[Auntie_Cipation]

Here's a cool link about one way to keep the beer cool without electricity, at least in arid areas: Cool Beer

Here's another interesting site that talks about all aspects of refrigeration: Regrigeration

[And_over]

I've been looking at commercially available refrigerators and came up with this Kenmore model. http://www.sears.com/sr/javasr/product. ... 4664932000

It holds 18.9 cubic feet of food and consumes 417 kilowatt hours of energy per year. The cost is $549. This is the best commercially available refrigerator I could find, but does anyone here know of a refrigerator that comsumes even less?

[pea-jay]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('And_over', 'I')'ve been looking at commercially available refrigerators and came up with this Kenmore model. http://www.sears.com/sr/javasr/product. ... 4664932000

It holds 18.9 cubic feet of food and consumes 417 kilowatt hours of energy per year. The cost is $549. This is the best commercially available refrigerator I could find, but does anyone here know of a refrigerator that comsumes even less?

[pea-jay]

GG3 Wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n fact, in this context, "micro freezers" might be viable at minimal energy consumption.

[gg3]

WisJim, the reason your unit is getting such good performance is that it's a fridge-only, w/o freezer. The freezer compartment is what really eats up the power.

Pea-Jay, that's an interesting idea (a removable flap with another compartment under it) and I might pursue it in one of our designs. The only problem is it would tend to be inexact, and what I'm looking for also entails having fairly good control over the actual temperature in the cabinet.

For example, there is an ideal temp for ice cream, where it's cold and frosty but not frozen solid like a brick, so you can scoop it out fairly easily (and it tastes better if it's not freezing your tongue into an ice-sicle!). I assume the same case obtains for other foods. Often these temps are a little higher than you might expect, so if you can hit those temps, you have food that's in better condtion (though perhaps has a shorter storage life, which is OK if you eat it in time) and you're saving more energy that way.

Another possibility of course, is to build in a bunch of thermostat probes and provide an ethernet interface so you can read the actual temps at various points in the cabinet, on a visual display in a browser window that shows all of them simultaneously. This way you could set up various minimums and maximums so the system is always providing appropriate performance despite variations inside the cabinet. The display would also suggest which food items would go best in each region of the cabinet.

See, this is a valid reason for connecting the appliances to the home LAN. Not so your fridge can call up your health insurance company and let them know you're eating too many fatty foods or too many sweets. (And needless to say, we're going to take steps to be sure these home networked appliances protect your privacy!)

If I haven't mentioned it, one of my design concepts is the idea that sometimes a person wants a more-efficient unit but ends up buying a less-efficient unit because they need it to do something the more-efficient unit doesn't do. Similar to buying the minivan instead of the Honda Insight because you occasionally have to haul a bunch of stuff around. But if you could buy a Honda Insight that converted to a minivan at the push of a button, that would give you the best of both worlds.

That is, a high-efficiency appliance with some less-efficient operating modes for times & circumstances where those are needed. For example a front-loading washer with a "use more water" setting for those times when you had a load that for whatever reason really should be washed in more water. The result of this is, people who would otherwise have to buy a less efficient unit, can buy one of our high-efficiency units because it really does do both jobs at the flip of a switch. (After we get some sales on the fridge/freezer units, we're going to do other things: air conditioners, washers, dishwashers, maybe vacuums. We're going to make these things in apartment size versions as well as regular household size. I have a bunch of ideas up my sleeve here....)

BTW, we've gotten our first order for a fridge/freezer unit as soon as we're in production. Woo-hoo! From a remodeling contractor no less! Yes, I see these in a bunch of kitchens pretty soon...!

[strider3700]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('And_over', 'I')'ve been looking at commercially available refrigerators and came up with this Kenmore model. http://www.sears.com/sr/javasr/product. ... 4664932000

It holds 18.9 cubic feet of food and consumes 417 kilowatt hours of energy per year. The cost is $549. This is the best commercially available refrigerator I could find, but does anyone here know of a refrigerator that comsumes even less?

[DoctorDoom]

I'm going to recycle the old fridge with PG&E. I bought a new one that supposedly will average 611 Kwh annually, a good enough improvement. I can definitely see the advantages of going with DC appliances if you have rooftop PV and a battery storage system. This is not practical for me, I need to stick with my AC home. My plan is to put up a PV system next year, when I hope I can afford it without going into hock. I'll use an inverter to create AC. I'm planning on a grid-connected system, using the grid as a "bank" to avoid the expense and space required for batteries. I'm counting on the grid not to collapse, which seems like a reasonable bet for the lifetime of the system.

[WisJim]

[quote="gg3"]WisJim, the reason your unit is getting such good performance is that it's a fridge-only, w/o freezer. The freezer compartment is what really eats up the power.


If I haven't mentioned it, one of my design concepts is the idea that sometimes a person wants a more-efficient unit but ends up buying a less-efficient unit because they need it to do something the more-efficient unit doesn't do. Similar to buying the minivan instead of the Honda Insight because you occasionally have to haul a bunch of stuff around. But if you could buy a Honda Insight that converted to a minivan at the push of a button, that would give you the best of both worlds.
quote]

Not having a freezer in the refrig when we already have a seperate more efficient chest freezer was obvious to me, and part of the reason we got the unit we did.

When I was a kid, most peoole didn't have their own freezer, but kept their large quantities of frozen foods at the local locker plant, and picked up what they needed every few days or week. This option doesn't seem to be available very often any more.

[And_over]

I thought that I'd start a bunch of product-specific threads for people looking to buy new appliances. I'm basing my finds mostly off of energy star, but if anyone else knows of any other efficient devices, please post.

Here is the washer I found:
Front Load High Efficiency Washers

MAH21PN High-Efficiency Front-Load Washer
http://www.caldwellandgregory.com/broch ... PNspec.pdf

Uses 143 kWh/year and has a lot of space.

[12volts]

Well my first thought was the Staber but it does seem to use a little more power than the one you found at 180kWh.

But this one has been around for 13 years.

It has been the main choise for those who live off the grid on solar or wind power.

[gg3]

I've been working on appliance efficiency issues for a while; good to see you starting topics on this.

Energy Star ratings are useful for competitive comparisons, but they embody certain assumptions that may not match your actual usage patterns. For certain appliances, the unit is on continuously all year, for example refrigerators, so the ratings will more closely match actual results for all users. For others, washers and dishwashers among them, energy and water usage can vary widely depending on how you use them, so the ratings are best used for competitive assessments.

For example, in washing machines, length of cycle, water temperature, whether or not you use the sanitize function (if it has one), and of course how many loads you wash each week.

What I find more useful for washers and dishwashers is, energy and water consumption per dry pound of laundry and specifying the cycles and settings. This figure automatically takes into account the differences in sizes of the various machines, so you have an apples-to-apples comparison. It also requires that you measure the actual power usage, for example with a Kill-A-Watt power monitor (about $35 retail).

----

Washing machines, interestingly enough, are not big energy consumers, as long as you're not using the internal water heater (if your machine has one). The internal water heater is of course useful for sanitizing, by raising water temperatures to (depending on the model) somewhere between 160 and 200 degrees Fahrenheit. This is a good option to have for families with kids and for shared households with more than two adults, but it's not essential (e.g. in a bird flu pandemic you can wash your whites with bleach and then dry everything at high temps in the dryer).

The largest energy consumer for househould laundry is the dryer, so if you can either reduce drying time or use a clothes line, you've automatically saved a large amount of the total energy consumption for laundry. The way to reduce dryer time is by using a washer that has a high-speed spin option: the faster the spin the better, since removing water from fabric via centrifugal force (spinning) is far more efficient than removing it via heat (tumble drying).

----

The most efficient washer I've seen, and I have one, is the Danby DTT-420 twin-tub. This comes in at 0.01 to 0.02 KWH per pound of laundry, with figures toward the lower end more common. For example a 6 pound load will typically register 0.07 to 0.08 KWH: about the same as a 60-watt incandescent light bulb left on for a little more than an hour. (Standard top-loading washers can come in at about twice this figure, or the equivalent of that light bulb left on for a little more than two hours. As you can see, washing clothes, in and of itself, consumes amazingly little power considering the amount of "hard work" that's being done by the motor instead of by your muscles washing by hand.) This unit is not Energy Star rated because every cycle option is controlled by a windup timer, so there is no "standard cycle" that will run automatically from start to finish.

The way the twin-tub works is, there is one compartment with an agitator for washing and rinsing, and another compartment with a high-speed spinner for spin drying. You move the load manually from one to the other a couple of times during the cycle. Machines of this type were at one time highly popular in the UK and Europe, and are still popular in Asia, the Pacific Islands, the Middle East (water efficiency), and Australia (ditto).

For example, wash for 6 minutes, drain the wash water, move the load to the spinner (maximum 4-1/2 lbs. at a time), spin for 2 minutes, re-fill the wash compartment with clean water, rinse for 6 minutes, move the load to the spinner, spin for 5 minutes, done.

The higher electrical efficiency is because a) the cycle is not automatic, each function is controlled by a manual switch or windup timer, b) there is a separate motor for each function which is matched to the task, for example the agitator motor uses about 275 watts, the spinner motor uses about 150, and the water pump motor uses about 26, and c) the agitation function uses a clever intermittent action (clockwise, pause, counterclockwise, pause, repeat) that takes advantage of the inertia of the moving water and clothes as part of the cleaning function.

Water usage can be comparable to a front-loader if you're careful. For example, you can do more than one load in the same wash water (this was how people used wringer washers when those were common, and is still done in Australia): first wash the whites in the hottest water, then the sturdy colors as the water cools, then the bright colors as the water cools further. This is not a sanitary hazard as long as you don't have clothes with poo on them (e.g. diapers) or germs from someone who has a contagious illness.

What I do is save the final rinse water for use as wash water for the next load. Since spinning occurs in the separate spin compartment, there is no need to discharge the water from the wash compartment first. Thus, the final rinse water can stay in the wash compartment for a few days until there's another load to wash. And of course final rinse water is sanitary since it's just clear water with a little bit of lint and a little detergent (though usually I'll add a teaspoon of bleach to be sure it stays sanitary for the few days between loads).

Last but not least, the spin function is high-speed (about 1400 rpm) so clothes come out nearly dry, reducing drying time in the dryer by about half. Though in my case I use indoor clothes lines for final drying, thereby saving the very large amount of power that the tumble dryer would use.

Danby DTT-420 is available via online shopping, typically about $300 plus shipping. In some places you can get these at regular appliance stores, for example New York and Los Angeles. Maximum load size is rated at 10 lbs, but as with many top-loading compact washers, actual capacity is usually less; I find that a 6-lb. load is the practical maximum (and divides into two 3-lb loads for each spin cycle). It's very quiet when running, and compact enough for apartments. The tradeoff for high efficiency is that you have to manually move the clothes back and forth between wash compartment and spin compartment, but this is hardly an inconvenience compared to the benefits. And the design is simple enough that there should be very little cause for repairs over the years.

---

What I'd like to see here, are results from other folks using a Kill-A-Watt meter to measure the power consumption of their own washers (and other appliances), and specifying the settings they are using (e.g. wash cycle options).

[gg3]

One more thing; to translate DTT-420's energy usage into a yearly total for comparison with other machines:

Assume three 6# loads per week per person, at 0.10 KWH/load (which is a little higher than actual). Assume a 4-person household. Therefore a total of 12 loads / week.

For one year, the total would be a total of 624 loads, or 62.4 KWH per year. Assuming you either wash in cold water or have solar hot water, and you use a clothes line, that would be your total power consumption for laundry per year.

(Or you could take the figure of 62.4, divide by 4 to get power usage per each person, 15.6 KWH/year, and multiply by number of people in your household. If you have more than 4 people you might need two washers in order to keep up with the quantities of laundry, but the energy usage per person will remain the same.)

[NEOPO]

Call us crazy but........

We are going to use the following:

Dual tub with manual ringer.
Outside lines spring thru fall and inside lines in winter.
The outside lines will be stainless steel wire and use stainless steel pulleys so the hangee does not have to walk the line but rather push the line away as they go.
I have designed the bathroom with enough space to accomodate a few lines in winter.

We notice that towels are one of the main things that we wash most often.
Personally I hang my towels up and reuse them 2-3 times before washing and I am sure alot of my clothes are not really "dirty" and could be worn at least twice before they need washing.

I know its not a machine in the traditional sense but I thought I would let everyone know how our group is going to do their laundry with little or no electricity useage.

[FoxV]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NEOPO', 'C')all us crazy but........

[FoxV]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', 'W')hat I'd like to see here, are results from other folks using a Kill-A-Watt meter to measure the power consumption of their own washers (and other appliances), and specifying the settings they are using (e.g. wash cycle options).

[magician]

anybody have any experience with the Wonder Wash (tm). my washer is on the fritz and id rather turn the crank than plug it in, so that I might give my non-negotiable electricity hogs (computer, freezer, ect) the juice with less impact on my wallet. im thinking of buying one.

--frater coyote

[Pops]

Just an anecdote from a relative who purchased a Maytag from loader – is it a Neptune? Anyway they said it is the top of the line but no matter what they do they can’t get the soap out of the clothes.

FWIW we bought a Maytag washer/dryer back in the late 70s -. the first time I ever consulted Consumer Reports. That machine had all the internal parts of a commercial coin-op unit – but was a consumer model.

We raised 3 kids and had those machines for over 20 years – maybe 2 loads a day/5 days a week average = 10,000 loads minimum!

The next washer we had was a Kenmore - lasted 5 years for just the 2 of us.

Don’t forget that it takes energy to build things, I wonder how much more energy it took to build the Maytag vs. the Kenmore that lasted through a 10th the use? I think they are built on the same line even – or used to be.

[gg3]

Re. Wonder Wash: A close friend & I used one of those for a while as part of our tests of offgrid methods. Capacity is about 2 - 3 lbs. per load, which is fairly small but acceptable. Don't cram it totally full, leave space in there for the load to slosh around. If you use hot water as per their instructions you'll need to consider the energy used to heat water. You can use cold or warm water with decent results. Turn the crank at a speed that causes the load to slosh around in the unit as much as possible, which will also be the speed that takes most effort to turn. Ten revolutions in one direction, ten in the opposite direction, repeat for a total of 60 revolutions (or more if your clothes are really dirty). Wring out the clothes and repeat the process twice for each load to rinse.

Laundry Alternative, which sells Wonder Wash, sells a countertop "spinner" which is a highspeed spin dryer with 2-lb capacity, price is about $70, power consumption will be minimal, and this will do a far better job than "wringing" clothes by hand or even with a wringer, otherwise look for hand-operated wringers which are a lot better than wringing by hand without a wringer. (They also sell a larger spinner

---

Maytag Neptune: early Neptune units had some fairly serious problems and Maytag had to pay a large settlement. Later units were improved. However the problem may not have been the washer, see next paragraph.

---

Detergent left in clothes: classic symptom of using too much detergent. With front loaders, you use *much less* detergent than with top loaders. If you have had this problem, wash your clothes a couple of times with *no* detergent just to rinse out the left over residue (you'll see suds in the discharged water). Then next time, wash with 1/4 (or less!) the amount of detergent you were using before and observe results and adjust accordingly for subsequent washings.

---

Old Maytags never die, and are starting to become "collectors' items" for this reason. If you find one at a yard sale or flea market or second-hand shop, pounce on it and have it thoroughly reconditioned by a good appliance technician, and it will last for 20 years.

However, even less ruggedly built units can last a long time if you treat them carefully, usually by deliberately doing smaller than maximum loads and making sure that loads with heavy articles such as blue jeans also contain an equal quantity of medium-weight articles such as shirts.

---

Washing by hand with tub and manual wringer: We tried the hand washing routine also; yes it works, but oh my God! what a lot of work! Truly the amount of power used by a simple & efficient electric washer is minimal for the hard labor it saves. Though, it's useful to know how to wash by hand for conditions where there is no electricity. A clean plunger, used for this purpose only, helps quite a bit for agitating the load.

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', 'D')etergent left in clothes: classic symptom of using too much detergent. With front loaders, you use *much less* detergent than with top loaders.

[elocs]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('magician', 'a')nybody have any experience with the Wonder Wash (tm). my washer is on the fritz and id rather turn the crank than plug it in, so that I might give my non-negotiable electricity hogs (computer, freezer, ect) the juice with less impact on my wallet. im thinking of buying one.
--frater coyote