More eco than me, but that doesn't mean you can't save big with your major appliances.
- Intro
- Reducing electricity consumption I: Lighting
- Reducing electricity consumption II: vampire/standby power
- Reducing electricity usage III: Major appliances
- Renewable energy for the home
- Cutting the cord
- Reducing heating and cooling costs
- Reducing water consumption
Welcome back to my epic series on reducing your power consumption, keeping dollars in your pocket and doing your tangible part to save the environment. If you've followed from the start, you know that my efforts over the past three years have delivered significant energy savings, from $3,687 in consumption costs in 2012, to $3,200 in 2013, to $1,900 in 2014. And with my solar array offsetting a huge chunk of that, my total energy costs this year will be around $500. Next year, the utility company will be paying me, as I will be generating more electricity than my increasingly svelte house consumes. And while some of these efficiency upgrades are pricy (the solar wasn't cheap), I've already detailed many inexpensive upgrades that can pay off huge financial dividends down the road. Today's edition, on major appliances, won't deliver on the "inexpensive" side of things, but certainly on the long-term savings. Remember the rules of my energy saving journey, and then head below the fold for today's edition:
1. I do what I do to save the world. That's my top priority, but ... 2. Saving money is important! The upgrades have to make financial sense. 3. Don't sacrifice comfort.
By "major appliances", I mean the refrigerator, washer, dryer, stove/range/oven and dishwasher. So let's do this thing! Refrigerator On average, refrigerators use about 13-15 percent of a home's total electricity usage. Traditionally, that made it the single biggest energy consumer in the house, though satellite and cable boxes have threatened that title in recent years. That large draw makes it one of the best candidates for energy savings in your house. There are quite a few refrigerator styles these days. There is the old school freezer on top models, then the side-by-sides which became popular I guess in the '90s? And nowadays, french door fridges are all the rage.
I'd been lusting after one of those french door fridges forever, but those are expensive appliances and the fridge that came with our house when we bought it in 2006 was perfectly serviceable. It took some work, but when I dug up the Energy Guide ratings for it, I found out it wasn't too shabby at 648 kWh per year, or an average of 74 watts. At my rates ($0.19/kWh), that meant the fridge cost about $123 per year to operate. No new fridge, no matter how cheap, would ever make replacement a financially viable proposition. But that old refrigerator was built sometime in the early '00s, when efficiency standards were fairly advanced. Take a look at how dramatically refrigerator efficiency has increased since California led the nation with the first standards in 1976:
That drop in consumption is all the more amazing considering that the average size of a refrigerator has gone from 18 cubic feet to 22. so props for government for spurring this efficiency innovation in refrigerator manufacturing. But what that chart means for you is that if your refrigerator is more than 20 years old, you can shave up to thirds your refrigeration costs and get more space while you're at it. (Or keep the same amount of space and save even more.) In fact, just a few months ago in September 2014, new Energy Star guidelines came into effect for refrigerators, requiring better testing procedures and even higher efficiency requirements. Did you know that under the old Energy Star testing procedures, manufacturers were allowed to test their fridges with their ice makers off? Turns out ice makers are terrible energy hogs, so those Energy Guide labels were full of crap! I took out my trusty old watt meter and decided to measure that old fridge directly.
The results? An average of 77 watts, compared to the 74 promised by the Energy Guide. Not too bad, actually. And my ice maker is on. But with new fridges promising an hourly wattage draw in the 50s, I was eager to shave that consumption (remember rule #1) as part of my path to zero-carbon. And did I mention I'd been lusting after a french door refrigerator? Mindful of the carbon cost of manufacturing and shipping a new fridge, I held on to the old one until it began to malfunction a few months ago and I had the excuse I needed to get that new fridge earlier this month. Here's a few things I learned in the months-long process it took me to make my final choice:
-
New Energy Guide ratings (yellow letters on black card) are not comparable to the old ratings. As I researched fridges, trying to compare models with both the old and new labels got crazy confusing. After extensive research, I deduced that the old Energy Guide number (black numbers on yellow background) is (very) roughly 25 percent lower than the new label. In other words, the new testing procedures jacked up consumption numbers by (very, very, very roughly) 25 percent.
-
The smaller the fridge, the less power it uses. Seems obvious, right? Here's the thing: different fridge configurations dramatically impact your space needs. In cubic feet:
My old GE side-by-sde:
Total: 25.4 Refrigerator: 15.9 Freezer: 9.5 My new LG french-door: Total: 22.7 Refrigerator: 13.5 Freezer: 6.4
- I'm not kidding, our old fridge was overflowing with crap. In our new one, 11 percent smaller, half of it is empty. Part of it was all that wasted freezer space. We don't generally freeze much food. Some ice cream, an occasional frozen dinner, some pizzas, and lots of ice wraps for the kids. Our new more compact freezer more than covers our sparse freezing needs, and since it's so much smaller it costs less to cool. But it was shocking to see how much more efficient the refrigerator space was—we have more door storage space, so we need less shelf space. For example, our drinks once took up an entire shelf (soy milk, gallon jugs of cow milk, misc. juices), now they all fit on the door. Better organized drawers and storage bins means that literally half the shelves in the fridge are now empty. So, keep in mind that you might not need to equal your previous space needs if your new refrigerator is more space efficient. Indeed, I found the refrigerator reviews at Reviewed.com to be of immense help, as they measure actual usable storage space, as well as energy consumption, for all the refrigerators they review.
-
Ice-makers and in-door water dispensers increase energy consumption. If absolute energy efficiency is your goal, go with the clean-door look. Apparently, it's hard to energy seal the area where the water and ice are dispensed. Many of those fridges without in-door dispensers have icemakers in the freezer and filtered water dispensers inside the fridge. I find it hard to believe that opening the door for filtered water is more efficient than getting it through the door, but that is the claim (I can't confirm or deny it).
-
The most efficient models are those old school freezer-on-top models. You can get a great sense of how various types of fridges and makes and models score on the efficiency scale at this site Enervee. In any case, I wasn't getting one of those. Been there, done that, I sometimes cling fiercely to rule #3.
So in any case, my new LG refrigerator's Energy Guide label claimed it would use 665 kWh/year, or 76 watt hours per hour. If that rating held up, it would mean it would run just one watt lower than my outgoing GE. But I took that rating, shaved off 25 percent so I could do an apples-to-apples comparison with my GE, and got 499 kWh/year (57 watts). Then I crossed my fingers and bought the fridge.
Now, several weeks in, I've got a solid measurement of the new fridge's consumption. The results? Fifty-six watts, slightly better than I estimated. Turns out, the old-school energy guide measurement would've been accurate for my fridge given my family's usage patterns. And I did get a model with through-the-door ice and water dispenser (rule #3). So my new fridge saves me 504 watt hours per day, or about a 3-4 percent reduction in my overall electricity usage. That equals 184 kWh per year. Financially, that's just $35 per year, so this fridge will never pay for itself. But it did allow me to take a real chunk out of my consumption, getting me that much closer to net-zero. And I got a kick-ass french door refrigerator out of it, which is really what I wanted all along.
Several extra points: If you upgrade, don't stick your old refrigerator in the garage. If you already have a second fridge in the garage, you better have a good reason for doing so. Visiting my inlaws this summer I unplugged a spare refrigerator they had running ... and it was EMPTY. They had it running for those odd times when they had need for space for things like a cake. This does nothing to save energy, and plenty to waste it. On the other hand, chest freezers are brilliantly efficient if you have big need for frozen storage. But the key here is NEED. Don't place your refrigerator next to any heat-producing appliances, like stoves or dishwashers. And don't place it on an external wall that gets overly hot in the summer. The reasons should be obvious. Don't do like me and have a half-empty fridge. A full fridge is a more efficient fridge.
Finally, clean the condenser coils regularly. I only measured my old fridge AFTER I had cleaned out the coils which is a pity. When I pulled the fridge from the wall to plug in the watt meter, the coils had probably a decade's worth of crap clogging them up. It would've been fun to get some before and after measurements. Oh well. If you want more tips, the California Energy Commission has good ones here.
Stove
When it comes to cooking and efficiency, gas has been king. Not only is gas (far) cheaper to operate long-term, but it has been easier to regulate temperatures with actual fire, rather than traditional electric ranges. (More than offsetting the initial cheaper cost of electric ranges.) I'm no foodie or chef, so I'll defer to the experts in this category, but unless you have a range with a built-in clock (vampire power!), energy efficiency hasn't been traditionally relevant to cooking ranges. Indeed, the federal government has no efficiency standards for stoves, and there are no Energy Star guidelines for them either.
I have a gas stove, and will likely have it for a long time. However, as my electricity consumption falls, I'm starting to fantasize about a gas-free house. Why should I reward frackers with my dollars when I can get all the power I need from my solar panels? And I certainly would sleep better knowing that my house wasn't dependent on dangerous gas lines, particularly in this earthquake-prone part of the world (even though I have an auto-shutoff valve in case of disaster, nothing is foolproof). If I could have heat pumps and the sun take care of my hot water (which would also heat water for my clothes dryer, presumably), then the kitchen would be the last redoubt of gas.
But then again, I've had old electrical stoves in the past, and they were the suck. Why would I go back to that? Because electric stoves have come a long way, and specifically, induction stoves. While gas stoves use 35 to 55 percent of their energy for cooking (feel the heat around the pots), induction stoves are 90 percent efficient, topping all sources of cooking heat. So check it out, these stovetops look like this:
Induction stovetop
Turn it on, touch that surface? No heat. But it's on! How does that work? Well, induction stovetops use electromagnetic waves to turn the bottom of your (steel or cast iron) cooking pot into a heating surface. In other words, the pot is hot, the surface is not. And not only is this insanely efficient, and not only does it bring water to a boil 50 percent faster than gas, but it also allows for precise temperature settings. If you need to simmer something at 140 degrees, then you can set it to simmer at exactly 140 degrees. Much harder to manage that level of precision with gas. I did some cursory research into the running cost differences between induction and gas, and the general (non-scientific) response is generally "negligible." Sure, electricity is more expensive, but the high efficiency of induction means you need less power to cook. That means that if I someday switch to induction, it won't be to save money, but to shift my energy consumption entirely to solar and to remove a source of potential danger (gas lines) in my house.
Still, I don't expect it to happen anytime this decade. Other priorities abound. In a related category, there's not much happening in the efficiency sector with ovens. I mean, you've got to heat shit up really hot, and that takes raw energy. And unlike a stovetop, you're not losing energy around pots. It's all self-contained inside the oven. I have an electric oven that uses insane amounts of energy when on—4-5,000 watts. When tracking my daily usage, I know exactly when we've used that oven. There are gas ovens, of course, which would likely cost less, but would kill my "no fracking products" dream. So I've done some preliminary research into a larger toaster oven to handle smaller baking needs. But for now, it's not something that presents a significant part of our consumption or costs. We're not a baking-type family.
DISHWASHER
My dishwasher, a three-year-old Bosch uses 1250 watts when running. For me, those kind of numbers are nails on a blackboard. So why not handwash? Turns out, using a dishwasher is the most efficient form of washing your dishes. Energy Star estimates that using a dishwasher saves the typical household 5,000 gallons of water per year. My Bosch dishwasher, several years old, uses about three gallons per wash. That's great in draught-stricken California, but that number matters even if your corner of the world is awash in water—Energy Star also calculates $40 in reduced energy costs for dishwashing. Not sure about the assumptions going into that estimate, but the underlying rationale makes sense—a big part of the cost of dishwashing is heating the water. If you're only heating three gallons, that means much lower costs than heating more water. Older dishwashers may be less water and electricity efficient, I don't know, you'd have to see for yourself. But the current crop are certainly efficient little machines. A couple of tips:
-
Turn down length of wash. My dishwasher defaults to "regular load," which is a 148-minute cycle. That means that each load used about 2,000 watts to finish. We stuck with that for a couple of years until one day I noticed a setting for "quick wash," which is only 37 minutes. We've been using that ever since without a single problem. That short setting uses about 800 watts per load.
-
Scrape, don't rinse. Most modern dishwashers do a great job of handling dirty dishes, obviating a need to clean the dishes before you, er, clean them again. We scrape away leftovers into our composting bin, then put them into the dishwasher. Sometimes I'll rinse and pre-scrub if a pot looks particularly gnarly, but I'll do so with cold water to save on the water heating costs. I mean, I'm just rinsing away whatever I scrape off, so no need for warm water to do that.
-
Use no-heat air dry if your dishwasher has that feature. Mine doesn't. If I were buying one today, I'd make sure to get a dishwasher with that option. I would gladly trade a few spots on my glassware to save on that last big chunk of energy heating the air. When I open my dishwasher after a cycle, it's f'n HOT in there.
WASHER
The typical American family washes approximately 300 loads per year. With five people in my house, we're a bit higher than that. It feels like the damn washing machine is always on. So, going to a front-loading washer (which we did when we moved into our house in 2006) was a big efficiency upgrade. Front loading washers average about 15 gallons to wash a full load, compared to 40 gallons for traditional top loaders. High efficiency models can use as little as 12 gallons. My LG front-loader actually adjusts the water level depending on the size of the load, so smaller loads use less water. But if you're a traditionalist set on a top-loading washer (you've got your reasons, I'm sure), new ones can be almost as efficient. The big tip here? Wash with cold water. There are no benefits to washing with warm or hot water. Wanna kill germs? You need water temps around 200 degrees F. Your clothes washer will get up to around 140. So seriously, stop it!
About three-quarters of the energy use and greenhouse-gas emissions from washing a load of laundry come from heating the water — a practice that, scientists say, is often wasteful and unnecessary.
DRYER
Rule #3 says I can't sacrifice comfort or convenience, which is why I've never tried a clothesline. Gotta say I'm tempted. I've got an old clothesline wheel on a post in my backyard that looks like it hasn't been used since 1946, so I've thought once or twice about making it happen. The benefits are pretty clear: energy savings, natural bleaching and germ-killing properties of sunlight, less harsh on your clothes (no need for a lint trap), etc. But yeah, rule #3, so we're back to the clothes dryer. You have two choices, gas or electric. The running costs of gas are cheaper, not just because of the cost of fuel, but because gas dryers can run hotter, thus finishing the cycle quicker.
The California Energy Commission estimates that gas dryers, while initially slightly more expensive, can save you up to 50 percent in fuel costs. If you are getting a new dryer, get one with sensors that shut off when it senses the clothes are dry. No need to keep warming up dry clothes. The big tip here is an old one that everyone presumably does already: Clean the lint trap. Also, if you're doing multiple loads, time them one after the other to take advantage of the already-warm dryer tub. And if you are particularly handy, and your house layout makes it possible, why not take the hot air trapped in your attic and use it to dry your clothes? That's what this guy did to great effect—pulling in hot summer attic air into his drier. Not only did it save energy on the clothes drying side of things, but it also cooled off the attic, saving on the costs of cooling the house. Ingenious! And not something I'll do. My house layout wouldn't cooperate, and my DIY skills suck. Oh well. I'll admire from afar.
An aside: did you know that traditional fabric softeners use animal fat to do the softening? As a vegetarian, that grossed me out. I'd like to think that even as a carnivore I'd be grossed out about lathering my clothes in animal fat. Seventh generation has vegan fabric softener, as does Method. I like the method stuff: it's a spray, so you spritz your clothes after putting them into the dryer. So not only is it animal-free, but it also takes a little pressure off landfills by eliminating the need for fabric sheets.
So that about wraps up this major appliances section. These appliances make up about a quarter of your energy consumption, so there can be major savings involved. Of course, upgrading any of these require a significant budget, so they are not the best bang-for-the-buck. In fact, they may be the worst. But if your appliances are particularly old, and if the budget allows, upgrading to the latest most efficient models can make a significant dent on your carbon usage. And even if you don't upgrade, modifying how you use the appliances can make an efficiency and financial difference.