Washing machines
A clothes washer, or washer, is a machine designed to wash laundry, such as clothing, towels and sheets. The term is mostly applied only to machines that use water as the primary cleaning solution, as opposed to dry cleaning (which uses alternative cleaning fluids, and is performed by specialist businesses) or even ultrasonic cleaners.
Contents
|
[edit] Environmental Impact of Household Appliances
The following reveals the results of a life-cycle assessment (LCA) on washing machines, dishwashers. The different factors responsible for the environmental impact are discussed.
Over the years, appliance manufacturers have been successful in saving energy and the conservation of resources. As an example, Figure 1 illustrates the savings in energy and water consumption of products manufactured by BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH. For refrigerators, energy consumption decreased by more than 70 percent. For dishwashers and washing machines, the savings in energy consumption exceed 30 percent. The water consumption of front-loader washing machines has been reduced from 30 L/kg in 1970 to 13.6 L/kg in 1990 to 7.2 L/kg today.
The new European Eco-Design Framework-Directive (2005/32/EC) will require an assessment of all significant environmental aspects of energy-using products. To identify the significance, it is necessary to appraise the entire life cycle of the product. The life-cycle observation presented here provides a means of identifying and measuring significant environmental aspects. By looking at the complete life cycle, the best trade-offs between different environmental impacts caused by production, the use phase, and recycling can be estimated.
[edit] Methodology
The main parameters that were taken into account include primary energy, material depletion, water consumption, and global warming potential (GWP). Eco-indicators beyond this scope, such as ozone depletion potential (ODP) or heavy metals regulation schemes, are already in existence. Recent studies demonstrated that these impact parameters were not relevant for the products under assessment. According to the Montreal Protocol and the European Regulation (2037/2000/EC), ozone-depleting substances are banned in appliance products. In compliance with the European RoHS legislation (Directive 2005/95/EC), a phase-out of certain heavy metals in the electronics will be achieved by July 1, 2006.
The assessment included a broad range of the most widely used large appliances, including dishwashers, washers, dryers, and refrigerators. Cooking units with their multifaceted technology and wide scope of consumer behavior are not considered in this study. The appliances chosen for the assessment are those typically found in the European market and belong to a segment with high sales figures. Table 1 summarizes the specification of the selected products.
The full cradle to grave life cycle was covered. In the production period, the bill of materials, transport of materials and consumption of resources by BSH and suppliers were evaluated. The material assessment included 98 percent of the total mass of the appliances. The second phase is transport to the customer, covering the mode of transport, distance and load as its input parameters. Throughout a period of 10 to 20 years of usage by the customer, electrical energy, water and chemicals are consumed. After that, the appliances become waste. They are collected from the households and treated. The treatment process separates the waste from appliances into different material flows for reuse, recycling, energy recovery, or disposal.
The first and most time-consuming step in an LCA is the compilation of the bill of materials. Thus, this aspect is given much attention. For the assessment of refrigerators and dishwashers, appliances were dismantled and weighed, yielding a list of components with the weights of all parts, a material description and composition details. For dryers and washing machines, a different approach was adopted. The products were only present as prototypes, so the bill of materials had to be listed from a computer-aided design (CAD) model. The latter approach appears to be slightly less accurate; however, it is a less time-consuming method that can be realized in the development state.
For each material, the environmental parameters per kg were recorded in a list. These “eco-profiles” were provided by Life Cycle Simulation GmbH and were based on commercially available life-cycle databases and their calculations.
[edit] Results
Several scenarios with different intensities of use were investigated. For all appliances evaluated, the use phase dominated the life-cycle impact, with a proportion of more than 90 percent. Production represented less than 8 percent of the overall environmental burden. Logistics (i.e., transport from appliance producer to customer) and recycling are not displayed in Figure 3 because they amounted to less than 1 percent. For the use phases, a lifetime of 15 years was assumed. The number of cycles per year was estimated at 300 for dishwashers, 260 for washing machines and 200 for dryers.
The energy demand for production is between 4,300 MJ and 6,100 MJ for the different appliances. Plastics and metals are the main materials of the products. Figure 4 shows the influence of production factors on the chosen set of parameters.
The values are calculated for a washing machine manufactured in Germany. The parameters of fossil and renewable energy are based on a German energy mix. Non-renewable energy resources are fossil fuels such as coal, gas or oil. Non-renewable material resources are metal ores and mining residue. “Water” incorporates cooling water for energy generation and process water. GWP is the combined global warming potential from the emission of carbon dioxide and volatile organic compounds (VOC) into the atmosphere. Take a washing machine as an example, where metals contribute almost 50 percent of the total impact. The impact of materials used in total adds up to 80 percent. The production processes at BSH and supplier factories require approximately 20 percent of the resources.
For the dishwasher life cycle, the assessment showed the dominance of the use phase with 95 percent of the total environmental burden. A surprising result of the study was the ecological effect of 1 kg of cotton fleece used for noise insulation in dishwashers. Contrary to the common belief that natural fabrics are environmentally friendly, the water consumption involved in cotton irrigation (12,000 L/kg cotton) dominates water usage in the production process.
In addition to the dishwasher, a washing machine was assessed. Again, the use phase dominates the overall life-cycle impact; however, due to complex design, more resources are necessary for production than for any other appliance.
The other extreme is the dryer. In this case, 97 percent of total primary energy is consumed during the use phase. In a scenario with 200 drying cycles per year, the dryer needs 180 GJ of primary energy over a period of 15 years.
Of all the appliances considered, refrigerators demonstrate the lowest lifetime energy consumption. This is a surprising result, which demonstrates the success of environmental friendly product design. (The tremendous savings in energy consumption over the last decade are evident in Figure 1.) Problematic refrigerants and blowing agents such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) could be replaced by non ozone-depleting substances, and in this regard, the refrigerator is a model appliance, demonstrating the ecological design of modern white goods. Intelligent features such as auto-defrost and active warning systems combine environment-friendly technology with user convenience.
Another interesting result concerns the water consumption of washing machines and dishwashers. In Figure 5, the water used in the washing process and the water for energy supply are compared. Obviously, cooling water for energy supply is of the same magnitude as the process water for washing. In dishwashers, the amount needed for the supply of electrical energy is more than twice the volume of process water. Of course, these values should be compared with caution, since cooling water for energy supply is usually taken from surface water, while households use specially treated drinking water.
[edit] Discussion
Substitution of Materials in Production
Figure 6 shows the primary energy demand per kg for typical materials. Major fractions of the energy used are consumed in the production of aluminum and certain die-casting plastics. Looking at the energy need for aluminum and polyamide production, it might be expected that potential existed for minimizing cumulated life-cycle energy needs by substituting these materials. However, the aluminum content of a dishwasher, for example, is less than 1 percent. Die-casting plastic parts consume more energy in production, but save energy in the use phase. The reason for this is better forming technology for plastics compared to the alternative of stainless-steel sheets. An LCA conducted by BASF, Basell and BSH showed that the savings more than compensate for the energy investments in the production phase.
Energy consumption for most of the materials is between 50 MJ/kg and 100 MJ/kg. That means, for example, that if 1 kg polypropylene was replaced by stainless steel, the savings in primary energy would be 25 MJ, a negligible figure compared to the data in Figure 3. Some basic materials such as sand and rock salt need only a minimum of energy, but of course, cannot be used for supporting parts. Cotton is a special case in that it shows the limits of pure energy assessment, because here, the irrigation water is the major environmental factor.
In summary, the use of alternative materials should be considered from the technological perspective to minimize resource allocation during the use phase. The potential savings from material substitution as such are secondary.
Energy Consumption
Energy supply is fundamental for the environmental impact of energy-using products such as home appliances. For this reason, the life-cycle impact of a refrigerator used in different European countries was calculated. Germany, whose energy supply originates mainly from coal and nuclear power plants, is compared to France (mostly nuclear power) and Sweden (hydro and nuclear power). The measured impact parameters are fossil and renewable primary energy, non-renewable energy and material resources, cooling water, and GWP. To take one example, the refrigerator operated in France or Sweden causes only 20 percent or less of the global warming produced by its precise counterpart in Germany.
Water Consumption
Washing machines and dishwashers naturally use water for the cleaning process. The process water in dishwashers was reduced by 80 percent from 60 L in 1965 to 14 L in 2005. In washing machines, this process water was reduced by 70 percent throughout the last 30 years. With today’s washing process, no major decrease seems possible in the future. The reasons are the physical necessities of washing.
Experience shows that consumers will not tolerate poor washing results related to minimum water use. However, an additional effect is that users tend to use too much detergent, leading to a higher demand for water to rinse the fabric. This fact is considered in the development of new intelligent and efficient prototypes. In state-of-the-art washing machines, sensors monitor the washing process to keep the use of energy, water and detergent to a minimum. The electronics control the washing process to achieve the best cleaning results with the lowest water and energy consumption. A display can provide the user with information if the maximum weight is reached and can indicate how much detergent should be added.
Consumer Behavior and General Conditions
Consumer habits play an increasing role in the use of highly optimized products. Appropriate handling has benefits for the environment as well as the household budget. Events like the “Aktionstag Nachhaltiges Waschen,” sponsored by the German Ministry of the Environment, promote sustainable use and illustrate the benefits of state-of-the-art eco-features. For appliances older than 10 years, an economical and ecological gain can be realized by replacement with a new product [3-5]. Looking at the installed base of household appliances, early replacement may contribute significantly to the protection of resources. For dishwashers, the promotion of machine dishwashing instead of washing dishes by hand would lead to significant savings in energy and water consumption.
While usage may be influenced by educational advertising aimed at the general public, some technical parameters are connected with the installation site. Factors such as hard water may lead to 50 percent higher detergent consumption. In small kitchens, refrigerators are sometimes placed next to the oven or dishwasher, leading to higher energy consumption for cooling purposes. Some appliances, such as dryers or dishwashers, may be operated overnight, using low-rate electricity, to save primary energy. Primary energy use can further be decreased if a warm water tub for the washing machine is available.
[edit] Conclusion
The use phase dominates the overall life-cycle impact of large appliances with a proportion of more than 90 percent. Compared to 1990, contemporary appliances consume between 30 percent (washing) and 70 percent (refrigeration) less electric energy. The reduction in the consumption figures has a direct influence on the life-cycle impact. The potential for further reduction through design options seems limited given current technology. Due to the importance of the use phase, further efforts for improvements should be investigated.
The education of consumers, the promotion of existing environmentally friendly features and replacement of old, non-energy-efficient appliances provide plenty of potential for reducing the overall environmental impact. State-of-the-art appliances use sensor technology for process control and user guidance to achieve optimized consumption of energy and resources.
Furthermore, the way electric energy is generated in different regions has a large influence on the life cycle’s environmental impact of energy-using products. This has to be kept in mind when using LCA as a method for determining the environmental impact of energy-using products.
[edit] Green washing machines
Energy efficient washing machines can save both energy and water, benefiting the environment and lowering utility bills. What is the most efficient green washing machine?
[edit] Saving Water and Energy
Energy efficient washing machines are those that reduce the amount of energy and water used by traditional, more outdated models. With new technology, washing machines today are much better suited for the environment, and for washing clothes. Any washing machine made before 1998 is probably extremely inefficient.
Switching to a green washing machine, typically a front loading model designated as an Energy Star efficient appliance, will save around $135 dollars a year for the average family, and about seventeen gallons of water, per load of laundry washed. This means that switching to one of the most efficient green washing machine models will save money, reduce greenhouse gas emissions through a more efficient use of energy, and will reduce water consumption, helping to preserve the national water supply. Using cold water for laundry will decrease the cost and energy use of washing clothes even more.
[edit] Energy Star Efficient Machines
An Energy Star efficient washing machine is one that is given the Energy Star label. Energy Star is affiliated with the US Environmental Protection Agency as well as the US Department of Energy. All Energy Star appliances meet the strict guidelines set up by these government agencies.
Look for the Energy Star sticker, which is on most front loading models, and newer washing machines in general. The sticker will provide more detailed information as to how green a washing machine may be. The Modified Energy Factor (MEF), will show the level of energy efficiency, and the Water Factor (WF), will show how much water is used with a particular machine. What is the most efficient green washing machine? While there is no single answer to this question as newer, more efficient models are consistently being introduced, and several major companies have been able to provide incredible green washing machines, look for front loading, Energy Star efficient models with a high MEF and a low WF.
[edit] Best Rated Washing Machines for Efficiency
According to the Consumer Reports list (2009) of the most water and energy efficient washing machines, there are several models which rank well as being environmentally friendly, and also being able to perform well. They include:
LG Allergiene Steam Washer
GE Profile
GE Profile Steam Washer
GE WCVH6800J
Electrolux Wave Touch
Samsung WF448AA
The Samsung washing machine had the best overall rating, while the GE WCVH6800J had the lowest price. ASKO washing machines, designed in Sweden, are also worth investigating as they are highly efficient and durable.
Although the initial cost of buying a new, more eco-friendly washing machine can be a lot, the long term benefits are worth it. By figuring out what is the most efficient green washing machine and then making the investment, more money will be saved than the machine is worth over the lifetime of the appliance, and the negative environmental impact of this modern convenience will be greatly reduced.
[edit] Front Loading Washing Machines
Front loading washing machines are designed to be much more environmentally practical than most top loading machines (there are energy efficient top loading models available). They also are more gentle on clothing, making it possible to use a washing machine for more delicate fabrics usually done by hand. Front loading washing machines work by flipping and spinning clothes, and washing with a minimal amount of water. They also do not have a central agitator, as do conventional machines, allowing for more room for larger loads. They operate at higher speeds during the spin cycle, so clothes are dryer when the wash is complete.
[edit] Front vs. top loading washing machines
Wringers, twin tubs, front loader, top loading - even coppers and scrubbing boards and of course the old bucket. While a scrubbing board is probably the most earth friendly option; it's not one that is really suited to modern life and never had to wash more than a couple of items with one.
So which type of washing machine is the most "green"? The wringer system was pretty inefficient and is long gone and twin tub machines have very limited application (and tend to tied your clothes in knots); so it's really between the top loading and front loading systems.
Assuming the quality of two brands/models of washers is equal; it really comes down to a couple of important factors:
a) The amount of energy consumed b) The amount of water consumed
This is certainly where front loading washing machines win out on both counts.
1. Water Consumption
A good quality front loader will use around 10 gallons of water per full load vs a massive 40 gallons per full load for top loading washer
2. Electricity consumption
Approximately 85-90% of the energy used by a washing machine is consumed through heating the water. This is where water consumption comes in again; the more water needed, the more that needs to be heated. As mentioned in my article on earth friendly clothes washing, unless you are washing particularly greasy and filthy clothes, hot water is not needed; cold water works just fine. Even based on cold water alone, a front loading washing machine still consumes less energy.
[edit] A few other advantages of front loading machines include
1. Less wear and tear on clothes
Front loading washing machines tumble clothing through the water wheras top loaders pull clothes through the wash; so you're likely to get longer life out of clothes you wear often using a front loader. This is another money and resource saver.
2. Faster drying times
Because of the horizontal axis and faster spin speeds, more water is removed and your clothes will dry faster. Another energy saver if you use a dryer.
3. Quieter operation
Assuming you have the washing machine totally level (and that is really important), you'll find front loaders to be quieter in operation.
4. Larger loads
Generally front loaders allow for bigger loads, so getting back to the points about water consumption and electricity; there's savings for the environment and your wallet there too.
5. Less detergent
While front loaders require a special low-sudsing detergent, far less is required and the price is comparable with standard detergents. Less chemicals going into our waterways is always a good thing.
6. Rebates and tax breaks
Some states/countries offer rebates or tax credits on the purchase of front loading machines and we'll likely see more governments providing these initiatives in the future.
[edit] A few disadvantages of front loaders
- Heavier - More bending in loading and unloading - No soaking capabilities - Initial purchase price is higher - Can wind up with a mildewy smell, but this can be rectified by leaving the washer door open - Longer wash times
If you visit various forums and reviews sites, you'll read opinions from fanatical front loader fans and die-hard top loader proponents. Because there are so many brands and models of washing machines around it can be hard to compare apples to apples - but if it's the environment you have close to mind in your next purchase; then a front loading washing machine is probably the best way to go.
Regardless of whether you choose to go with a front loader or top loading machine for your next purchase, don't skimp and buy the best quality that you can afford. It's a big purchase so research thoroughly as there's good and bad brands and models in both types. Focus on the core features and specifications rather than novelty-type options and additional gadgets. A washing machine is a workhorse, not a show pony.
A good machine will last you many years - and that's another great way to lessen environmental impact as the fewer machines you buy over your life, the less you'll need to dump once they've finally given up the ghost.
[edit] Consumer
| Feature | Top Loading Washer | Front Loading Washer |
|---|---|---|
| European Market Share | 10% | 90% |
| US Market Share | 65% | 35% |
In the United States, top-loading machines are the most commonly used. However, in Europe the front-loading style is preferred. A factor in the preference for front-loaders in Europe is the preference for integrated appliances that sit under countertops in kitchens and utility rooms or that can be fully integrated and concealed in kitchen cabinetry. Also, because the first mass marketed automatic washing machines sold from the 1950s onwards in Europe were almost exclusively front loaders European consumers tended to associate top loaders with labour intensive obsolete technology. European households also tend to pay more attention to water and energy conservation as heavy environmental taxes are levied on both water and energy use. Front loading machines also offer much higher spin drying speeds of up to 2000 RPM. This makes it possible to dry clothes very quickly by hanging them on washing lines or airing racks or can substantially reduce the length of time required in a tumble dryer. The EU also has a comprehensive energy efficiency, wash performance and spin dry performance labelling system which rates major appliance performance from A to G. This has driven consumers away from inefficient machines as they will generally try to buy A rated appliances. For example a "Triple A" (AAA) rated machine = Lowest Energy Consumption, Best Wash and Best Water Extraction (Spin) performance.
It should also be noted that while 10% of European washing machines may be top loading they are not of the same design as North American machines. Rather than washing the clothes with an agitator, they also use a horizontally mounted drum. The clothes are loaded through a hatch in the drum wall. Their design is mechanically identical to that of a front loader. These machines are particularly popular for small apartments as they take up less floor space than a conventional front loader and for historical marketing reasons are more popular in certain EU countries. For example they are quite commonly found in French houses while they're practically unheard of in the UK and Republic of Ireland.
[edit] Usage
Front-loaders feature a washing style that requires less water than a top-loader and today's front-loaders achieve much better washing results while treating the garments more gently. Front-loaders offer quick programs which are in the same time range as top-loader cycles.
[edit] Washing process
Washing times for front-loaders are more flexible and some manufacturers offer programs which last just 15 minutes.
[edit] Noise levels
Front loading machines in general tend to operate more quietly than top loaders.
[edit] Washing machine manufacturers
- Alliance Laundry (Speed Queen)
- Antonio Merloni under the brand names Asko, Ardo, Philco and Servis
- Arçelik - including the brand names Beko, Blomberg, Altus and Arctic
- Bosch - including the brand names Siemens, Neff, Balay, Profilo and Constructa
- Candy - including the brand names Hoover and Zerowatt
- Continental Girbau
- Dexter Laundry
- Dyson (No longer produced)
- Electrolux - including the brand names AEG, Frigidaire, John Lewis, Tricity Bendix and Zanussi
- Fagor - including the brand names Brandt, Thompson, Ocean and SanGiorgio
- Fisher & Paykel
- IFB
- GE
- Haier
- Hitachi
- Indesit - including the brand names Hotpoint-Ariston, Creda and Scholtes
- LG
- Miele
- Samsung
- Smeg
- Staber
- Whirlpool - including the brand names Admiral, Amana, Kenmore, Maytag, Magic Chef and Roper
- Thor
- Bendix
- Gorenje
- V-Zug
- Schulthess
- Amica
- Vestel
- Washex
[edit] External links
- How Washing Machines Work Article by HowStuffWorks.com
