke goes (link below).

For three dryers (Pat's, Chris' and Sam's) connected to the utilities, if we consider *just* the point of view of the users and ignore everything that happens prior to the hookups, do we agree that:

All dryers have a timer and an electric motor that turns the fan and the tumbling drum, so we can ignore that as being "equal" in the three dryers?

That if Pat's dryer has a gas burner that consumes say, 22,000 BTU/h, there will *always* be pollutants associated with the burning of that fossil fuel (carbon dioxide, some carbon monoxide [in case of a misadjusted burner], nitrous oxide/dioxide etc)?

That if Chris' dryer is a standard electric dryer, ignoring everything that happens before the hookups, Chris' dryer produces *no* pollutants? That is, an electric dryer is as clean as the electricity provided to it, going, from worst to best, coal, fuel oil, gasoline, propane/natural gas, wind/solar/hydroelectric?

That if Sam's dryer is a heat-pump dryer, not only it moves heat at the rate of 3 to 4 times the electricity it used, but this dryer is also as clean as the electricity it is being provided to it, like Chris' dryer?

Can we agree that what is more energy efficient is sometimes at odds to what is less expensive?

For example, if we consider what happens *before* the hookups, let's say that Alex has solar panels on the roof and can get electricity for free or sell it back to the utility. Say it costs $0.80/load to run an electric dryer and $0.40/load to run a gas dryer. Alex can either run his electric dryer for free, or run a gas dryer and *get paid* 40 cents by selling the electricity from the panels back to the utility. But an electric dryer would generate no emissions in this case, and the gas dryer would generate emissions *despite* the fact that Alex got 40 cents/load back. Alex could run a heat-pump dryer for less energy (25%-33%) than a conventional dryer, still get money back from the utility and generate no emissions.

If we start considering the whole system, and I think we should, it seems to me that people in lots of areas in Canada, the Pacific Northwest, the Tennessee Valley Authority area, etc can safely use an electric dryer and cause way less greenhouse gasses to be released than people like me in the Northeast where more power plants still use coal or gas.

Anyplace where electricity comes mostly from wind, solar or hydroelectric will provide clean or almost clean electricity.

The petroleum companies have always vilified electricity to the point where we know mostly old rules of thumb (one burns 3 times the amount of energy to produce electricity, for example), but we know next to nothing about the Natural Gas industry.

Those values come mostly from electric power plants that used coal and steam, and also the smaller plants that used internal combustion engines (also less than 33% efficient, there are plenty of buildings that used co-generation in the early 1900's to produce *heat* for the building and sold the electricity back to the utilities). Modern gas turbines are over 60% efficient.

Wind, solar and hydroelectric produce no emissions and yet, all we hear is about the "transmission losses", despite the fact no fossil fuel was burned to get the energy.

It should be easy for anyone who has used and/or seen an air compressor (building sites, workshops etc) to agree that compressing gases takes a lot of energy and that transporting said gas produces losses along the transportation hoses, pipes, ducts etc, which can be witnessed by drops in pressure and/or flow rates.

Some people have experienced the loss of both natural gas pressure and flow during the worst parts of winter, when demand is highest -- sometimes water heaters, furnaces and even stovetop burners or oven burners fail to light or maintain a flame.

Like Louis mentioned, obtaining natural gas has environmental consequences -- some people in US have demonstrated on TV that they can open the kitchen faucet and light a flame above the faucet due to their well getting contaminated by volatile organic compounds (methane, propane etc) that leaked from fracking nearby.

From Scientific American (

"Because methane, which makes up about 95 percent of the natural gas in pipelines, is about 25 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, the leakage raises a troubling climate question: How clean is natural gas?"

"For its part, AGA is quick to highlight U.S. EPA's estimates of methane emissions from natural gas. EPA has said that, from the gas well to your stovetop, the industry leaks 1.4 percent of the gas it produces."

From (, about transmission losses for NG and the need for compressors:

One engineer mentions a pressure drop of 300 psi per 100 miles (700 psi to 1,000 psi compressors). That is for level parts of the pipelines, in severe grade they need compressors every 40-50 miles.

Another points out that compressors on the gas distribution lines go from 500 HP to 35,000 HP.

One particular gas company has 840,000 HP in total installed compressors.

From (

"Methane concentrations in the atmosphere have more than doubled over the last 150 years, and may account for a third of the climate warming from greenhouse gases."

In any case, most of my point(s) is that the vast majority of what we heard in the past 80 years has more to do with economics than with environmental point of view. Natural gas and fossil fuels have been so cheap that no one bothered to get electricity in USA from wind, solar or hydroelectric all this time, with few exceptions, and those had more to do with the fact that people often wanted a cheap/clean source of electricity to power the Steel and Aluminum industries and/or flood control than anything else.

On the other hand, the evidence that the *price* of the fossil fuel is more important than the efficiency of power generation is made more obvious by the fact that propane and methane have the *same* statistics, that is, they both work nearly identically when generating electric power in that you still get from 30-60% of the energy you burned (in BTUs) back. The problem is that propane is way more expensive than natural gas when your home is piped to natural gas, so people in rural America who are dependent on propane for heating their homes often find that an electric dryer is cheaper to operate.

We also like to ignore the many places in America (or Canada) where proximity to hydroelectric power generation makes some people have all-electric homes, including heat.

So, if I'm being a moron here and spouting gibberish, I'd love to be corrected, given that just by looking up some of these facts I've already learned that in remote areas far from electric grids, the compressors used to send natural gas to us are indeed powered by burning some of the gas in jet turbines (about 60% efficiency) or older internal combustion engines (less than 33% efficiency).

In case what I've been talking about makes sense to you, I'd love it if the next time someone asks, you'd respond with something along the lines of "electric dryers/stoves/furnaces/cars/etc are as clean as the electricity supplied to them -- you need to do some research to see if a gas dryer/stoves/furnaces/cars/etc pollutes more or less than the electric version."

And whether or not any of you agrees with me, thank you for reading and considering what I've posted.

   -- Paulo.

CLICK HERE TO GO TO earthling177's LINK

Post# 942060 , Reply# 42   6/6/2017 at 12:53 by firedome (Binghamton NY & Lake Champlain VT)        
lots of good points made above...

firedome's profile picture
pro and con nat gas.

Our situation is unique:

1.All the electric in Vermont is from Green Mountain Power, owned by Hydro-Quebec, Montreal, so we utilize only clean hydro electric power.

2. We don't have Nat Gas available here on the lake, that's a moot point.

3. In any event our winter home is in the SouthernTier NY, the ground zero Marcellus Shale area for potential hydraulic fracturing aka fracking, which we are opposed to due to environmental considerations... that movie showing water being lit on fire? It was made by Josh Fox about an hour from our house. Some nearby towns just over the line in PA (10 mi away) have been decimated by industrial traffic and well pollution. Nat gas and all fossil fuel technology needs to be quickly obsoleted imo. Fortunately NY has had the wisdom to ban all fracking for the foreseeable future.

4. The Nuclear Physicist in the family (son) chose an Islanding Solar System, one of most advanced (direct DC to battery backup without inverter), Kyocera panels w/ seasonally angle-adjustable pole mounts for efficiency (manual adjustable... All Earth dual-axis motorized tracking system is better but out of our range). Selectable grid-connected OR completely off-grid with full Lithium battery backup. Runs new Mitsubishi Cold Climate heat pump at full efficiency down to 15 below, will charge a future all-electric vehicle, run complete house: LED lighting, electric appliances, tools, &c. Goal: be completely independent if needed and as efficient & clean as is currently possible.

Forum Index:       Other Forums:                      

Comes to the Rescue!

The Discuss-o-Mat has stopped, buzzer is sounding!!!
If you would like to reply to this thread please log-in...

Discuss-O-MAT Log-In

New Members
Click Here To Sign Up.

Discuss-o-Mat Forums
Vintage Brochures, Service and Owners Manuals
Fun Vintage Washer Ephemera
See It Wash!
Video Downloads
Audio Downloads
Picture of the Day
Patent of the Day
Photos of our Collections
The Old Aberdeen Farm
Vintage Service Manuals
Vintage washer/dryer/dishwasher to sell?
Technical/service questions?
Looking for Parts?
Website related questions?
Digital Millennium Copyright Act Policy
Our Privacy Policy