Hacker News Reader

Comment by yongjik | Hacker News Reader

Growing up in Korea, and living in the US for 5+ years now, what I've heard is that American washer models are so forceful that they wear clothes out. If you are accustomed to such washers (and clothes made with such expectation) I can see how you think the newer models are not as good. But I would choose a Samsung/LG washer over Whirlpool any day, if the prices were the same.

View on HN

Compared to Korea, I'd think that tumble drying is the main culprit behind wearing clothes out. Anecdotally when I first moved to Korea I had a huge top-loading Samsung washer that made insane amounts of lint.

Front-loaders are vastly different between the North American market and Europe or Korea. I remember my friend's brand new LG in California would run an eco-friendly cycle in 40 minutes. A similar model in Europe takes 4h30!

"A similar model in Europe takes 4h30!"

That's not true of modern front-load washers. At my old (UK) flat we had an old Beko front-loading clunker. It worked perfectly well but was very noisy and took a long time (not 4 hours though! maybe 1.5 - 2 hours).

At my current place we have a much more modern one where a fast/economy cycle takes 36 minutes. It's nice and quiet too.

I'm specifically talking about top-of-the-line LG and Samsung eco-friendly washers. Check out their specs if you don't believe me, I had one of these. 4 hours at 40C and nearly 5 hours at 60C. It never bothered me though.

Edit: here's an example: http://www.lg.com/uk/washing-machines/lg-FH4A8TDN2#

- 60°C full load 297 minutes

- 60°C partial load 244 minutes

- 40°C partial load 239 minutes

The washers also sometimes lie about how long will something take. Mine claims 40 almost full liad will take 3 and half hours, then twenty minutes later it claims two and half hours remaining and then it finishes hour later.

I have no idea why it does that.

It adjusts the time to the load.

My bosh front loader does a 40°C cotton wash in just under 5 hours, or if I switch it to a 40°C mixed load it does the same content in 60 minutes, or 40 minutes if I tell it to consume more water and electricity.

I have no idea what the difference between the cotton and the mixed load settings is, but I usually do the shorter cycle if I have a lot of loads to do.

It says "Turbowash: 59 minutes" on that link?

I guess if you're setting it running in the morning and then heading out for the day, 4-5 hours isn't a problem. But often I end up doing all the laundry on one day: clothes as well as towels, bed sheets, etc, in multiple loads, and don't want to be waiting around too long for each load to finish...

It's dieselgate for washing machines.

Slow wash cycles are more efficient. Loosening the dirt by soaking means that less agitation is required. Manufacturers cheat the mandatory efficiency tests by making the default cycle very slow, but offering faster cycle settings. My washing machine takes nearly four hours for a standard cotton cycle, but has a "speed perfect" button that reduces the wash time to under an hour. I always use the fast setting.

That's not really anything like dieselgate. Washing machines, I would hope, aren't emitting toxic gases that kill people.

It is, perhaps, a little deceptive if people believe their machines are more efficient than they really are on the commonly used cycles.

The way to solve this would be to improve the efficiency tests so that they test the efficiency of a fast cycle as well as an economy/long cycle.

They use electricity, which in much of the world comes from coal, the burning of which emits toxic gases that kill people.

But you're not comparing like for like. The machine you list also has a "turbo wash" (heavily promoted on the link you provide that only takes one hour. That's an eco mode full load.

And for the comparison to be correct you need to compare an eco mode quick wash - normally a light load.

> But you're not comparing like for like.

I'm trying to. The standardized annual power consumption that is advertised on the energy rating is only accurate if you use the default settings for 40 and 60°C cotton cycles. And that is effectively 4 hours at 40°C for a partial load. I saw the advertised "turbowash" cycle, however while it's supposed to be energy efficient, you have to take LG's word for it.

In the US, while models differ in size, if you look at a similar price range and load capacity, you'll see that numbers used for the energy rating are pretty similar (around 100 kWh or less). But, to my knowledge, the default cycles are fairly short. Sadly neither Samsung nor LG seem to publish cycle length in their manuals.

If it's old, then it was probably made before the EU regulations about eco-friendly modes. Newer machines still have the fast modes, but they also have super-long eco-friendly modes. The manual will identify which of the machine's modes comply with the regulations:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32...

I've noticed that Americans seem to tumble dry everything. Here in New Zealand anyone with enough yard space for a washing line generally air drys their clothes unless it's rainy. In fact most of my clothes have Do Not Tumble Dry on the label, although that message is often a bit overzealous and can certainly be selectively ignored.

A lot of developments in America these days specifically ban clothesline drying because it's associated with, well, being poor. Never underestimate the zealousness of American HOAs, condo boards, and landlords in wanting to keep up appearances.

Electric dryers are also a huge environmental burden due to electricity consumption. I don't remember the exact numbers, but I think electric dryers require many power plants worth of electricity. In many parts of the world, air drying is normal.

If anyone is looking for ideas on how to make the world a better place, look into figuring out how to shift the culture so that air drying becomes more common. Also composting toilets.

Edit: Drying clothes uses 56 billion kWh of energy in the US.[1] Another related area that needs work is standby power.[2]

[1] https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=96&t=3

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/science/just-how-much-pow...

US uses 3000+ billion kWh of electricity so dryers are meaningful but not that huge of an impact. I think there are better areas to focus such a campaign.

It's something though, and the rest of the world is following the US in many ways. As electric dryers increase with the population and development in places like Asia and Africa, the numbers will increase.

Sure, it would be a net gain. I am just saying replacing 2% of fossil fuel production with wind/solar seems a lot easier than getting 300+ million people to do something else to save under 2% of electricity usage.

Socially, improving commuting infrastructure so people waste less gas would easily have a larger benefit and you are not going to fight nearly as hard.

Etc etc, this might be top 50 but it's not a top 10 and it's hard.

The win would be in mindset shift. How are 300+ million going to care about dryers but not all the other growing ways to be enviro-conscious like avoiding the stack of plastic packaging you get from ordering food delivery?

People waste so much energy without thinking about it and for reasons that aren't particularly more convenient, like using disposable dishware instead of just rinsing off your plate when you're done. I look around at my peers even here in Mexico and see a shift, like asking for no straw when ordering a michelada.

So focusing on the specific energy usage of dryers begins to sound near-sighted. Nobody suggested that dryers alone cause all waste.

The disposable dishware, I saw it in the US, and it's just the most unbelievable thing I can think of. Having grown up in Europe, I was astonished to see people actually eat out of disposable dishware. I'd expect it at a party with a ton of people, because then you just throw everything away, but for normal daily life? Insane wastage.

Thin paper plates for example have rather minimal environmental impact. They are actually better for the environment than running a nearly empty dishwasher.

PS: For manufactured products cost is often a reasonable first approximation of environmental impact. When you get 300 paper plates for 2 cents each they really can't take many resources to manufacture. Further, by ending up in a landfill they actually act as a carbon sink.

> They are actually better for the environment than running a nearly empty dishwasher.

Washing a few dishes by hand just takes a moment.

Hand washing does not get dishes as clean. 70+C Water is useful in this context as it kills off bacteria which can help cut down on disease transmission.

I don't think it's healthy to live in a sterile environment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygiene_hypothesis

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/23/children-all...

https://www.webmd.com/allergies/news/20150223/could-a-dishwa...

The trick is to do both. Then you have addressed nearly 5% (rounding up a bit) of the US's fossil fuel dependence...

Which is why HE washers spin so damned fast. It’s cheaper to centrifuge off a bit more water than to heat it out of the clothes.

You can easily do in door clothes drying in most areas especially if you're single. Combine with a 70+C wash cycle and cloths should be fairly close to sterile when you start.

That's because there are EU regulations about energy efficiency. Washing machines must have eco-friendly cycles that use less energy: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32...

These cycles take longer. AIUI it's to compensate for reduced temperature (saving the bulk of the energy) and reduced water usage.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com