On Friday, November 15, 2013 8:42:08 AM UTC-5, Higgs Boson wrote:
On Thursday, November 14, 2013 7:36:27 PM UTC-8, DerbyDad03 wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:58:51 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03
I don't know about the "schmutz" factor nor your laziness claim, but
Consumer Reports says it's about the energy that's wasted when pre-rinsing.
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/n...-job/index.htm
Not only do you waste water (6000 gallons per year?) but you waste the
energy required to heat it.
Consumer Reports uses the worst possible scenario figures. No reason to
heat the rinse water. Where did the 16 gallons a day come from? I bet I
don't use half a gallon on the worst day. I gave up reading CR decades
ago for just that reason. Can't trust them.
That why I added the ? after the 6000. Sounded outrageous high to me too.
However, the comments related to the wasting of water and energy if you use
hot water to rinse, as I'm sure many, many people do, is valid.
I need to find out whether you and Ed and others, when discussing pre-rinsing, mean RINSE CYCLE IN DW or (as I intend) QUICK RUN UNDER WATER FAUCET.
Both approaches have been mentioned, but in what I wrote above
and what I think they are talking about is rinsing by hand.
Would make vast differences in projected water usage.
And which way do you think uses vastly more?
(However, even when just "quick run under water faucet", must take into account energy used in heating water, so pref, use cold.)
I would think a quick run under the faucet for most of what
goes into the DW could easily use a lot more water than running
the rinse cycle on the DW.
We are only one modest-using household. But multiplied by millions, some more profligate, and given future water shortages in some areas of the country, it behooves us to define our terms. (One of the two buzzwords way back at university. The other was "what's your frame of reference". Both quite useful.)
HB
I already don't rinse. So no issue here at all.