5 ms·

The author makes clear it saves water and energy without sacrificing comfort: "Jonas writes about his shower that 'it is not all a compromise in comfort, as it

The author makes clear it saves water and energy without sacrificing comfort: "Jonas writes about his shower that 'it is not all a compromise in comfort, as it is sometimes suggested in the research papers of the 1970s' and I totally agree." So substantially more efficient with no loss of living standard. As for energy: " . . . while there is a certain amount of energy needed to heat the water for a daily shower it is very simple to obtain from carbon-neutral sources." All energy can be obtained from carbon-neutral sources, but as it's fungible, all savings are beneficial. Conservation is the lowest hanging fruit. I think your greenshaming diatribe is more personal.

cowmoo728 7y ago
I think it's a reaction to people constantly saying "take shorter showers!" when doing that would have minimal effect on climate change. Industrial and agricultural water use, and pollution, are massive compared to anything a modern city dweller does on a daily basis.
- coldpie 7y ago
  > Industrial and agricultural water use, and pollution, are massive compared to anything a modern city dweller does on a daily basis. Maybe, but people minimize the impact of day-to-day living. Which do you think is higher: US carbon emissions from passenger vehicles, or US carbon emissions from freight trucks, ships, trains and airplanes combined? In fact, it is passenger vehicles. Does your modern city dweller drive to work every day instead of taking transit? Individual choices really do have a real impact, it's not all due to industry and agriculture. Don't minimize the impact of individual choices. Source, US EPA: "The Transportation sector includes the movement of people and goods by cars, trucks, trains, ships, airplanes, and other vehicles. The majority of greenhouse gas emissions from transportation are carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions resulting from the combustion of petroleum-based products, like gasoline, in internal combustion engines. The largest sources of transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions include passenger cars and light-duty trucks, including sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks, and minivans. These sources account for over half of the emissions from the transportation sector. The remaining greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector come from other modes of transportation, including freight trucks, commercial aircraft, ships, boats, and trains, as well as pipelines and lubricants." https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions#transportation https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
  - wffurr 7y ago
    What's the point of comparing vehicle emissions to the energy cost of hot showers? In fact, reducing access to long hot showers might increase vehicle emissions as fewer people would be inclined to bicycle, especially in hot weather.
    - coldpie 7y ago
      I'm not. The person I'm replying to said, "industrial and agricultural ... pollution [is] massive compared to anything a modern city dweller does on a daily basis." Many people use this premise as an excuse to avoid making changes in their own lives. However, my point is that it is a false premise. Industrial pollution is actually not massive compared to individual pollution.
- ProZsolt 7y ago
  Same with plastic. You can shame people who not recycle everything but till companies start reducing plastic packaging nothing will change.
  - crankylinuxuser 7y ago
    Protip: more things can be done at the same time, than just 1. The best reading, this is a case what we would call "whataboutism". Do note, packaging companies and excessive use of single-use plastics is horrible and absolutely should get fixed. But one can also make local changes about your life that also reduce your impact. Well, if you care.
    - salawat 7y ago
      >The best reading, this is a case what we would call "whataboutism". Do note, packaging companies and excessive use of single-use plastics is horrible and absolutely should get fixed. Not sure I necessarily buy that. Easiest fix in many cases with the lowest impact in terms of lives to directly change should be happening higher in the industrial chain to start with. There is little or no point to trying to change things in the immediacy of the end consumer until the upchain effects of getting industry in check have settled out, as the situation then may have completely changed from the current day to day consumer reality. >Protip: more things can be done at the same time, than just 1. Yes, things can be done in parallel. No, there is a certain point where if you start pushing the pain on the consumer first without reining in industry, you'll end up with the better environmental cost delta amplifiers (industry) creating more problems for the consumer to have to fix/compensate for. Example: People want alternate ways to heat water, therefore tanks/plumbing systems supplies capable of making solar based heating become more popular. The parts to make that consumer change possible though rely on an industrial process that ends up outputting more carbon than people save through the solar water heating system. What you want is: Figure out ways that industry isn't mitigating carbon debt in satisfying current demand. Tweak those to rein things in and figure out how the consequences propagate out and how it impacts consumer behavior. Then rinse and repeat. Remember, if you create a hole through consumer behavior changes alone, all it does is signal capital into the most expedient form for utilizing current technology to try to create new demand from the change of the economic landscape. If your current technology was part of the problem your consumer behavior change was meant to remedy, you just ticked off a bunch of people when the actual figures come out saying you didn't realize the payoff, and you further hurt your credibility in suggesting additional changes. Once you have everyone playing to the same tune industrially, the societal approach to conservation and what can or can't be done fundamentally changes. I hope that makes sense.
t34543 7y ago
I think you sacrifice a lot of comfort with a mist shower. I enjoy high GPM showers - because it feels really good and it’s one of my favorite things every morning. hard water makes it difficult to rinse soap off, I imagine it would be even harder in a misting system.
- logfromblammo 7y ago
  I imagine that all the little mist ports would almost immediately clog with lime scale, and the shower would quickly be reduced to utter uselessness.
  - Klathmon 7y ago
    If they're anything like the misting irrigation systems, they never clog even if they are literally covered in dirt and mud for most of their life.
    - icebraining 7y ago
      Covered is fine, because the water pressure can clear out the path. The problem is stuff inside the pipes.
      - Klathmon 7y ago
        the ones at a place I worked used reclaimed water. I don't know how well filtered or treated it was, but I know that it would leave horrible water spots all over anyone who parked too close to them.
- 0xffff2 7y ago
  >hard water makes it difficult to rinse soap off Isn't it the opposite (i.e. soft water is the problematic one)?
  - t34543 7y ago
    Yes, you’re absolutely correct. I was mistaken.
tlarkworthy 7y ago
I am with the OP, I think a lot of suggestions come from people with no quantitate intuition. Switching shower tech will not move the needle in any useful way. In fact, think it will be harmful in some ways as it further acclimates a sloppy non-quantitate approach to resource efficiency.
scythe 7y ago
I used mist showerheads in the freshman dorms at Georgia Tech. In my experience, it absolutely was a huge sacrifice of comfort. I was always excited to take a real shower every time I went home for vacation.

cowmoo728 7y ago

I think it's a reaction to people constantly saying "take shorter showers!" when doing that would have minimal effect on climate change. Industrial and agricultural water use, and pollution, are massive compared to anything a modern city dweller does on a daily basis.

coldpie 7y ago
> Industrial and agricultural water use, and pollution, are massive compared to anything a modern city dweller does on a daily basis. Maybe, but people minimize the impact of day-to-day living. Which do you think is higher: US carbon emissions from passenger vehicles, or US carbon emissions from freight trucks, ships, trains and airplanes combined? In fact, it is passenger vehicles. Does your modern city dweller drive to work every day instead of taking transit? Individual choices really do have a real impact, it's not all due to industry and agriculture. Don't minimize the impact of individual choices. Source, US EPA: "The Transportation sector includes the movement of people and goods by cars, trucks, trains, ships, airplanes, and other vehicles. The majority of greenhouse gas emissions from transportation are carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions resulting from the combustion of petroleum-based products, like gasoline, in internal combustion engines. The largest sources of transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions include passenger cars and light-duty trucks, including sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks, and minivans. These sources account for over half of the emissions from the transportation sector. The remaining greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector come from other modes of transportation, including freight trucks, commercial aircraft, ships, boats, and trains, as well as pipelines and lubricants." https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions#transportation https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
- wffurr 7y ago
  What's the point of comparing vehicle emissions to the energy cost of hot showers? In fact, reducing access to long hot showers might increase vehicle emissions as fewer people would be inclined to bicycle, especially in hot weather.
  - coldpie 7y ago
    I'm not. The person I'm replying to said, "industrial and agricultural ... pollution [is] massive compared to anything a modern city dweller does on a daily basis." Many people use this premise as an excuse to avoid making changes in their own lives. However, my point is that it is a false premise. Industrial pollution is actually not massive compared to individual pollution.
ProZsolt 7y ago
Same with plastic. You can shame people who not recycle everything but till companies start reducing plastic packaging nothing will change.
- crankylinuxuser 7y ago
  Protip: more things can be done at the same time, than just 1. The best reading, this is a case what we would call "whataboutism". Do note, packaging companies and excessive use of single-use plastics is horrible and absolutely should get fixed. But one can also make local changes about your life that also reduce your impact. Well, if you care.
  - salawat 7y ago
    >The best reading, this is a case what we would call "whataboutism". Do note, packaging companies and excessive use of single-use plastics is horrible and absolutely should get fixed. Not sure I necessarily buy that. Easiest fix in many cases with the lowest impact in terms of lives to directly change should be happening higher in the industrial chain to start with. There is little or no point to trying to change things in the immediacy of the end consumer until the upchain effects of getting industry in check have settled out, as the situation then may have completely changed from the current day to day consumer reality. >Protip: more things can be done at the same time, than just 1. Yes, things can be done in parallel. No, there is a certain point where if you start pushing the pain on the consumer first without reining in industry, you'll end up with the better environmental cost delta amplifiers (industry) creating more problems for the consumer to have to fix/compensate for. Example: People want alternate ways to heat water, therefore tanks/plumbing systems supplies capable of making solar based heating become more popular. The parts to make that consumer change possible though rely on an industrial process that ends up outputting more carbon than people save through the solar water heating system. What you want is: Figure out ways that industry isn't mitigating carbon debt in satisfying current demand. Tweak those to rein things in and figure out how the consequences propagate out and how it impacts consumer behavior. Then rinse and repeat. Remember, if you create a hole through consumer behavior changes alone, all it does is signal capital into the most expedient form for utilizing current technology to try to create new demand from the change of the economic landscape. If your current technology was part of the problem your consumer behavior change was meant to remedy, you just ticked off a bunch of people when the actual figures come out saying you didn't realize the payoff, and you further hurt your credibility in suggesting additional changes. Once you have everyone playing to the same tune industrially, the societal approach to conservation and what can or can't be done fundamentally changes. I hope that makes sense.

t34543 7y ago

I think you sacrifice a lot of comfort with a mist shower. I enjoy high GPM showers - because it feels really good and it’s one of my favorite things every morning. hard water makes it difficult to rinse soap off, I imagine it would be even harder in a misting system.

logfromblammo 7y ago
I imagine that all the little mist ports would almost immediately clog with lime scale, and the shower would quickly be reduced to utter uselessness.
- Klathmon 7y ago
  If they're anything like the misting irrigation systems, they never clog even if they are literally covered in dirt and mud for most of their life.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    Covered is fine, because the water pressure can clear out the path. The problem is stuff inside the pipes.
    - Klathmon 7y ago
      the ones at a place I worked used reclaimed water. I don't know how well filtered or treated it was, but I know that it would leave horrible water spots all over anyone who parked too close to them.
0xffff2 7y ago
>hard water makes it difficult to rinse soap off Isn't it the opposite (i.e. soft water is the problematic one)?
- t34543 7y ago
  Yes, you’re absolutely correct. I was mistaken.

tlarkworthy 7y ago

I am with the OP, I think a lot of suggestions come from people with no quantitate intuition. Switching shower tech will not move the needle in any useful way. In fact, think it will be harmful in some ways as it further acclimates a sloppy non-quantitate approach to resource efficiency.

scythe 7y ago

I used mist showerheads in the freshman dorms at Georgia Tech. In my experience, it absolutely was a huge sacrifice of comfort. I was always excited to take a real shower every time I went home for vacation.