Showerhead Definition Has Industry in a Lather
Posted July 13, 2010 in Curbing Pollution, Green Enterprise, Living Sustainably
The US Energy Department is getting pelted by some industry groups that object to the way that DOE wants to define the word “showerhead.” Plumbing contractors and showroom operators are in a big sweat because DOE is finally cracking down on manufacturers and distributors that have been skirting a nearly 20-year old law requiring that any “showerhead” sold or imported into the US be water- and energy-efficient.
DOE’s new definition will rein in (rain – get it?) the sale of nontraditional showerheads, such as perforated ceiling tiles, that don’t meet today’s efficiency standards. It will also put a damper on sales of so-called “shower systems” that produce more than one spray from a single set of controls. Some of these are just simple double-head combinations on a single shower arm, while other set-ups involve multi-jet body sprays. Environmental advocates and energy and water utilities have encouraged DOE to crack down on scofflaws, but the push-back from the luxury shower crowd has become quite a geyser.
Here’s a factoid to keep in mind. If a typical household with an electric water heater were to switch from a standard showerhead to a double head, the extra electricity consumption (about 1,500 kilowatt-hours per year) would be equivalent to adding two new 28 cu ft side-by-side refrigerators to their home. And that’s just a double head – the multi-jet shower systems would of course use much, much more. These things are the Hummers of home products.
My hunch is that extravagant shower set-ups were an artifact of the McMansion craze, and now that the housing bubble has burst, plumbing contractors are worried about losing high-end sales that are not going to be coming back anyway. What do you think?
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
Ross Donald — Jul 14 2010 11:00 AM
Solar hot water changes everything. I don't know what a "typical household" is, but, in my case, I can go from a standard shower head to a double head to a rain forest deluge shower head, and because I have have solar hot water, the fuel cost goes from zero to zero. This is an example of offensive inappropriate over-regulation, when the consumer has a solar option.
Capitan Freedom — Jul 14 2010 11:15 AM
The last place I want the goverment involved is in my shower.
If Americans want a two-headed shower, then they should have the freedom to shower with two heads. They have the freedom to take a bath which uses much more water than a shower, so why so much plumbing opression.
From a conservation point of view it may be a little irresponsible but they are paying the heating bill.
Plus if a person takes a lukewarm or even cold shower, the energy savings become much smaller. In the summer a cool-off shower uses very little energy and is refreshing. It I want my second head for that then that should be my choice. Its my pursuit of happiness.
Ed Osann — Jul 14 2010 04:30 PM
Ross -- Household solar systems today typically meet just a fraction of total household demand for electricity. Solar advocates usually advocate making cost-effective efficiency improvements first, which has the benefit of saving money and allowing solar to meet a larger fraction of the home's total demand. Efficiency (including water efficient showerheads) and renewables together are the keys to the sustainable future.
showersense — Jul 15 2010 02:51 PM
Having just completed a lovely master bath renovation, my husband would have been apalled if he could not have included a fabulous rain shower. Guests, family members and even our dog wait in line to use it! To think the government would be wasting time, energy and money on regulating showers is sad. With the Gulf being overrun with oil and the desert being overtaken by golf courses, I would think water regulation and conservation would be better attacked by addressing those BIG issues rather than taking away our right to purchase the showerhead of choice.
Gene Haynes — Jul 15 2010 08:24 PM
Here is the water-heater math so fiscal conservatives can make good decisions.
Average shower uses 6-9 gallons hot water. Bath uses 12-15 gallons hot water.
Assume big-shower-head shower consumes 4 more gallons hot water per shower, which is modest.
It takes .000239 Kwh to raise 1 lb of water 1° F at sea level.
1 gallon water weighs 8.34 lbs so 4 gallons of water weighs 33.36 lbs.
Assume incoming cold water is 60° F
Assume water heater thermostat is 130° F
Each lb of water would be raised 70°
Multiply: .000239 Kwh per lb x 33.36 lbs water x 70° rise in temp = .558 Kwh
So each big-shower-head shower would use additional .558 Kwh
Assume 365 showers per year
Assume 4 people per household = 1460 showers
1460 showers x .558 Kwh for additional hot water = 814 Kwh per year per house
814 Kwh per year is additional water-heater expense >> plus other electric costs
Additional expense assumes storage-type electric water heater operating like-new at 99% efficiency. If consumer has older water heater or whole-house tankless electric water heater, the Kwh would be higher. Exact figures for tankless efficiency are opaque and vary by design and wattage of unit, but they are inefficient at heating water quickly.
Also 4 gallons per shower x 1460 showers per year is 5840 gallons of water which weighs 46,705 lbs.
The water-heater calculation above does not include utility electricity to purify 46,000 lbs of water and pump this water up to the second story of a house of each house. Nor does it include electricity to process additional wastewater.
http://waterheatertimer.org/Familychart.html
Ross Donald — Jul 17 2010 11:07 PM
Hi Ed — Efficiency in the abstract is good, but there's no reasoning with a anyone who would say that a 100 percent all solar hot water system is less beneficial than a partial non-renewable solar system operation. Energy advocates of all kinds always advocate making cost-effective efficiency improvements. A total solar design ought to have a high priority because it has a higher and at times the highest solar fraction and therefore saves the most money. A home's total demand includes many additional categories of use, which deserve various measures that can evaluated on their own, but do not always need to be taken first. One key to a sustainable energy future is to encourage homeowners and builders to innovate with super-efficient all solar systems that eliminate non-renewable use at the site and export the surplus energy, when available.
Stan Scoie — Jul 18 2010 03:33 PM
Put a plug in the shower drain. You can watch how much water/energy is used. And it pretty much makes the shower floor slipproof.
Elegant, simple, and incredibly cheap.
Stan Scobie, Binghamton, NY
Jim — Jul 21 2010 09:52 PM
This action by DOE is an unlawful and un-warranted attack on personal freedom pure and simple. The number of these installations and the amount of energy involved are inconsequential. Where one citizen can build, fill, and heat an olympic sized pool should they desire, his neighbor would violate the law to install a second 2.5 gpm showerhead. Should all pools, hot tubs and other recreational uses of water be outlawed? What gives the government the right to make these arbitrary decisions without due process? There is no place in America for this. Why not get behind the EPA Watersense program instead? Here is a voluntary program, like Energystar, designed to educate consumers and promote informed choice. The zealots are afraid informed consumers won't agree with what they see as "waste". So they attempt force their values on an un-aware population in back room deals. There is simply no public policy benefit that warrants this intrusion into personal freedom.