Thread Number: 33069
DOE PRESS RELEASE - Washer Capacity Claims
[Down to Last]

Cool Washer Stuff on Amazon:
scroll >>> for more items
Post# 497878   2/20/2011 at 08:32 (4,664 days old) by chestermikeuk (Rainhill *Home of the RailwayTrials* Merseyside,UK)        

chestermikeuk's profile picture
Whilst perusing data for "How Much Does It Wash" Threads I came across an interesting document - I was searching the ASKO USA website and on the Large Capacity XXL Machines saw this in the text, --------IEC capacity rating 4.55 cu ft, DOE rating 3.96 cu I searched around for an explaination IEC & DOE and found this....


Manufacturers of clothes washers have independently determined that, beginning on or before April 30, 2011, they will voluntarily communicate capacity to consumers using only the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) clothes washer test procedure for drum volume calculations, including the most recent guidance on measuring drum volume, released by DOE during the summer of 2010.

These manufacturers, listed at the bottom of this release, who are choosing to communicate drum volume for non‐energy purposes solely based on the DOE procedure, will not reference an “IEC equivalent” volume. This change will be applicable to all clothes washers sold as of that date regardless of when manufactured.

Specifically, on or before April 30, 2011, each of the undersigned manufacturers have decided to revise their on‐line website information to reflect only washer capacity determined in accord with the DOE test procedure. Additionally, all print material, including product catalogues, published by these manufacturers after April 30, 2011 will include only washer capacities based on the DOE procedure.

Finally, these manufacturers will communicate these capacities to retailers of washers and will encourage retailers to communicate washer capacities calculated in accord with the DOE test procedure following the April 30, 2011 date. The DOE procedure is currently used by all manufacturers to report energy and water consumption to DOE, and will be used in AHAM’s new energy verification program for clothes washers. The DOE procedure provides an accurate, uniform and repeatable measurement of drum volume for the purpose of calculating energy and water consumption for all clothes washer types.

Because of advances in clothes washer design, technology and efficiency, AHAM is also continuing development of a test procedure that may enhance the communication of useable washer capacity information, beyond volume, to the consumer when making a purchase decision among a wide variety of product choices. The enhanced test procedure would provide more information to consumers regarding the quantity of clothes that can be effectively washed and rinsed in a single load. When completed, the test procedure would be voluntary; however, AHAM may present the test procedure to the Department of Energy (DOE) for proposed incorporation into the DOE’s test procedure for clothes washers.

AHAM’s effort of developing an enhanced, uniform washer capacity test procedure will harmonize with international washer capacity procedures where appropriate. This is a complex area and will require significant investigation into consumer‐relevant washing and rinsing performance characteristics.

Manufacturers: GE Appliances & Lighting
Alliance Laundry Systems,
Indesit Company SpA
ASKO Appliances, Inc.
LG Electronics, U.S.A., Inc.
Blomberg – Arcelik A.S.
Miele, Inc.
BSH Home Appliances Corporation Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
Electrolux Home Products, Inc. Whirlpool Corporation

I wonder if this will see more of an alignment between US and Euro machine capacity sizes???...very interesting!!!

CLICK HERE TO GO TO chestermikeuk's LINK

Post# 497900 , Reply# 1   2/20/2011 at 10:06 (4,664 days old) by Tomturbomatic (Beltsville, MD)        

Thanks, Mike, but as we all know size is not everything and it is possible that some machines with smaller drums like Mieles which do a fantastic job of extracting the water between water changes will more effectively handle larger loads than machines that might have a SLIGHTY larger drum, but because of a less skillful design do not extract as well between the water changes. Extracting the water from the fabrics actually removes soil and detergent from them and the machine whereas poorer extraction just leaves more of both to be slowly diluted and in washers using miniscule amounts of water, the ability to dilute is greatly lessened.

Post# 497915 , Reply# 2   2/20/2011 at 10:50 (4,664 days old) by Pingmeep ()        

So basically the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) is now circling the wagons to head off the specter of government regulation. Since the first press release Whirlpool and Samsung joined the party too. Hopefully NA will eventually have a report card rating system like the EU and Australia.

Post# 498111 , Reply# 3   2/20/2011 at 22:27 (4,663 days old) by jerrod6 (Southeastern Pennsylvania)        

I wish someone would include rinse-ability into the tests.  Items maybe clean but I really don't want to wear them if they are poorly rinsed.  

Post# 498128 , Reply# 4   2/20/2011 at 23:53 (4,663 days old) by 3beltwesty ()        

Here in the usa *if* one really pays attention there are often several numbers shown in adverts. Thus a fl washer that is 4.2 iec might list it is 4.0. Or 4.0 doe. Typically iec is the only number used. There have been 2 numbers used in some flyers adverts sincelast summer. My lg. Wm2501hva last november was 4.2 iec. 4.0. Doe. I calulated the actual basket as about 3.9 to 3.8. The same thing happened here with small lawn mowers. For 60 years little gas mowers were in horsepower. Now little mowers are rated in torque and thus one cannot compare to old mower one is replacing. The governments goal is confusion they are to too stupid to keep practical numbers like lbs of clothes and basket volume. Ie things the average person has a feel for. This confusion is too with ac units dehumidifiers too. Specs change. The way eer and seer for ac units is a bit of goverment poop too. A two stage ac unit might say 20 seer but that really is at half output. Thus it is only 13 at max btuh. This bs is great for lying marketers and the stupid government but a royal pita to a real hardcore person to make a valid comparision. The same units look better or worse as the specs change thus the pubic views the changes as total bs.

Post# 498130 , Reply# 5   2/21/2011 at 00:12 (4,663 days old) by 3beltwesty ()        
Report card rating is real old here

The refrigerator we bought here in 1979 and 1981 had report cards with the kwhr and dollars to run per year. This goes back to mr peanut jimmy carter and the big oil price runnup of 1979. Every washer dryer ac has listed the cost to operate per year. This goes back about one third of a century. Because specs change due to politics. The next time one buys a consumer item for replacement the specs have changed. Thus confidence. Is poor. Here in the deep south on wants the eer number when an ac is running wide open. Not a polar alaska averaged number

Post# 498159 , Reply# 6   2/21/2011 at 06:49 (4,663 days old) by Pingmeep ()        

@3beltwesty Yup I am in total agreement on SEER and EER ratings and the ever shifting goal posts. What really burns me up is when companies purposely compromise the longevity of appliances just to get their energy star.

Yes I am aware of the ratings for kilowatt use and the recent switch in the US to dollar cost to run an appliance in some arbitrary way that may not have anything to do with how you use it.

By report card I was thinking of something like this...

Post# 498169 , Reply# 7   2/21/2011 at 08:11 (4,663 days old) by dj-gabriele ()        

That's just the standard European energy label plus a rinsing efficiency indicator. That would be a nice idea!

Post# 498186 , Reply# 8   2/21/2011 at 09:15 (4,663 days old) by 3beltwesty ()        
Are gas water heaters rare in non us areas?

That 0.95 Kwhr per cycle on that A report card is about 4 times what my 1976 Westy has ie 0.22 to 0.24 kwhr; it is about 6 times what my LG Test #2 with 16 Lbs of clothes and its 0.15 KWhr consumption.

Since that report card is so bad with respect to my 1976 machine I guess that the unit is using an internal electric water heater; versus what here I use the gas water heaters water.

ie the power consumption is mostly due the the wastefull heating of water via electricity; the most costly way to heat up water. Here in the USA heating water with electricity costs about 3 times more than using a gas flame; thus an internal electric heater in a washer sounds insane; unless one has a dumb wastefull electric hot water heater anyway in ones home.

Ie one is using electric heat to heat water; this costs about 3 times more in money than a gas flame.

The 1976 LT570 Westinghouse Front load washer here was rated #1 in washers back in 1978 Consumer Reports; lowest in water usage 30 gallons and lowest in electrical too.

Thus it is real interesting how a radically newer machine of today gets an A report card; when it consumes 4 times what a 1976 best machine uses.

many decades ago in the USA; anybody who had a front load washer and designed a house had a gas water heater, *right by their washer.*

It was considered insane and wastefull to heat water with electricity even 40 years ago when my own house was built. It was standard practice to have the water heater close to the washer; since a front loader used little water one wanted the Water heater to be right by the washer.


Post# 498187 , Reply# 9   2/21/2011 at 09:19 (4,663 days old) by 3beltwesty ()        
Layout of laundry room here designed in 1970

This diagram shows the homes Gas water heater is right behind the wall of the washer dryer area. This gives a super short path. This is from 1970.

The house built back in 1952 had this same concept; gas water heater very close to the 1947 front load westinghouse washer.

Post# 498206 , Reply# 10   2/21/2011 at 10:51 (4,663 days old) by hoover1100 (U.K.)        
Our machines

are all cold fill only and heat to the desired temperature, which uses less overall energy and provides a much better wash, as it uses the enzymes in the detergent to their full, and won't set stains. We have mostly gas water heaters, but the washer isn't connected to it.

Why do I feel like I'm opening a massive can of worms here by saying this....

Post# 498208 , Reply# 11   2/21/2011 at 10:57 (4,663 days old) by dj-gabriele ()        

The energy use of 0,95 kWh is really small compared to older machines.

Let me explain:
The standard of testing till now is the "cottons 60°C".
Virtually all the machines sold in Europe have heaters, the only machines that omit them are the LG top loading impeller ones. They are less than 0,1% of all the machines sold over here.
Anyway if you want a "cold water wash" you just have to depress that button and voilà, the heater is disengaged.

To bring 15 litres water from 15°C to 60° you need circa 0,78 kWh of energy (2,82 MJ)

If you have the heater built in the machine you need the said energy and you use only that energy, full stop. At 0,20 €/kWh you would spend 0,16 € to heat the water.

If you need to have the water heated externally by a gas boiler:

1a- you have to purge the line to get the water hot enough to the machine as so litte water is used
1b- you must keep the distance between washer and boiler very short
2- you can't have profile wash (enzymes won't work well)
3- you must have two water connections
4- you must have the boiler set at a scalding temperature (great stand-by losses and risk of injury)


in Italy a "normal metro cubo" (Nm^3) of gas for heating costs 1,50 € and its higher heating value is 39 MJ/Nm^3. (Data taken from my last gas bill)

having a condensing boiler with HHV efficency of 97% with a stand-by loss of 1 kWh/day yields the following data (for sake of simplicity I'm assuming no stand-by losses):

cost of gas needed to heat 15 litres of water: 11,2 eurocents

If you have a traditional boiler at only 80% efficency you'd spend: 13,6 eurocents

Let's assume you don't flush the line and the resulting water temperature is 40°C, the machine might compensate for the temperature difference by itself at an additional cost of 7 cents.

So: you can have 2 situation

1- The water is not heated and you're not washing in HOT water but only WARM (it would be all right to wash my darks at 40°C but now my whites) so you're not getting an effective wash (who was talking about diapers in the washer?)

2- The water is heated at the set temperature and you get an (almost, if using an enzyme based detergent) effective wash as you were washing with a cold fill only machine but having an additional cost.

The only circumstance I would recommend a hot&cold fill machine is when one has free water heating such as with solar collectors.

Also I want to add that in Europe almost anybody has a separate laundry room!
The majority of the washers are in the bathroom or kitchen or in a closet.


Your 1976 Westinghouse is far less energy efficient than a modern machine because you don't factor in the gas costs for heating the water.

30 gallons is 114 litres of water, to wash 6,7 kg of laundy (am I right? 3,6 cubic feet = 6,7 kg according to the American reference loading sheet)

Here I'm assuming 3 rinses and a first fill (correct me if I'm wrong), the first fill is 20% more of the rinses to saturate the load.
For the wash I use these figures:

the first (hot) fill is 33 litres:
heating 33 litres of water from 15°C to 60°C with gas costs 24 eurocents

Is this really cost effective?

Now we can compare both machines: as a reference I'm using a Candy "GO 1472 DE" , the most beloved machine ever (Europeans=read irony), that has a capacity of 7 kg and is cold fill.

The machine is rated A-20% so for a full load at 60°C it uses:

- 1,07 kWh of power (at 0,20 euros/kWh)
- 55 litres of cold water (at 2 euros per 1000 litres)

The 1976 Westinghouse uses

- 0,24 kWh of power (at 0,20 euros/kWh)
- 33 litres of hot water (at 2 euros per 1000 litres) plus a heating cost of 24 cents
- 81 litres of cold water (at 2 euros per 1000 litres)

Total cost per wash:

- Candy "GO 1472 DE" = 21,4 cents electricity + 0,11 cents water = 31,4 cents/wash

- 1976 LT570 Westinghouse = 4,8 cents electricity + 22,8 cents water + 24 cents heating = 51,6 cents

The difference in price per wash to the final user is 20 eurocents, using the modern machine costs 60% less.

Now let's compute the energy requirements that are unrelated to the utilities price:

- Candy "GO 1472 DE" = 1,07 kWh (all inclusive)

- 1976 LT570 Westinghouse = 0,24 (electricity) + 1,72 kWh (water heating) = 1,96 kWh

FINAL NOTE: for the Westinghouse I considered no heat losses from the boiler to the machine and I didn't also consider a line purge to bring hot water to the machine, nor was considered the stand-by loss of the boiler. Also the boiler was considered as being high efficiency condenser otherwise the figures for gas heating would have been 20% higher.


CLICK HERE TO GO TO dj-gabriele's LINK

Post# 498211 , Reply# 12   2/21/2011 at 11:03 (4,663 days old) by dj-gabriele ()        
@ Hoover1100

I did a factual cost analysis (again), I hope that's going to help not to open that "can of worms" ;)

Post# 498292 , Reply# 13   2/21/2011 at 16:55 (4,662 days old) by pingmeep ()        

Yup EU label with the 2006 AU rinse guidelines as I said before. Just did it like that for 3bellt's benefit of what a reportcard for a washer would look like.

I think it's worth bringing over here but with a seperate cost for gas & electric water heater as 3belt mentioned. Maybe also uncoupling the rinse from the total machine letter grade but with an acceptable minimum standard.

Would be more useful than energystar and similar initiatives. But I have a hunch the American appliance makers are trying to head off any scrutiny by creating their own standards. It was energystar this and that for nine plus years. Now since January they have created a test lab, started creating standards and hired a former Bush era DOE head for the new department while suddenly and with little fanfare conceeding battles like IEC equivalent capacity that their members fought to keep just months prior.

As an aside I find it humorous that one of the proponents of having the option of hotter washes and the critic of newer machines some of which do not get clothes wet or that have heaters to even heat the water in the hoses or create demand for instantaneous water heaters would be so against using an EU cold water fill washer. If he ever ran a sanitary cycle on most LG machines he would get a mostly cold fill (the detergent dispenser may get a shot of hot) and then the heater would bring it up towards 153-157F / 67-69.4C

I admit I was a tad lazy with MS Paint while he tried to palm off the current labling as similar to the EU label report card format.

P.S. And let's face it even if your 1976 washer really was more efficent you would lose most or all of that benefit due to poorer moisture extraction which you failed to also take into account.

This post was last edited 02/21/2011 at 17:28
Post# 498337 , Reply# 14   2/21/2011 at 17:44 (4,662 days old) by 3beltwesty ()        
RE Your 1976 Westinghouse is far less energy efficient than

The 1976 Westy uses a max of 10 gallons of hot water; if one uses hot water.

(1) FULL HOT To heat the 10 gallons of water from 60 to 140F is a 80 F difference. 10 US gallons weighs about 83 Lbs. To heat 83 Lbs 80 F is 83x80= 6640 BTU. Via electric this is about 1.94 KWHR worth of energy (6640/3414). at electric rates here this would be 14.5 cents/KWHR (1.94)= 28 cents. Since Here I am using natural gas this really costs about 1/3; ie 10 cents ie 1/10 US dollar.

(2) If I use the warm setting on the 1976 model it really only uses about 1/2 the hot water; thus my cost is about 5 cents to heat the water used.

(3) If I use COLD; Like I use about always; I use no hot water.

Thus the 1976 LT570 Westinghouse HERE costs:

HOT = 3.5 cents electricity + 30 cents water + 10 cents heating = 43.5 cents

WARM = 3.5 cents electricity + 30 cents water + 5 cents heating = 38.5 cents

COLD = 3.5 cents electricity + 30 cents water + 0 cents heating = 33.5 cents

If it had an electric heater added to the 1976 model and it somehow consumed a total of 0.95 KWHR; the heaters extra part would be 0.95-.24=0.71 KWHR This would cost me 14.5 * 0.71 = 10 cents; thus really a wash. :) ie the same as my gases extra 10 cent cost!

With my old 1976 washer whether I washed clothes 5 loads of hot a month or not really did not change the gas bill. If It did; it would be sort of in the noise; ie 5 washes at 10 cents or 1/2 US dollar on about a 14 to 15 dollar gas bill. If I use zero the bill is still about 10 dollars; the extra 4 to 5 is for showers and the sinks and the washer.

The typical American washes about 2.5 loads a week; ie about 11 loads a month. My cost with the 1976 machine for the entire month is 3.65 dollars for cold; 4.24 dollars for warm; and it all HOT washes is 4.79 dollars.

In using modern LG machine only on cold; those 11 loads would cost about 1.10 in water and about 0.24 in electricity; ie 1.34 dollars. Ie a 16LB load used 11 gallons and 0.15 KWHR.

Thus the modern machine saves me 3.65-1.34= 2.31 dollars per month with cold washes; but with the older machine often time mattered thus one has to factor in the time too

Post# 498338 , Reply# 15   2/21/2011 at 17:52 (4,662 days old) by 3beltwesty ()        

With the old 1976 machine I often would extend the spin cycle via my own adding a manual switch to stop the timer.

It was quite common with the older rig to do a shorter wash instead of a full 42 minutes; more like 32 to 37.

It was real common to wash some shirts and have they dry on hangers in less than 50 minutes to a hour.

The upsetting thing is the new rig is about 55 minutes for cycle; and about 20 for short cycle; ok sometimes but need to see if there is one between the two.

If one uses the 55 minute cycle and prewash and other buttons; one can get washes of 1 hr 15 minutes to 2 hours; a bit absurd

Post# 498346 , Reply# 16   2/21/2011 at 18:14 (4,662 days old) by dj-gabriele ()        

See, we're saying the same things!

But I'm saying that what you call "noise" is important! There are 800 millions of washing machine on this planet and the total savings are quite a bit of energy and that means less oil wasted.

I do care for the environment and while I'm not an eco-freak I despise those who embrace the "I pay I can waste" policy.
I think that everybody should do his best to change for the better.

Anyway, you can extend the spin as long as you want but the moisture won't drop under 70% or something while with a machine spinning at 1400 rpm it will be around 44%, that means 260g of water less per kg to be evaporated in a clothes dryer.

Also, why is time so important? I run the machine before going to bed, set the timer and clothes are ready to dry by seven in the morning or those rare times I'm in a rush I have a choice of 14, 30/32 or 44 minutes programmes that are effective for small loads even if wasteful.

Post# 498350 , Reply# 17   2/21/2011 at 18:22 (4,662 days old) by pingmeep ()        

Do you have option to up the soil level on the LG to get a longer short wash instead of resorting to an absurdly long wash?

Also how fast is the spin on that 1976 washer? Has to be less than 1400rpms right? A guess would be between 670 and 800rpm.

Also while the average American may do 2.5 washes per week the average American washing machine in a primary residence does 6-7 loads weekly. I wonder if they take collectors like you into their skew. ;-)

Post# 498352 , Reply# 18   2/21/2011 at 18:24 (4,662 days old) by combo52 (50 Year Repair Tech Beltsville,Md)        

combo52's profile picture

Dryers do not have DOE labels on them and I agree with you that electric water heaters should not be used if natural gas is available, but it is just as stupid if not more so to use an electric clothes dryer if gas is available. Gas dryers are 3-4 times more efficient in terms of how much fuel must be burned to produce the amount of electricity used by an electric dryer. If one must have an electric water heater one should look into a heat-pump model, I just purchased one for my partner this past Xmas.

Post# 498359 , Reply# 19   2/21/2011 at 18:49 (4,662 days old) by pingmeep ()        

I love the idea of using a natural gass dryer but every one I've tested is far harsher on clothing than conventional or condensing. High peaks and troughs in output. The fact that my house insurance would also go up and that I would need to up the supply line really hurts too.

If hydro rates keep going up (someone has to subsidize all that green renewable energy here) I may consider one. Right now though my 4cubic foot condesor dryer is saving me almost 32% of what similar loads cost on my old Maytag dryer. When you factor in not paying to heat and cool all the air that would be blown outside the savings might even be higher.

Post# 498381 , Reply# 20   2/21/2011 at 19:39 (4,662 days old) by 3beltwesty ()        
Gas dryer payback

RE "but it is just as stupid if not more so to use an electric clothes dryer if gas is available."

Actually an electric dryer is really not 3 to 4 times as costly compared to gas. At best for pure heating one gains a factor of 3 due to the thermodynamic cycle. In reality here it is at best about 2 since the gas heat flame adds back water vapor; in an area that is basically already a damp swamp. Ie the electric coil adds no water vapor and the gas flame does.

Here with a typical wash load I do the electric dryer if it runs 1/2 hour and on half the time draws 5400 *.25= 1.35 KWHR. My actual measurements are all over the place; about 0.5 to 2; with 1 to 1.5 KWHR being typical as measured numbers with a dial KWHR meter in series. With the 1.35 KWHR number my drying cost is thus 1.35 * 14.5= 19.6 cents.

if I switch to a gas dryer I say 1 dime a load; 25 cents per week; about 13 dollars per year.

if I go to Home Depot and buy the cheapest dryer it is 373 with tax dollars. Figure about 150 for a registered plumber to pull a permit and install a new gas cock by the gas dryer. Now I have 523 in the new gas dryer and I will break even in about 523/13= 40 years.

If I do a jackleg illegal non permited gas connection; the payback is shorter; about 373/13= 29 years

Here I often use the close line during the summer; thus the payback is longer.

the real benefit of using gas here is the gas typically is still one after a hurricane and one has no power; and one can run a gas dryer with little electrical; ie small generator.

Here my house insurance premium factors in not using a gas dryer too; it is tad higher If I get a gas dryer' ie more than the actual 13 dollar gain I save.

The real reason my dad got a electric dryer in 1947 was the apartment building he rented then had electric and no gas for tenents washer and dryers. Later in 1976 the cost of the gas versus electric dryer was really nil; rates were low. The electric dryer was bought like already mentioned; easier on the clothes, less damage. ie one saves the planet by not not going through clothes like mad.

RE "Also while the average American may do 2.5 washes per week the average American washing machine in a primary residence does 6-7 loads weekly. I wonder if they take collectors like you into their skew. ;-) "

The average house in the USA really has not many folks living in them; about 2 to 2.5 per household.

Thus "American washing machine in a primary residence does 6-7 loads weekly." would imply here that 2.25 folks are washing 6.5 baskets of clothes each week. ie 2.9 baskets per person per week. ie each person fills up a basket in 2.4 days. A super model might do that; but not an average Joe.

In this area with the Katrina exodus and population decline; it is often about 1.5 to 2 folks per home. About all have a washer and a dryer.

Post# 498396 , Reply# 21   2/21/2011 at 20:09 (4,662 days old) by neptunebob (Pittsburgh, PA)        

neptunebob's profile picture
I wonder though how well your Westinghouse washer spins out the clothes. Since there was lots of polyester in the 70s one did not need a high spin speed to get the clothes dry. Now with Dockers all cotton, it helps to have a washer that spins out the washer.

Post# 498476 , Reply# 22   2/22/2011 at 08:23 (4,662 days old) by combo52 (50 Year Repair Tech Beltsville,Md)        

combo52's profile picture

Your cost figures are way off you can't dry a 10-12lb load of clothes with just 15 minutes of heater on time in any dryer I have ever seen. You may dry 6 mens dress shirts in 30 minutes. I will compile the data to support the operational cost savings of gas vs electric dryers when I get a chance. But in most cases of doing 6-10 loads per week in a gas dryer will make cost of purchase free after aprox 5 years and pay for itself many more times over its 15-30 year life span. Thats a better payback than any stock or other investment you will likely ever make plus using a gas dryer causes only one 1/3 the carbon dioxide to be emitted into the atmosphere as using an electric one does. So you are saving the planet as well.

Post# 498489 , Reply# 23   2/22/2011 at 09:49 (4,662 days old) by 3beltwesty ()        
Maybe the issue is your washer does not extract water so wel

Combo; Your numbers are wet; ie not dried.

Here a typical load here is not 10-12lb load of clothes ; it is less. With the new LG washer it spins the clothes fairly dry; ie the dryer really needs little work.

If I washed your "You may dry 6 mens dress shirts in 30 minutes" case I am taking out the shirts after about say 5 to 15 minutes and placing them on hangers. At 15 minutes time they would be so crisp; ie real dumb since one now has to iron the stuff.

Things like dress shirts here are removed while not bone dry purposely; to reduce the chances of wrinkles. One just hangs them on hangers when they are about dry.

Maybe the issue is your washer does not extract water so well?

THUS Here RE "But in most cases of doing 6-10 loads per week in a gas dryer will make cost of purchase free after aprox 5 years and pay for itself many more times over its 15-30 year life span. "

does not apply. To wash that amount of clothes I will have to find a younger wife and have 6 kids; then it will make sense.

Here with any actual glass dial 240V watt hour meter in series; I have actual data. The actual KWHR's is like:

"Here with a typical wash load I do the electric dryer if it runs 1/2 hour and on half the time draws 5400 *.25= 1.35 KWHR. My actual measurements are all over the place; about 0.5 to 2; with 1 to 1.5 KWHR being typical as measured numbers with a dial KWHR meter in series. With the 1.35 KWHR number my drying cost is thus 1.35 * 14.5= 19.6 cents. "

I actually only save 10 cents per wash load if I switch to gas. To buy a gas dryer for me has no payback. My total cost savings is only 25 cents per week; 13 bucks per year. My house insurance will go up more than that amount. Thus If I win a free gas dryer and have free intall; it still costs me more since my fire insurance rises more than 13 bucks per year.

Thus *HERE* the venture has a negative rate of return and not done.

Here it really only makes sense for me if a start a giant family; then number of washes increases; the savings are then more than the insurance cost increase.

Real I was raised no to be wastefull ie not take on projects that have no returns.

The current dryer is already 35 years old dn well made; I really do not it buy into buying a new gas dryer for 500 bucks wtih install; that has a negative rate of return. You are free to fill landfills; here I this as ruining the planet. The old machine will last another 35 years. The motor, coil,belt are common; I have a brand new timer too. Maybe this is why so many are in financial troubles; they chase bad investments.

The dumb dryer here costs me about 1.35 Kwhr per load for *MY* average 2.5 loads a week. I burn about 15 KWHR per month with the dryer; *IF* it is raining and I do not use the clothes line. This costs me 2.18 dollars per month. This is actual measured consumption.

As a reference; that government kickbacked TV converter I have if left plugged it draws 9 watts 24/7 . In one month if left plugged in consumes 6.5 KWHR ie 9x24x30= 6.48 If I just unplug this converter box when not used I save as much as the gas dryer would; and I have no added insurance premium too.

Here about the largest electrical costs are ones Air conditioners one runs. In the summer one might have a 100 to 150 buck electrical bill; depending on how hot and how humid one wants to be inside.

If the electrical bill is say 120 dollars in July; one has 2.18 for the dryer ; the LED and CFL timed night lights are a few bucks too. The fridge here costs about 10 per month.

For me the 1992 Fridge costing 10 per month is the major thing slated to be replaced; since replacement makes cents :) from a money energy standpoint.

Buying a gas dryer will never be done unless it makes sense to do so. ie why be wastefull?

Post# 498495 , Reply# 24   2/22/2011 at 10:12 (4,662 days old) by 3beltwesty ()        

Here even the cost of ones gas bill is not a lot for heating water. If I use zero Natural gas I still get about a 9 dollar gas bill; just to check the meter, If it is a business the bill is about 23 with zero usage. Ie you are a business; thus you help subsidize the homeowners bill.

If the hot water tank of 40 gallons is used up every day with showers due to relatives for a month; the home gas bill is about 20 bucks. ie the house used 30x40=1200 gallons of hot water. This delta cost was thus about 11 dollars for the 1200 gallons. ie about 0.92 cents per gallon.

If one uses the old 1976 washer and it uses the hot cycle; one uses 10 gallons of hot water. This would be thus 9.2 cents in cost per load for the added hot cycles cost via the above rough swag.

Note this 9.2 cents is about the same as the other estimate far above of 10 cents with gas:

(1) FULL HOT To heat the 10 gallons of water from 60 to 140F is a 80 F difference. 10 US gallons weighs about 83 Lbs. To heat 83 Lbs 80 F is 83x80= 6640 BTU. Via electric this is about 1.94 KWHR worth of energy (6640/3414). at electric rates here this would be 14.5 cents/KWHR (1.94)= 28 cents. *****Since Here I am using natural gas this really costs about 1/3; ie 10 cents ie 1/10 US dollar. *****

In summary the electrical heater in a modern FL washer is not so bad; the expensive source of heat is made up with it being local and thus it is a "wash:)" compared to me using a gas not water heater.

In folks who are environmentalists here and somewhat off the grid; they often have a solar hot water heater and the internal electrical heater is NOT used. In California this was a fad at times, ie late 1970's even with older machines.

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