6 ms·
It's frequently much more energy intensive too. Cars are a lot more efficient than horses and dishwashers are more efficient than hand washing.
by tootie 5y ago
It's frequently much more energy intensive too. Cars are a lot more efficient than horses and dishwashers are more efficient than hand washing.
- nielsbot 5y agoCan you explain how dish washers are more efficient than hand washing? Is it about water use? What if you don’t run the water while you soap your dishes and only rinse them in a rinse tub?
- spijdar 5y agoI haven't watched this video in a while so apologies if it's not specifically elaborated on, but I believe it's covered here: https://youtu.be/_rBO8neWw04 https://youtu.be/_rBO8neWw04 From memory yes, it's partially about water usage, but dishwashers are in general just pretty good overall about efficiently using energy to maximize "food grime removed" per unit of resources fed in. Even if you're careful with water usage while hand washing, I think a decent dishwasher will beat you. Another advantage is the dishwasher heats its own water, whereas with hand washing either you need to use a house-wide water heater or preheat water in a kettle or something, which will have its own energy wastes. This of course depends also on how your house's water is heated. One page I found googling elaborates on these ideas, concluding that you could potentially be more efficient hand washing, but only with a lot of effort: https://www.treehugger.com/built-in-dishwashers-vs-hand-washing-which-is-greener-4858791 https://www.treehugger.com/built-in-dishwashers-vs-hand-wash...
- Ichthypresbyter 5y ago>Even if you're careful with water usage while hand washing, I think a decent dishwasher will beat you. I once ran the dishwasher with the outlet hose in a bucket because the drain pump was on its way out. I expected to have to empty it several times, but at the end of the cycle there was less water in it than I would use to fill a washing-up bowl to do the dishes by hand (and the amount of dishes it cleaned might have required more than one bowl).
- nielsbot 5y agoThanks. I read the treehugger link—pretty convincing overall. Not sure why my question was downvoted tho. (Not accusing you)
- hutzlibu 5y agoIn my observation unfair downvotes come, when people are angry at something and looking at anything that looks like a scapegoat to direct that anger, which can be anyone not expressing the same mindset they have. Which was you by asking that question that apparently was enough to mentally puts you in the "stupid treehugger camp". I would not worry about it too much and try to not take it personal. Their rational explanation is probably "how you can be so stupid for not knowing that common knowledge". And well, even though I am indeed a treehugger, I also knew about the efficency of dishwashers before and also assumed it to be common knowledge, but I would never downvote someone because of a genuine question adding to the conversation.
- spijdar 5y agoI didn't downvote -- it's fair to be skeptical that a machine that spends hours making loud whirring noises would be more efficient than just scrubbing some dishes in the sink. And I don't want to careful about making unequivocal statements like "dishwashers are always more efficient", I've just heard some convincing reasons why dishwashers in particular are pretty cool and (unintuitively) efficient.
- hoseja 5y agoAnd it's disgusting and water where I live is cheap and plentiful. Hate water austerity imposed on everyone because of megacities and people living where people shouldn't live.
- lovemenot 5y agoLarge human population is an issue. But if you accept that as a premise, Megacities are more efficient in terms of resource usage than equally-sized but geographically dispersed populations. As for water usage, think first of agriculture, then industry. Only after that do cities come into play. Cities are relatively small water consumers.
- bluGill 5y agoSee my other post: agriculture water is not heated or treated. Thus cities use as much energy for their water despite only using a fraction. In all of the above water itself is not the issue as it isn't lost, just moved downstream until the water cycle (rain - which has always been non-uniform) brings it back.
- throwaway0a5e 5y agoA city may be more efficient than lower population density on a per-capita basis but that is only tangential to the problem. A city in the California desert is not a good reason someone in NYC should have to endure a washing machine and dishwasher that are so stingy about water usage they are frequently ineffective at their primary task. >As for water usage, think first of agriculture, then industry. Only after that do cities come into play. Cities are relatively small water consumers. Where do those agricultural products get sold and eaten? <insert screeching about "taxing muh negative externalities" here>
- ashtonkem 5y agoTypically even within residential areas the issues isn't people per se, it's lawns and golf courses. And those are absolutely not evenly distributed or used.
- bluGill 5y ago
- hippari 5y agoYou have to heat water to wash your dishes ? What kind of gravy sauce are you cooking in your pot.
- JohnWhigham 5y agoIf you're careful about water usage and use cold water, you'll always beat a dishwasher. Another thing people often forget about dishwashers: you're supposed to pre-scrub the hard shit off the dishes. Well, you just did half the mechanical work yourself, why not finish it? I think part of it can also be (at least for me) upbringing. We always handwashed our dishes, and only used the dishwasher a couple times per year for big events.
- dijit 5y agoI grew up handwashing too but I disagree with your assertion. Firstly, you can't wash with cold water because soap doesn't activate with cold water, hot water also kills bacteria and helps cut through grease. Fats themselves are hydrophobic and without activated soap you wont get them off... enjoy your "filmy" dishes. Second, humans expend a lot more energy than you think. The act of standing and using our arms releases varying amounts depending on physical fitness but averages somewhere in the 1kg/h ballpark. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jjphysiol/50/2/50_2_199/_pdf https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jjphysiol/50/2/50_2_199... Dishwashers use about 1800 Watts and are commonly run for 30 minutes, the average co2 in the USA is 0.92lbs per kWh. Meaning it's _basically_ the same. Then there's the freshwater usage, which is the real kicker, because dishwashers use significantly less freshwater, and freshwater filtering is the largest environmental impact of washing dishes (not the direct co2 output).
- jamincan 5y agoHumans are expending energy regardless of whether they're washing dishes or not. The question is how much extra energy they expend when washing dishes over whatever they might do otherwise.
- hippari 5y agoHuman body will have to expense energy regardless whether you do it with house chores, or going to the gym, or a walk in the park.
- ClumsyPilot 5y agoThat energy use is likely an overestimate - thats mostky the heating element and it doesnt run the entire washing cycle or the water would boil
- throw0101a 5y ago> Is it about water use? What if you don’t run the water while you soap your dishes and only rinse them in a rinse tub? Yes: if your dishwasher has the Energy Star rating then it must use ≤15L of water using the normal cycle per the EPA. This is half the volume of a small sink and a one-third or less of larger ones. Most people run the water. In the US the average flow rate of a kitchen faucet is 8 L/min (2.2 gpm), so you can quickly use up 15L even just rinsing.
- bluGill 5y agoMost people use as much water rinsing their dishes to almost clean before putting them in the dishwasher.
- throwaway0a5e 5y agoVery few people are running the faucet anywhere near full blast when dish-washing. My faucet is very slow, about ~1gpm (I timed it once upon a time because I wanted to be able to put a number to how slow it is). When hand washing I run at maybe 1/4 or less of that. Everyone else in my household runs it at less.
- AngryData 5y agoDish washers do reuse the same water far more than most humans would because it looks like you are washing dishes with filth. Most usually only run 3 small batches of water through them I believe. Not sure if it actually makes them more resource efficient versus mindful hand washing, but I wouldn't consider them inefficient at all.
- pleb_nz 5y agoI read somewhere modern people spend the same amount of time doing chores as someone before electricity. It wouldn't surprise me if it were that far off the truth. We own so much more and are told we need things when in reality maybe we don't?
- adrianN 5y agoI definitely don't spend as much time doing chores as my grandma used to do before she had electricity. Recall that not too long ago "sewing your own clothes" also was a chore you had to do, and washing clothes took a whole day. Modern appliances made it possible for women to join the workforce because they freed up so much time.
- harry8 5y agoYeah was a really, really interesting social change. From the point of view of the middle class (~10% of the population of the wealthier nations?) when the appliances came in the station of women of that class went backwards. Servants became expensive and women who, post-childbirth had high-status and important roles running charities, political parties and such no longer had enough time for it. The suffragettes now had to do the work (assisted by appliance) of the house as well as run it. Not many of us would reverse the changes that came with widespread home appliance availability and adoption on either a personal or societal level but every significant change comes at a cost to someone to whom you might well be sympathetic is something worth remembering when looking forward.
- DetroitThrow 5y agoAbsolutely untrue. My mother's life was changed significantly for the better when she got her first washer and dryer. She actually had more time for herself and for working a part time job.
- tsjq 5y agoI came across a similar line in a Podcast 3-4 years ago. I was baffled at that line, same as the reply commenters here. it was Hidden Brain or Planet Money or Freakonomics. They didn't elaborate on that. & I forgot to dig into it