Skip to main content

View Diary: My New HET (High Efficency Toilet) (89 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Consider getting them ... (3+ / 0-)

    low-flow shower heads are a very fast financial payback due to reduced (hot) water use.

    •  Do you really (2+ / 0-)

      think that my method doesn't save as much as a low flow head running the whole time?  And I use warm water--not a steaming hot water like most people like.

      The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

      by dfarrah on Sat Jun 27, 2009 at 07:35:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I do both.  Have low-flow shower heads and typically take Navy showers.

        Certainly, you are using less water than someone taking a 20 minute shower, 110 degree water, using a 7 gallon/minute multiple showerhead system.  

      •  By the way ... (0+ / 0-)

        it is the power of conservation + efficiency.  

        Efficiency is a powerful tool, which can be set via standards & regulations, providing "same" services at lower energy demand & lower total cost.

        Conservation is the choice to act differently, in ways to reduce power demand.

        Truly, we are far more powerful in impact if we pursue both paths.

        Your, let's say, 5 minute shower/day perhaps at 5 gpm (a low level for non low-flow showerhead) flow is 25 gallons. (You might be lower/higher.) Roughly, per year, 9000 gallons.

        A high-end 'low flow' would be half that (can get, roughly, 1.25 to 2.5 gpm showerheads). Assuming some wasted water in pipes as you wait for warm water to arrive, would think perhaps 15 gallons/day or perhaps 5000-6000 gallons per year.

        So, if you took a 20 minute shower at 5 gpm, that would be 100 gallons rather than 25 for 5 minutes (or 20 for 4 or ...). Your conservation (actually, sensible showering) makes a huge cut.  The efficiency of a low-flow helps take that even further.

        •  I kind of thought (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          that with low flow, the water would have to run longer, in comparison with regular flow, in order to rinse off completely.  And that it would even out.

          But you're saying you can still get the same "rinse quality" from a low flow w/o running the water longer, I assume.

          Hmmm, maybe I should just use a pressure washer.  

          The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

          by dfarrah on Sat Jun 27, 2009 at 08:05:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well ... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Timbuk3, ladybug53

            supposedly, the aeration & distribution achieves much of the same effect. But, honestly, this is the level of understanding exact impacts that go beyond my knowledge (or anything that I've seen).  But, for the sake of argument, assume that you would need a little bit more time for rinsing.  Let's say that, total, you take 20% longer but are using 50% of the water for all the time the shower is on ... Still saving 40%.  Biggest non-savings is the need to move the hot water from the tank to the shower, which is the same water total no matter the type of shower head.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site