Water will always be available. People proclaim of a shortage, but we can always, although hard to implement, switch to desalinizing our water. Our energy however, will probably come from fossil fuels for now. So our best bet is to waste the water.
2007-05-22 09:10:06
·
answer #1
·
answered by John C 2
·
0⤊
2⤋
To continuously recirculate hot(tish) water through uninsulated or poorly insulated pipes is a total waste because depending on the temperature difference between the hot water and the ambient temperature continuous recirculation increases the heat loss to the ambient environment and the pump energy expended is unnecessary energy waste-- like leaving a light bulb on in a closet infrequently visited or a house A/C set at 72 degrees Fahrenheit when nobody is at home during the hot summer day. There are better ways to conserve both energy and water usage using smart controllers and point of use technologies as suggested by another poster. Instant Hot water is a pure luxury ,like ice cubes are ,for most of humanity, so the Q you ask is about a luxury you probably could do without. The kids should get used to ambient or ground water cool water for washing their hands or taking a bath. It would be a good thing to not waste the energy needed to heat or recirculate the water. If you must indulge yourself and your kids, the heat losses are a total waste that good insulation or point of use heaters with efficient thermo controlled heating elements could minimize or eliminate. TWH 05222007-6
2007-05-22 13:16:27
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
For you specific example, I would waste the water. My solution to that same problem is to use the still cold water I get from turning on the hot water to brush my teeth. By the time I have used enough to brush, rinse, floss and rinse again, the water is usually starting to get warm. Then I shower or shave or whatever.
Or instead of installing a recirculating system, consider a point of use heater. Or move your water heater to another location closer to the bathroom. If you are going to open up the walls anyway to install the recirculating system, those other options are at least a possibility worth considering.
2007-05-22 09:27:01
·
answer #3
·
answered by campbelp2002 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
I think the question is in line with the critique about majority of single family house in US - very energy ineffiicient.
If the heating unit is only located at where the hot water is needed, we won't waste all this energy and water in order to bring the hot water from the basement to 2nd floor. The solution is tankless heater. The plumbing is simplier and saving raw materials. The heating unit doesn't need to be as big as the unit in our garage or basement as you only heat the water during the shower, etc.
There are many things we can do to be green but there are huge opportunities there if they redesign the utilities inside the house, how the rooms should be cool and heated, etc.
2007-05-22 09:33:45
·
answer #4
·
answered by White Polar Bear 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think a recirculating pump is a bad idea. Hot water heating is an easy problem to solve. Refit your house with 'tankless' flow-through hot water heaters, like the ones I lived with in Germany ten years ago.
These hot water heaters work like a Mr. Coffee, heating the water at the point of use from cold water lines. They use minimal electricity, and there is NEVER a shortage of water at whatever temperature of heat you like for whatever you want to do--because in each bathroom, kitchen, or laundry area, you have a SEPARATE little heater (size of a thin medicine cabinet, fits in the wall between 2 studs) that provides for that area alone.
No more hot water pipes coursing water through the house, no more tank to serve as a missile in case of earthquake, tornado or hurricane.
Drastically lowered water heating requirements.
Low cost--each unit is about $100, and you won't need more than 3 or 4.
What's not to like?
2007-05-22 09:30:47
·
answer #5
·
answered by nora22000 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Hmmm. that really is a tough one...
Perhaps the 57 second pump is a good idea--if you don't use the water longer than necessary. If it only takes that amount of time for the water to reach your sinks, it shouldn't be using that much power, right? OR, would the power to keep the water heated in the pipes be on constantly?
Like I said, tough one...Maybe you could get further information from your local water and electric companies.
2007-05-22 12:10:16
·
answer #6
·
answered by Holiday Magic 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Maybe you could find a way to save the cold water (in containers?) while you are waiting for the hot water. Then you could use the water around the house to water plants, give to the pets, fish tank, for cleaning/rinsing, etc. I'm sure there are a million things you could do with the water, it would just be a matter of hauling buckets around...lots of manual labor there! I just don't like the idea of wasting water. So if you don't want to haul buckets, I suggest you install the circ pump.
2007-05-22 09:55:42
·
answer #7
·
answered by Ivanna 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
neither.
<>
no. you can save some of the cold water in a bucket and water your plants. even if you just let the water go down the drain, wasting water is less wastefull of resources than the extra use of energy.
best option- get a low flow showerhead(free from your local water utility), wrap your water heater in an insulation blanket (available at all hardware stores), catch the cool water in buckets to feed plants.
water is a precious resource don't waste it.
desalination is an expensive- energy intensive process.
2007-05-22 09:12:19
·
answer #8
·
answered by concerned american 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
of coarse the most economical solution would be not to waste at all. I have put several point-of-use hot water heaters in my home and shop. These instant hot water heaters only run when you turn on the water, thus not wasting any water or power. I would recommend trying to conserve both. Hope this helps....
2007-05-22 09:14:16
·
answer #9
·
answered by Andrew S 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
by re-using the water you are saving energy because the water would have had to have gone through an energy thirsty process of being treated etc
2007-05-22 09:12:46
·
answer #10
·
answered by tom m 2
·
0⤊
0⤋