The CEI Airs Its Dirty Laundry: Save the Inefficient Top Loader or Thousands Will Die
by Sami Grover, Carrboro, NC, USA on 09.18.07
Remember those entertaining folks at CEI (Competitive Enterprise Institute)? That’s right, these are the people who brought us the hilarious CO2: We Call it Life commercials, and blamed the global malaria crisis on Rachel Carson. What are they getting into now, we hear you ask yourselves? Apparently these crazy cats are now busy sending their underwear to politicians in an attempt to save the American way of life or, more accurately, to defend the poor, misunderstood budget top-loading washing machine. Apparently new government legislation that requires washers to use 21% less energy is to blame for a downturn in washing performance. Furthermore, the CEI tells us, this is a sign of a much more insidious creeping evil in our midst that is leading to thousands of deaths a year:
“Government mandates for higher efficiency are almost always accompanied by claims that the higher prices they cause will be more than offset by their alleged savings from lower energy costs. But that raises a fundamental question—if these new technologies are so good, then why do we need laws to force consumers to buy them? In fact, efficiency mandates often flop, and in some cases they flop disastrously. Government fuel efficiency rules for cars, for example, already contribute to thousands of deaths each year due to vehicle downsizing. Many people dislike compact fluorescent bulbs for perfectly valid reasons, but there is now a push to mandate their use by banning incandescent bulbs.”
We might be tempted to point out that larger cars are hardly safer for those outside them, or that climate change caused by excessive energy use is responsible for way more deaths than those evil small cars but then, of course, we remind ourselves that we are mere Treehuggers, and CO2 is life after all.
Returning to the details of the great dirty-underpants-in-the-post debate for a second, our fellow TreeHugger John Laumer has an interesting aside – it may be that government efficiency measures are not the only reason that top-loaders are failing to perform as required:
"When HA (horizontal axis) washers became popular just a few years back, the washing machine market segmented into one design for the low income person...these are the cheap VA's (vertical axis washer with agitator)... and the more expensive HA's (with no agitator needed) for the higher end market. (Note that as in all consumer products, a radical design change starts out with a higher price than its predecessor; then as the new design becomes a commodity, its prices go down, making it competitive with the previous design and the previous design leaves the marketplace...or almost does.
No doubt, VA manufacturers thought lower prices would buoy agitator machine sales for awhile. However, VA model makers eventually started adding all sorts of digital features (feature creep) to compete superficially, so that even VA model prices started ascending. Examples: digital timers, silver anodes, designer facia to "work with" the decor and accoutrements of the upstairs hallway laundry area (now that home builders have convinced owners to have washing machines upstairs, as opposed to the basement or mud room).
We need to appreciate what was going on in the background as the HA vs VA markets segmented also: the plants that made VA washers in the US worked with old manufacturing equipment and tax write offs were done for. Return on capital employed was good; but US labor costs high. With VA washer sales falling, the only thing holding the factories and jobs here were Superfund cleanup commitments, and perhaps the terms of State and local economic development contracts. Now they are leaving.
Washers sold in the &250- $300 price range today are fundamentally no different from the models designed in the 1950's. The only thing that has changed really is the controller setup. The factories that make the old designs have moved to countries where the middle class buyer does not demand digital programming etc. No amount of additional digital clap trap on the dial set is going to make our clothes last longer or save more energy or water. CEI was designed around the same mind set apparently."
Of course, whatever the details of washer designs on the market, government mandated energy efficiency measures, or outright bans on items like the incandescent lights, may not always be the best way to achieve results. We’d suggest a more universal, and fair, solution to level the playing field – simply include the true cost of CO2 emissions in the price of energy. Somehow we’re not convinced that the CEI will like that solution either – this author is just hoping they don’t start sending their dirty laundry to him!
Thanks John for the superb technical and economic insight!
::Competitive Enterprise Institute::via site visit::
They should add the COST-TO-REPAIR factor and LIFE EXPECTANCY when the marketing people tells us to change our old stuff in the name of saving the environnement.
the 30$ mechanical timer in my maytag is a 400$ electronic controler in the new versions. (ball bearings are now plastic sleeves with carefully calculated life expectancy)
So Junking a washer because the electronic washer failed is not as green as using a bit more water and electricity in an old RELIABLE washer that can be fixed by any end user with a bit of brain.
When the old washer will die, I will make sure I get the very same washer we see at the laundraumat... you know, the one they made to last.
Considering water infrastructure is a government-financed undertaking, government has a legitimate interest in keeping water demand low. Not an issue of consumer choice. The pipes and reservoirs cost a heckuva lot more per capita than your saving a few bucks on your next washer.
This all comes from the "money is everything" agenda. The survival of the human race ranks very low in comparison, particularly if it's more than, say, two years in the future.
The sad thing is that water and electricity are so subsidized by our taxes that the increased cost of a HA washer isn't always recovered.
I also have to agree that older, non electronic controller, washers are more reliable, last longer, and so their increased service life may somewhat augment their lower water/energy efficiency.
Now, if only someone would build a HA washer, but with old-school analog controls, and sell it for current VA washer prices...
Isn't part of the CEI argument that the new energy standards for washing machines may have the perverse effect of INCREASING energy use?
That argument is that the new, more efficient VA machines turn out to be terrible at actually cleaning clothes. Consumer Reports indicates that all but the most expensive of the newer VA machines leave clothes dirty, while old, pre-standard VA machines of any price universally got clothes clean. (HA machines of both generations get clothes clean, but they've always been expensive.)
If the clothes come out dirty after one cycle, people will end up re-washing at least some of their clothing, negating the efficiency improvements. A 21% decrease in energy/water usage disappears if you wash clothes twice.
Just because CEI and "treehuggers" are in a non-stop p*ssing match doesn't mean that everything out of their mouths is ridiculous. We often accuse big corporations of "eco-washing" by not including the total life-cycle of new initiatives in making something "green". If the total cost of making clothes clean (due to double washing) is greater in "more efficient" VA washers, how is it treehuggery to defend those machines?
Brain,
Interesting point, but everyone knows the CEI doesn't give a darn about the reliability of washing machines. They're not Consumer Reports. They are merely interested in discrediting wider moves towards conservation initiatives and reasonable regulation, for whatever reason.
The fact that VA machines aren't perfect doesn't make drought any less dangerous, environmentally and economically. In fact, if you accept that drought is a bad thing, you have just made a successful argument for banning VA machines entirely.
Seat belts and airbags make cars more expensive. Smoke alarms, CO2 detectors, and fire alarms make houses more expensive. The question is whether they're necessary or not. Since CEI cannot make an argument that drought isn't happening, nor that drought is good, they're stuck with this nondefensible fallback position. They shoulda stayed in bed on this.
It's not easy (or cheap) being green. I paid almost $1000 for one of the early front loaders 7 years ago. It's now in the trash. To get a good performing low energy washer with more reliability, I just spent about $1800 for a new one. Somehow, I'm not sure this whole exercise makes ecological sense.
horizontal axis machines have come down in price to where they are no more expensive than the high end vertical axis ones, and they are fantastic, fast and use far less water. What do we care about the ineffficieny of old technology, any more than we do about carburators vs fuel injection? sure a carburator was cheap and easier to repair but its time had come.
vertical axis machines have been dead for 20 years, nobody in europe has had one in that time. Who cares if they dont work as well if we put in less water, any more than we care that an incandescent lightbulb is dimmer if we lower the voltage?
In hospitals, dirty underwear is considered biohazardous waste. Using this designation, couldn't the CEI be cited for conspiracy to commit acts of bioterrorism. I mean, even tho their site says that sending virtual underwear would be less "of a hassle", if anyone actuaally does send dirty underwear to high level govt official CEI is technically guilty. Even if unwinable, I'd love to see them charged if only symbolically. Maybe make them eat some of th sh*t that they've been slinging.
Just a note:
horizontal axis washing machines are not 'new technology'. Here in Europe washing machines have allways (at least in my lifetime, and I am not that young) been produced with a horizontal axis.
the CEI people are just free market dogmatists who are paranoid about any kind of government action. (except for subsidies for large industries)