On washing machines | By Umbra Fisk | Grist | Ask Umbra

On washing machines

11 Jul 2005

Got questions about the environment? Ask Umbra.

Dear Umbra,

I have a top-loading washing machine that's nine years old. I've heard that front-loading machines are a lot more efficient and use less detergent, so I'm thinking about taking the plunge, even though my old machine works fine.

How much less water do the front-loading machines use, and why? And is it true that they use less detergent? (I just switched to an environmentally friendly detergent, but boy, is it expensive -- so less would be good.) Do they hold as many clothes as a top-loader? And can you recommend a website or other source where I can compare brands, models, price, reliability, and water usage? I'm clueless.

Lisa Meacham
Austin, Tex.

Ask Umbra continues below

ADVERTISING POLICY

Dearest Lisa,

Your money may be better spent elsewhere.

First, to your mechanical questions. Top-loading, vertical-axis washers are basically an automated washtub, filling with water to wet all the clothing and swishing it about in detergent. Front-loading, horizontal-axis types partially fill with water and whip the clothes through, like a mill wheel in a stream. They're actually gentler on fabrics, quieter, and, from my experience, do use far less detergent. (And yes, they can hold just as many clothes as your old standby.)

Wish your washer were wiser?

An older top-loading washer probably uses about 40 gallons of water per load. New, efficient machines -- mainly front-loading, but some top-loading -- use 16 to 25 gallons per load. Less water means less energy to heat the water, and that's the main drain with washers; up to 90 percent of the energy they use goes toward heating. Fronties can also spin faster and extract extra moisture, shortening time in the energy-sucking dryer (or, better, on the benign clothesline).

All of which would seem to suggest that you should replace your washer yesterday, right? Not necessarily. These babies are expensive -- anywhere from $700 to $1,200. And simply using cold water in your current machine can go quite far toward reducing your energy costs. I mean very far -- remember that 90 percent? So step one is wash in cold water, and see how the savings add up.

If you decide to move beyond this bit of Wiskdom, I do have some purchasing tips for you. But first, you must pledge to pass your still-good washer on to someone who needs it, rather than send it to the landfill.

Good. Now, do a little research on the government's Energy Star site and check out washer stats from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. The rating system for washers is a measure of tub capacity and energy use. It is called modified energy factor, or MEF. The higher the MEF, the better for our friend the environment.

It's generally estimated by Energy Star and public utilities that you'll save more than $100 a year with a new washer, and your utility may also offer a rebate. Keeping the long-term payback in mind as you shop will help with sticker shock.

And Lisa, if you do take the plunge: keep washing in cold.

Pokily,
Umbra

Yours is to wonder why, hers is to answer (or try). Please send Umbra any nagging question pertaining to the environment -- but first check out her FAQs!

The claims made in this column may not reflect the views of this magazine. Neither the magazine nor the author guarantees that any advice contained in this column is wise or safe. Please use this column at your own risk.

Umbra Fisk is Grist Research Associate II, Hardcover and Periodicals Unit, floors 2B-4B.

Comments: (11 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

What about the cost of water

Umbra, your response doesn't factor in the cost of water. Many people in my community are paying over $500/year in municipal water fees (which covers both water and sewer charges). If I can save 3,000-5,000 of gallons of water a year, that will help cover the cost of the more efficient machine in a few years.

by AndrewEcopledge at 2:44 PM on 11 Jul 2005

water water everywhere but not a drop to drink

Beyond the savings in water and detergent one should consider what is going down the drain. Fire retardent clothes are a big problem. Wasn't there a fuss about those chemicals? Who allowed it? Who made money off of their lobbying? How about anti bacterial agents? Phosphorous in detergents? Myriad other chemicals go down the drain, who is watching out for the environment? I don't think George is, or his friends that got appointed to positions to so call monitor the industries. Between all the drugs and antibiotics and chemicals we eat and flush down the drain is it any wonder that we have to drink bottled water which is questionable in itself? PVC pipes, Chlorine, Flouride, it makes me want to move to what is left of the North Pole. But of course there is fallout there and I would be competing with Polar Bears that are dwindling in numbers due to the loss of their real estate. Find the money changers and throw them out of the temple! Where's whathisname when you need him/her/it?

by paulwhite at 4:46 PM on 11 Jul 2005

two more ignored items

Front loaders clean clothers better...

Clothes washed in front loaders last longer...

by jdeely at 8:08 PM on 11 Jul 2005

Check bucky Fuller's water saving inventions.

http://amazngdrx.myblogsite.com/blog

Fuller had a shower that uses compressed air to energize water molecules and remove dirt with a 10th of the water. He noticed while traveling by boat that the sea spray powered by wind cleaned the skin without soap.

Were this principle applied to dishwashing, clothes washing, and showering, water use would drop to a small fraction of what it now is.

Water is the oil of this new century.

Composting toilets that stop the five gallon flush is another idea Fuller incorporated in his design.

Along with drip irrigation and solar cogeneration that recycles waste water, yielding clean water, organic fertilizer, solar electricity, and biofuel, water shortage and the disaster of desertification through urban water drwan from rivers like the Colorado would end.

The Colorado used to feed a whole jungle delta ecosytem, home of the black jaguar, where it met the gulf. That is gone, to power the water waste of LA, Pheonix, Las Vegas and other southwest megaopoli.

A region rich in solar power destroying a major ecosystem over water that could be recycled with solar cogeneration, it's another totally unecessary eco-disaster.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 4:06 AM on 12 Jul 2005

What about conservation

Umbra, while you do speak factually, your comments (and those of others) are more about saving money and energy. Let's not forget about water conservation itself. Much of the country is not on municipal water but rely on wells (essentially no monetary cost except for minute amounts of electricity for the well pump). We as a nation waste far too much water. We have to get beyond cost alone when considering what products we purchase and consider the preservation of resources for ourselves, wildlife and future generations. Thanks.

MJ Graham

by mjgraham at 5:37 AM on 12 Jul 2005

Reusing the washer, reducing consumption...

I am sure EVERYONE knows Freecycle.org, but just in case, the old washing machine can go there. Many non-profits are on the lists, too, in addition to other needy/wanty people. It's a pretty amazing system that works. It gives me hope. Sign up if you can.

Also, a great place to GET things, like clothing (reducing consumption and all that), baby items, pretty much anything.

by sfrikken at 7:52 AM on 12 Jul 2005

Or get one of these...

Coincidentally, I just read this article: http://frugalliving.about.com/cs/laundry/a/030700.htm?nl=1 on wringer washers, which are apparently a big hairy-chested sort of washing machine you don't get any more except second hand. Read what the lady says about reusing water for several washes - interesting. While you're there (pop-up blocker on) check out the articles on frugal homemade detergents and so on. This site is heavy on using vinegar for cleaning, borax, washing soda and stuff - very ecological and a lot cheaper than your eco-detergents.

by laurellyon at 10:21 AM on 12 Jul 2005

further savings

After I bought my front-loading, energy-saving washer, I was able to get $150 in rebates from our local gas & electric utility as well as water district. That made the purchase price competitive....

by mmailbox at 12:14 PM on 12 Jul 2005

Get a Load of This

I purchased a front-loading Sears Elite washer/dryer combo about 3 years ago during a store wide sale. I love them! I use less water (hot or cold), less detergent & fabric softener (Amway), less Arm and Hammer, less OxyClean and bleach (not together) and have a shorter drying time. The large capacity allows me to wash my bluky comforters every time I change sheets (very good for allergies and asthma) so I no longer spend $100's of dollars a year on drycleaning bills (the fluids are pollutants) and the special settings allow me to wash many clothing items that would typically require dry-cleaning. I sold my not so old washer and dryer at a low price to a family that could not have afforded a washer and dryer otherwise even though they were not charity elegible. Everybody is happy.

by patsijean at 12:31 PM on 12 Jul 2005

Actually the compressed air washer...

...might not need a motor to spin the clothes, just nozzles aranged to create a vortex.

Could it be cheaper to construct also?

Come back Bucky, post on these blogs, borrow a laptop from jesus.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 3:49 PM on 13 Jul 2005

Spin Dryer

A much less expensive way to save money is to use a spin dryer. With a spin dryer, you remove more water from the clothes than even a front loader does, but you don't have to make such a big investment- spin dryers are only about $130.
http://www.laundry-alternative.com/drying.htm

Specializing in unique, eco-friendly laundry inventions.

by ctournet at 4:52 AM on 28 Feb 2007

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?