The U.S. Department of Energy on Friday proposed energy efficiency standards on water heaters it said would save consumers $11.4 billion on energy and water bills annually.

The standards on residential water heater efficiency, which are required by Congress, have not been updated in 13 years. Water heating is responsible for roughly 13% of both annual residential energy use and consumer utility costs, the DOE said.

  • themeltingclock@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Looking forward to the “reeeeee” from folks who will somehow equate this to think that the gubment is coming for their precious water heater

    • Supervisor194@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      So I can’t stand it when people do the “reeeee” thing either, but this one kind of bugs me.

      $11.4 billion in savings per year for 332 million people averages to $34 per year.

      Here is a typical electric water heater. Cost: $439. Here is one with a heat pump installed as described in the article. Cost: $1,909 - a difference in price of $1,470.

      At $34 per year, this water heater would have to last 43 years before any cost savings from the efficiency gains would be realized. I don’t know if you know much about water heaters, but this won’t happen by a long shot.

      Gas units fare similarly, with typical units verses high efficiency units’ price differential.

      It’s hard to be a homeowner these days. This will make it harder. I can accept it in the name of efficiency gains and saving the planet and all that, but the whole “this will save consumers money,” bit is pure gaslighting. It’s not true. This will cost consumers quite a lot of money.

      • doc@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The two models you linked have an estimated annual energy cost of $489 and $119. That’s roughly $40 a month vs $10. This would mean you’d come out ahead in total cost over the lifetime of the unit – parts + install + bills – at 4 years and 2 months.

        Obviously every situation is different, but calculating at an aggregate level and using that math to dismiss the idea wholesale is disingenuous at best.

      • BandoCalrissian@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re probably right about it not saving enough money, but the math you did above assumes one water heater per person.

        The median household in the US is about 2.5 people. So $34 per year per person becomes $85 per household. Reducing the time to break even to 17.3 years.

        Still longer than that water heater is likely to last, but not quite as bad.

        • Supervisor194@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          True, that actually makes me feel slightly better. But nothing’s going to make me feel better when I go to buy a new water heater and it costs three times as much as the last one did.

      • fuzzzerd@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Claiming there’s savings just isn’t true in reality. If they came out and said it’s to help reduce energy consumption to save the planet I’d be all in, and I’m still in for this, but it just makes it hard to fully support with the gaslighting as you aptly put.

        • Semperverus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Part of the problem is that most people who would need convincing of this will immediately turn away as soon as they hear “save energy” or “save the planet” as they see these efforts as nuicanses and a vie for control. The second you frame it as “what’s in it for you,” they immediately start to listen. Look at what happened with solar panels once they crossed the magic threshold of affordability and actually functioned as a cost saving method. A third of the houses in my neighborhood have them installed now. The only reason I don’t is because I’m currently paycheck to paycheck, and my local power company is also doing a killer job of sourcing solar and other renewables.

          • Iamdanno@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It would be nice if they occasionally spent time making and enforcing stuff like this for the 7 or 10 corporations that cause most of the climate change problem. Asking all the citizens to spend and extra $1000 when they replace their water heater is just limate change theater.

            • Semperverus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I think you maybe responded to the wrong person or didn’t respond to the OP. My post was about how to convince people to buy in, whereas yours seems to be focused on the big businesses and how they’re not being held to the same standard. Though, the overlap here is basically what I originally said: frame it as cost-savings for the businesses or something else in it for them and they’ll start doing it with or without regulation.

      • GreyBeard@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s important to note that the cost to make and the price to sell are too different things. I’m sure it costs more to make, but features like that are used to upsell. When they become a requirement, suddenly they can’t be used to upsell and so the price comes down. It happened with backup cameras in cars. For a few years, it was a major upsell for a car to come with a backup camera. If you wanted a backup camera you had to buy the premium trim for thousands more. Then it became a requirement and it could nolonger be treated as a premium.

  • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    I do like how the article goes out of its way to mention that Joe Biden is a Democrat and Donald Trump is a Republican, just in case we didn’t know.

    Anyhow, it does specifically mention reverse cycle electric water heaters, which I clicked on this imagining were the only path forward if anyone wishes to increase the efficiency of an electric storage tank water heater. Existing electric storage water heaters are actually already remarkably close to being perfectly efficient, since very nearly all of the energy consumed goes into raising the temperature of the water and provided you don’t let the thing sit idle for days on end, that heat energy stays in there pretty damn well, also. Even a bog standard electric water heater with resistive heating elements has around 90% energy efficiency.

    Then I remember how many people in the US have natural gas powered water heaters, because they’re “cheaper,” which are at best something like 60% energy efficient.

    • Kethal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Because “efficiency” here ill defined, 100% is not the most efficient a heater can be. Heat pumps move more heat than is needed to power them, are much more efficient than electric heaters, and have “efficiencies” well over 100%. Good ones have 400% “efficiency”, in that 1 J consumed will put that 1 J into the the substance and move another 3 J from the environment (thus cooling the environment) into the substance.

      If you use a heat pump water heater, it will help cool your house. In areas that cool in the summer, it’s essentially free hot water. In the winter overall energy consumption to offset the cooling breaks even compared to an electric water heater.

      Similarly, air source heat pumps are much more efficient than gas or electric furnaces for heating a building. They’re comparable to a typical AC unit for cooling, as an AC unit is just a heat pump.

      In many regions, ground source heat pumps are even more efficient for both heating and cooling, because the ground temperature is nearly constant and at a convenient temperature, so it serves as a huge source and sink of energy.

      • Overzeetop@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I have a hpwh and , when the coils aren’t leaking coolant (repaired twice under warranty) it works well. I keep it in a room that has the washer/dryer, spare fridge, icemaker, and my espresso machine - all devices which would work against my A/C in the summer. It keeps that area nice and cool. In the winter I shut off the hp and run it in resistance mode or it really cools the basement excessively (which I’d also where my home office is).

        The only other drawback is that the heat pump is very noisy compared to, say, a refrigerator or a good mini split heat pump - the little fans they use on the exchanger just whine.

      • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Correct. It seems bonkers at first glance that anything could have an efficiency over 100%, but in the case of heat pumps specifically for the use case of heating something (water, your house, etc.) the above is true, and you can achieve over 100% in that context.

        One complaint I can predict about heat pump/reverse cycle water heaters is that they are not silent, whereas a resistive element one is. (Gas ones aren’t silent either, though, so there’s that.)

  • LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Here comes the conservative outrage.

    “Buuuut muh constitutional right to pay more for hot water”

    • Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean, this will make them pay more. High efficiency water heaters like this exist and are two to three times as expensive.

      For the average household it will take about 20 years before the cost premium to buy one is offset by the savings. Water heaters are only good for 10-15 years. So these rules ensure that you will pay more for hot water over time and will always pay more.

      It’s good for the environment but it’s going to hurt the average persons wallet.

      • blujan@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I have a gas water heater on demand that is 98% efficient as it works as a furnace, and it has saved me greatly in gas costs. It only costed 200 usd and you set a temperature and it always gives that temperature. It’s pretty much instant as my plumbing is all very direct and efficiently laid out (with all wet areas in my house being in a 5 meters radius.

        I pay 10 usd natural gas a month on summer (including 5 usd fixed service cost) and about 80 on winter with a gas whole home heater and a mini split (that we have 4 450watt solar panels for so we also don’t pay a lot for electricity).

        We also cook with gas for three people.

        Stuff can be much more efficient than it is without breaking the bank.

        I used to spend about 40 usd a month on summer with a water tank heater.

        • Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          98% is a horribly inefficient water heater. The high efficiency ones with heat pumps can be up to 400% efficient.

          • blujan@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oh yeah it is, but the article also mentions gas heaters.

            Even then most americans use tanked ones and those are way more inefficient. Even now most NEW tank water heaters sold in the US are only 60% efficient.

            My point is there is improvement to be made without breaking the bank.

  • doc@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The proposal would require the most common-sized electric water heaters to achieve efficiency gains with heat pump technology and gas-fired water heaters to achieve efficiency gains through condensing technology.

    These are already available and marketed as high efficiency. Costs are generally double conventional units, though there are a lot of subsidies that eliminate the price premium. The biggest drawback is both types require drainage unlike conventional models. Retrofit installations may be difficult depending on the current setup.

    • 0110010001100010@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s also worth noting, heat pump models require a minimum amount of space to draw air from. I have one, and there were pages and pages in the install guide dictating the volume and clearance limitations. This makes them a no-go for say apartments where the water heater and furnace are in a small closet.

      EDIT: That’s not to say we shouldn’t be striving towards this, just have to make sure the full ramifications are understood and accounted for.

      • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        They make minisplit hot water heaters, as well as water heaters that sit outside and pipe the water to an inside tank.

  • anadem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Donald Trump, a Republican, complained about efficiency standards for shower heads, saying that they interfered with the rinsing of his hair. His Energy Department eased energy standards on such fixtures. The Biden administration reversed the rule on shower heads in 2021”

  • awwwyissss@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Would be nice to see efforts to cut down on waste, too. Water, especially hot water, takes a lot of resources to prepare for use.

  • phobox360@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I give it 5 minutes before conservatives get mad and start trying to convince themselves freezing a good thing cos something something freedom.

  • tallwookie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    or, you know, just force all new construction to have hot water on demand systems and then offer a large tax incentive to upgrade. it worked for the solar industry, no reason it cant work for hot water too. water tanks as hot water heaters is early bronze age tech.

    • checkmymixtapeyo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not great timing with the current state of the electric grid. Water tanks get to act as heat batteries at least. And outside of new construction, lots of homes dont even have an adequate electric service for instant heaters alongside everything else.