Anyone hear of a 120V clothes dryer?

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote in news:c02a0a62-e0f1-45dd-
8850-e7afb33d3507n@googlegroups.com:

> DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
> 
> ============================
>> 
>> I would make a machine that takes longer but uses far less energy.
> 
> **  No you wouldn't. 
>   
>      Such a machine would use even more.
> 
  Such as the machine you would imagine.

  Not my machine.  It would use little energy compared to the current 
"Get 'em done quick" design schema.

On 2021-10-04, Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> do you have a dishwasher? try it
>
> Try what?  How do I measure the water the dishwasher uses??? 

Divert the drain outlet into a tub.
Wash dishes.
Measure.

-- 
  Jasen.

Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:
> and the water is hotter and the detergent more effective so the dishes get cleaner

Yes, detergent for hand-washing has to consider the effects on your
skin (often advertised on the packaging) and this compromises the
cleaning action (you would not want to remove all fat from your skin,
but you would want to remove it from the dishes).

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 1:02:09 PM UTC-4, Ralph Mowery wrote:
>> In article <ao4mlgdriq8jv5q01...@4ax.com>, 
>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com says...
>> > 
>> > A heat pump clothes dryer sounds over-the-top to me. One of those 
>> > won't reduce global temperature by a picokelvin. And has refrigerent 
>> > inside. 
>> > 
>> >
>> I always though the heat pump for small things was way over kill and 
>> something else to go wrong. I have a heat pump for the house and it 
>> works very well and inexpensive to operate. In the climite I live in the 
>> HP is the way to go for most as the temperture is seldom over 100 deg F 
>> and seldom below 20 deg F most of the time. Mostly in the 90 to 30 deg 
>> range. I would not want one for the water heater or clothes dryer or 
>> anything else that I can think of to produce heat.
>
> Heat pumps are also used in hot water heaters.  As long as the pay back of the extra cost is significantly shorter than the life time, it seems worth while.

Again, the typical "it is worth while when it saves ME money"...
When it does not save YOU money, it could still be worth while.

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was told that in Germany no one thinks of heating with electricity using heat pumps.  They burn oil or gas.  That's not very environmentally sound.  I don't know what they use where you are, but in the UK they sometimes do the worst of all worlds, burning gas to generate electricity and using that to heat directly on off hours.  Saves on facility costs, but not on carbon emissions.  

Over here in the Netherlands, almost everyone uses gas for heating.
But we are in a transition towards using other methods.
Of course direct electric heating is never considered.

I don't know the situation in Germany except that they are further
than us in migrating the electricity generation towards solar.

Heating using electricity (via heat pumps) using solar is not very
practical because solar energy is usually not available at the time
you want heating. Solar is very effective for powering air conditioning.

Ralph Mowery <rmowery42@charter.net> wrote:
> In article <835fef14-ab69-4620-9df9-fbcb0a6e3afdn@googlegroups.com>, 
> langwadt@fonz.dk says...
>> > Dehumidifiers are not heat pumps. They're more like air conditioners than anything else. Air is drawn through the 32o cooling coil to condense the moisture. From there it is blown through the condensor coil to bring it back up to its original temperature. This keeps net air temperature unchanged. 
>> 
>> not possible, the energy used to drive the dehumidifier (+ whats gained from condensing water) has to go somewhere 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
> The net heat gain/loss across the coils is close to zero,but as 
> mentioned it does take some enegery to run the unit and that is where 
> some net heat gain comes from .  I would think that if it takes 100 
> watts of power to run the motors then you would get a net heat gain of a 
> 100 watt heater if it is a stand alone in the room dehumidifier.

No, that is wrong.  Condensing water takes (a lot!) of heat energy
out of it.  That has to go somewhere.

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now that I think about it, if you use a heat pump to dry clothes, it will be backwards from a standard room dehumidifier.  I think they would first warm the air to pass through the dryer and pick up moisture.  That air would be run over the cold coils to extract the water and return the heat to improve efficiency of the unit.  Yeah, I think this sort of dryer could be run without a vent since the moisture is collected and drains away!  

After thinking a bit more about it, you even might want to have one!

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
>> For example, when looking up dryers on the local webshop I have to
>> be really specific to find types that are not heat pump based.
>> It looks like in the USA they are a novelty and "not worth buying".
>
> They are considerably more expensive.  Here -- and I suspect there,
> as well -- the manufacturer helps himself to some of YOUR future savings.
> He doesn't pass along the feature at his cost but figures he can make some
> EXTRA profit from you -- in terms of what you may EVENTUALLY save
> on energy costs.
>
> So, I guess he's just as capitalistic as a US manufacturer!

In Europe we have a - what you would call - socialistic government
system which promotes the use of equipment that saves energy and/or
the environment, by making equipment that doesn't do that more expensive
(taxation) and moving that money towards equipment that is more efficient
(subsidies).  The efficiency is shown in labels on the front of
the equipment displayed in stores, with a relative rating (letter)
and a specification of the number of kWh/year a unit typically
consumes, and what that would cost at the typical electricity rates.

Seeing that, and being able to compare that for different types you
are considering to buy, really drives down energy consumption.
Both because consumers tend to select equipment that is cheaper to
run when it has otherwise the same features and a similar or only
slightly higher price, and also because manufacturers know that and
design their new equipment to appear preferable in such comparisons.

This works so well that the relative rating scales have to be
regularly re-adjusted.  They have A as the best rating and after
some time, equipment gets A+, A++, A+++ and it becomes necessary
to shift the scale (A+++ becomes A, A++ becomes B, A+ becomes C, etc).

(it would have been better to use a scale that can be extended easier,
e.g. have F as the best rating so you can add G, H etc easily, but
that would probably have been too counter-intuitive for people that
use that kind of scale in other contexts)

Today, the average fridge, washing machine, dryer etc consumes a
lot less energy than one or two decades ago and like an order of magnitude
less than I see Americans quote for their equipment on usenet.

On 10/5/2021 2:12 AM, Rob wrote:
> Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
>>> For example, when looking up dryers on the local webshop I have to
>>> be really specific to find types that are not heat pump based.
>>> It looks like in the USA they are a novelty and "not worth buying".
>>
>> They are considerably more expensive.  Here -- and I suspect there,
>> as well -- the manufacturer helps himself to some of YOUR future savings.
>> He doesn't pass along the feature at his cost but figures he can make some
>> EXTRA profit from you -- in terms of what you may EVENTUALLY save
>> on energy costs.
>>
>> So, I guess he's just as capitalistic as a US manufacturer!
> 
> In Europe we have a - what you would call - socialistic government
> system which promotes the use of equipment that saves energy and/or
> the environment, by making equipment that doesn't do that more expensive
> (taxation) and moving that money towards equipment that is more efficient
> (subsidies).  The efficiency is shown in labels on the front of
> the equipment displayed in stores, with a relative rating (letter)
> and a specification of the number of kWh/year a unit typically
> consumes, and what that would cost at the typical electricity rates.

We have an "EnergyStar" rating for appliances like these.  It summarizes
the *range* of operating costs for that type of appliance (using
a "standard of use").  It then indicates where the item's usage
lies within that range.

<https://www.onthehouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/energystar_label_01.gif>

This label (about 5" x 8"?) is affixed to the front of each appliance in the
store (even the unit that you end up purchasing).

The gummit doesn't get involved in the pricing; merely informs the end
user of the relative USAGE cost.  The consumer decides how much that cost
of operating will factor into their purchase decision.  Note that the
label doesn't indicate the *selling* price of the item.

The gummit -- as well as various utilities -- may elect to subsidize
certain types of purchases with "rebates".  E.g., it is presently
very common to purchase LED light bulbs for close to $0 -- the
utility underwriting the cost of those purchases.  (and likely
benefitting from a tax credit from the gummit *or* some improvement
to its bottom line -- by being able to delay investing in new generation
capacity, for example)

Electric cars were heavily subsidized (at the state level), here, many years
ago.  So much so that the number of folks taking advantage of those subsidies
alarmed the pols (who had enacted them!).

Home solar is still heavily subsidized at the state and federal levels.

Unfortunately, it is often the case that the manufacturer is the
primary beneficiary of those subsidies, not the end user.  (they
have no incentive to lower their prices until the subsidies disappear
and their product looks "too expensive")

> Seeing that, and being able to compare that for different types you
> are considering to buy, really drives down energy consumption.

I don't imagine it is a primary issue in folks' decision-making
processes, here.  Instead, it becomes readily apparent that you
are paying (often quite a lot!) for those savings.  And, as most
folks tend to find it easier to think in terms of "now" (vs. later),
the higher sales price likely deters many purchasers.  They, instead,
concentrate on the features of interest or rely on "brand loyalty".

Given that many folks are unable to make their own repairs (of anything!),
a payback (which YOU have to determine in your own head -- the label
doesn't tell you that!) that is many years hence will likely be
after the first service call ("It will likely be BROKEN by then!")

> Both because consumers tend to select equipment that is cheaper to
> run when it has otherwise the same features and a similar or only
> slightly higher price, and also because manufacturers know that and
> design their new equipment to appear preferable in such comparisons.


Here's a list of currently "certified" clothes driers:
<https://www.energystar.gov/productfinder/product/certified-clothes-dryers/results?formId=19050-6-47-994-2312877>
only dryers that meet some minimum efficiency standard "earn" a rating
(but it is a strong incentive for manufacturers to target those standards)

The "Combined Energy Factor" reflects the amount of wash that can be dried
per KWHr:
<https://www.energystar.gov/products/appliances/clothes_dryers/key_product_criteria>
Theoretically, this reflects some "typical usage" pattern.

It lists dryers that consume ~140KWHr/yr to ~650KWHr/yr.

A quick browse through a local "big box" store shows (electric) dryers
(of the size that one would typically find in a single-family, detached
residence) selling for $579 to $1754 (on sale!).

[Of course, energy usage isn't the sole criteria differentiating them
as features, trim-level, etc. also play a role]

The most expensive unit:
<https://www.homedepot.com/p/Whirlpool-7-4-cu-ft-240-Volt-Stackable-Chrome-Shadow-Electric-Ventless-Dryer-with-Intuitive-Touch-Controls-ENERGY-STAR-WHD862CHC/308241998>
consumes 460KWHr in a typical year of use while the least expensive:
<https://www.homedepot.com/p/Samsung-7-2-cu-ft-240-Volt-White-Electric-Dryer-with-Sensor-Dry-DVE41A3000W/315974102>
consumes 644KWHr in a typical year of use.

(Note that you can find models at the 140KWHr level so price isn't purely
driven by efficiency!)

Note that our vehicles are also rated in terms of their fuel efficiency
(but not TCO).  Yet, we see lots of gas guzzlers on the road -- esp
pickup trucks (with pristine "beds" that have never *hauled* anything!).

I.e., purchase decisions aren't made based on efficiency, "green-ness",
TCO, etc.  (most folks don't have any idea what the reliability of a purchase
will be NOR the cost of keeping it operational -- until after they have
made the purchase and incurred those costs!)

> This works so well that the relative rating scales have to be
> regularly re-adjusted.  They have A as the best rating and after
> some time, equipment gets A+, A++, A+++ and it becomes necessary
> to shift the scale (A+++ becomes A, A++ becomes B, A+ becomes C, etc).
> 
> (it would have been better to use a scale that can be extended easier,
> e.g. have F as the best rating so you can add G, H etc easily, but
> that would probably have been too counter-intuitive for people that
> use that kind of scale in other contexts)
> 
> Today, the average fridge, washing machine, dryer etc consumes a
> lot less energy than one or two decades ago and like an order of magnitude
> less than I see Americans quote for their equipment on usenet.

People just don't consider cost of energy to be an important part of
their purchase decision.  Energy is relatively cheap, here.

By "law" (electrical code), a kitchen must have two 20A (120V) branch circuits
to service the countertop appliances (microwave oven, blender, toaster,
toaster oven, electric frying pan, etc.).  That, in addition to the 240V
circuit feeding the electric stove (assuming electric fired).  And, the
dedicated circuit for the refrigerator (so the refrigerator doesn't lose
power when some other circuit faults).  Most homes will also have an
electric "garbage disposal" in the sink drain.  A dishwasher.  An exhaust
fan (cooking odors).

Some will have an "instant hot water" heater under the sink (near boiling
water dispensed).

And, of course, lighting.

The kitchen, here, has as many branch circuits as the rest of the house
(neglecting the HVAC stuff).  It is typically the biggest energy draw in
a home.  "No, I don't want to have to turn off the 1KW microwave oven
while I am making toast in the 950W toaster and baking some potatoes in
the 1500W toaster oven -- while the vegetables are cooking on the
stove top!  What's that?  Did I just hear the refrigerator compressor
kick on?  Hard to hear it over the noise of the garbage disposal..."

[No, it's unlikely one will use ALL of these loads concurrently.  But,
no one typically thinks of staggering their use to ease the requirements
on the wiring or their overall energy consumption.]

I drink tea throughout the day (16 8-oz mugs).  So, I am constantly
boiling water.  And, as I tend to get distracted, the cup that I'm
currently nursing often cools.  So, back to the microwave to reheat it
to a more tolerable temperature.  Until I get distracted *again*...

We grow citrus, here.  Sadly, we are at a low point (elevation-wise)
so see the cold air settling in our neighborhood on those few winter
nights when it is cold enough to damage the trees (28F).  To minimize
the chance of losing fruit -- which we have nursed along all year! -- we
position incandescent lights under and through the trees to encourage
the air to keep moving through the branches and not settle on the leaves.

That's ~2400W running throughout the evening and past sun-up (which
is the coldest part of the night).  I've yet to devise a reliable
mechanism to automate their use (temperature alone isn't the sole
factor).  So, we turn them on when we THINK it is likely to be
a problem (cold enough and long enough).

Rather than lament the power wasted when they ran needlessly, we
celebrate the fact that they proved NOT to be needed on a particular
night!

As I said, my most recent electric bill was ~$240.  You claimed my *usage*
was closer to 6 months of yours.  So, is your bill $40/month -- given that
you've spent all this "up front" money on more energy efficient devices?

On 10/4/2021 9:31 PM, Don Y wrote:
> On 10/4/2021 6:51 PM, amdx wrote:
>> On 10/4/2021 8:34 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>>> My house actually has electronics to measure power consumption on each
>>> circuit.  Monthly cost based on the last 22 days:
>
> -------------^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>>> Dryer (three adults) $7.80
>>
>> That comes to $129 per year.
>
> Assuming he's already normalized those 22 day figures to a 30 day month,
> that comes to $93.60/year.


$7.80 / 22 = $0.3545 per day x 365 days = $129.40

That's how I calculated it.

                                       Mikek



-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus