On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 17:02:14 -0800 (PST), fftt
wrote:

On Feb 21, 12:31*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 13:37:09 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:



Ulysses wrote:

Just how much water would you expect to save with a front-loader?
I've read the Neptune's can save you about $12/year in electricity!
I somehow doubt they last long enough to make up for the extra
up-front cost.

If you burn Hydrogen in an Oxygen environment, you get "fresh water."

All other water is "used" water.

Water is the ultimate reusable resourse. And, if you look at your water
bill, none of the charge is for the water itself - water is basically free.
You're really paying for the delivery.

In a washing machine, saving water also means saving HOT water.

As sa dog points out

front loaders extract more water mechanically (spin) which leaves
much less to evaporate off via the dryer.

significant savings in the typical install comes from lower hot water
usage... cold water is gallons per penny, hot water is pennies per
gallon.

rebates from water & electrical suppliers lower the cost more

Still, at price front of most front loader sets....its gonna take some
time to pay off. But if you need new machines any way.........

cheers
Bob

The Fisher-Paykel machines are mid-priced top loaders (about $650)
that use less water like the front loaders, and leave the clothes
almost dry. Unlike the front loaders, however, they don't need special
and very expensive soap. In fact, they use regular soap, and half as
much of it as a regular top loader.