« Is Going Green Worth the Cost? A Ride to Honor Fallen Cyclists »
January 5, 2007
Low Flow? Life's Too Short For One Reader
Speaking of going green...there are plenty of different opinions that get expressed in the Brownstoner Forum, some more eloquently than others. One particularly aphoristic statement recently struck us as an interesting jumping off point for discussion. In a post on water billing, one anonymous reader opined that, "Life is way too short to live with a low-flow showerhead." The next response in the thread countered, "And life on earth will be a lot shorter for all of us if we have that attitude about resource use." One website we looked at said that hot water usage can account for 25% of a household's enery costs and argues that a low flow shower head can reduce hot water consumption by half without reducing the pleasure factor. So what do you think? Where do showerheads fit in the spectrum of environmental no-no's? Those of you that don't have low flow, is it out of laziness or an unwillingness to compromise on shower quality.
Water Billing Frequency [Forum]
Low Flow Shower Heads [BC Hydro]
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/255
Comments
Definitely an area where some folks that consider themselves so eco-concious-aware somehow gloss over.
I have tenant who gets Sierra club mags, recycles beyond belief, etc...
but has no qualms about using up entire 50gal hot water tank for 1 shower.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 5, 2007 10:44 AM
It's my one hypocritical point of view. I hate low flow shower heads. I installed new energy efficient water heaters appliances, light bulbs etc., but am happy to pay for the extra gas to have a good shower. Since there are no water restriction issues in NYC (generally), I don't feel too bad. I don't have a car, use public transport etc., so I try to justify it that way. Like I said, hypocritical...
Posted by: lp at January 5, 2007 10:46 AM
I wonder what kind of shower head those darned Park Slope mothers use.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 5, 2007 10:46 AM
I am with anon 10:46 (the first one). I am not a fan of low flow, but I find other ways to save water. For example, I turn off the show when I lather up, I usually have the show on for 10 minutes or less and I do not keep the tap running when I brush my teeth, wash dishes etc. Also most of the time my dishwasher is used a drying rack.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 5, 2007 10:55 AM
I've had a low-flow shower head for years, and it's fine, I have no problem with it. And since I pay the water bills, it helps keep the $$ lower. I would reallylike to use those new light bulbs, but as far as I can tell, they don't come in the 3-way variety, and all my lamps are 3-way. So until they can come up with a 3-way version, I'm staying with incandescent. (Does anybody know if they DO come in 3-way? If so, I'll be the first on line at the hardware store tomorrow!)
Posted by: Anonymous at January 5, 2007 10:56 AM
I have three naturally low-flow showerheads in my bathrooms.. It's called a very old, low pressure water heater and pump... The poor old things just can't push it out fast enough.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 5, 2007 11:03 AM
How are those big rainshower sunflower shower heads with water consumption? I recently noticed that 2 of my tenants installed these in there bathrooms.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 5, 2007 11:11 AM
all you hippies saving resources just leaves more for me to consume...
;-)
Posted by: gpt at January 5, 2007 11:20 AM
You can get 3-way compact fluorescent bulbs. Here are some at Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Globe-0790401-Compact-Fluorescent-Spiral/dp/B000GBBUF2
Posted by: Tim at January 5, 2007 11:38 AM
You can balance out a high flow shower head by not showering every day particularly in the winter.
Posted by: Velvet Sea at January 5, 2007 11:58 AM
Low flow? I don't like the sound of that...
Posted by: Wallis at January 5, 2007 12:07 PM
Whenever I have to use a low flow showerhead in someone else's house, I always take much longer to shower since it takes so much longer to lather up and rinse. Using a regular shower head, I'm in and out in 3 mins. or less. So I figure it works out evenly.
Posted by: cobble hill wanna be at January 5, 2007 12:12 PM
Ive been using a low-flow showerhead, similar to the one in the illustration, for over 30 years. I got it because my house had a tiny 30 gal.water heater and we were frequently running out of hot water--it solved that problem. We've been using larger water heaters for years, since that antique wore out, but I see no reason to change shower heads. IMO it works fine and may be one of the reasons that my gas bill is pretty low.
Posted by: Bob Marvin at January 5, 2007 12:16 PM
10:55 AM -- you might want to reconsider the use of the dish washer. Research shows a lot less water is used by running a fully-loaded dishwasher than hand-washing the same number of dishes... that is, IF you don't pre-rinse the dishes before putting them in the dishwasher.
Of course, if you live alone, and the dishwasher is kinda crappy, you need to pre-rinse so food doesn't become encrusted on the dishes so badly the dishwasher can't clean well.
Me? I live alone but have a brand new dishwasher that does an excellent job. I don't rinse, I run the dishwasher as full as I can (about once a week) and I think I do a pretty good job saving water (though I do sometimes ge ta stench coming out of the dishwasher towards the end of the week when I open it -- it depends on what food was eaten off the plates.)
Posted by: Peter at January 5, 2007 12:30 PM
Best low flow shower head is the Oxygenics one sold at Sharper Image.
Not only does it makea weak shower feel strong, but it makes a strong shower feel like a waterfall.
Much better than the Incredible Showerhead, in my opinion.
Posted by: Clean Henry at January 5, 2007 1:03 PM
I can understand why people think it's a hippie thing to conserve energy, water, etc. That's how it's presented, more often than not: as an optional lifestyle choice, one that's more about morality than anything else. And honestly, I don't see how one particular household deciding to use a low-flow showerhead or not is really going to make a difference in the grand scheme of things. I think we're headed for large-scale ecological disaster, with or without our attempts to green our country one house at a time. Large-scale efforts (like WalMart's push to get us all using compact fluorescent bulbs instead of incandescent) are really encouraging, but still.
Whether or not it's the right choice, whether or not it saves us $300 a year on our heating bill, we're all going to have to consume less energy and other natural resources some time within our lifetime. We're all going to be forced to. There simply aren't enough natural resources to keep chugging along, taking daily showers, running the AC, driving cars everywhere, etc, as we have been. There's not enough oil, there's not enough natural gas, and there's not enough fresh water (speaking of that, it's borderline insane that we use drinking water to flush our toilets) to support our current population, much less future population growth.
Why do you think this has become such a big issue lately? Why do you think our government is subsidizing the ethanol industry? Our government never acts on anything until it's almost too late to make any difference, and they certainly don't act on anything that might upset the way the economy is run (on oil).
When you do just a teensy bit of research into the issue, you realize: hippies or not, we're all screwed, and our government has realized that. I don't see any way around it, we're all going to be forced to use less energy and less water in the future, whether through more blackouts (the grid is outdated, overloaded, and we're not doing anything to fix that fact) , skyrocketing prices, or 70's-style rationing. Might as well start practicing now.
Posted by: sylvia at January 5, 2007 2:36 PM
"You can balance out a high flow shower head by not showering every day particularly in the winter."
you COULD. or you could be clean.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 5, 2007 2:46 PM
Thanks, Tim, for the link to Amazon for the 3-way bulbs. I'll check it out. To "gpt," not all of us are hippies...I'm not, never was, never will be. However, if I can contribute in some small way to saving energy, whether low-flow shower heads, special light bulbs, new toilets, low flow garden hose nozzles, soaker hoses, whatever, and I have the modest means to do it, I will not think twice. I don't want to be part of the problem. The larger issue is convincing more people to conserve, even if it appears to be meaningless, as it does to Sylvia. We have to start somewhere, even though it seems to be quite late, and once again, our govt is slow on the uptake. At the very least, I'm doing my part and can sleep at night. Thanks.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 5, 2007 2:59 PM
Too true, 2:46. There are ways to be eco-friendly without being slobbish
Posted by: anonymous at January 5, 2007 3:00 PM
Interesting point on the drinking water in the toilet. Given that heretofore all water coming into NYC is basically untreated runoff in the mountains, I can't think of what other water we could use in its place. Perhaps there has been a system designed where waste water from the sink, dishwasher, tub is routed for the toilet. But how would you repressure it? And are there sanitary issues? I guess the low-flow toilets were a response to this issue. More significant perhaps is the need for people to drink bottled water rather than tap water. I particularly wonder at the water from Fiji since I don't particularly associate tropical regions with healthy water. Does any of this make a difference? Maybe not, but can it hurt? especially if it leads people to demand a government which actually plans for the future.
Posted by: putnam-denizen at January 5, 2007 4:05 PM
Interesting that you bring up the Fiji water thing, 4:05. Tap water is perfectly safe to drink, and in NYC, it even tastes good. Drinking bottled water when you have tap available to you (i.e. at home, in restaurants, at work), and are not drinking some special water as a kind of special treat like you would wine (like you might get a bottle of Pellegrino when you're eating out Italian) is one of the most wasteful, unethical choices you can make. Water is incredibly heavy, and huge amounts of carbon is put into the atmosphere getting it here from upstate NY, never mind FIJI! And let's not get started on the waste of the packaging.
People these days are just so faintingly delicate. You don't need a shower every day in the winter if you're not out there exercising and sweating. You just don't get dirty that fast. And you don't need some kind of silly triple-filtered water, which tastes like water, by the way, shipped in to your tender self from the other side of the planet, at the cost of pounds of carbon per gallon. Whoever above was pointing out that we'll all be using fewer resources one of these days was right: Europeans have been on this bandwagon a long time, and they're no less clean and sophisticated than we are. I would argue they are more so, in many cases.
Posted by: anonymous at January 5, 2007 6:52 PM
6:52--"You don't need a shower every day in the winter if you're not out there exercising and sweating. You just don't get dirty that fast."
I do hope that at the very least you reccomend we shower every OTHER day to save our planet--believe it or not, men are chemically inclined to smell if they don't shower often, even if they don't exercise. To be frank, if everyone followed your reccomendation, we'd have some very smelly(er?) commutes on the subway each day.
Posted by: anonymous at January 5, 2007 7:03 PM
6:52 One of my New Year's resolutions is to be nicer on the net, so I guess I wasn't clear when I mentioned fiji water - I think the whole bottled water thing is absurd. Of course I also am looking at my house now. Rooms which once had one light bulb in the middle now have recessed lighting, sconces, etc. A lot more opportunity for energy use. OMG this computer itself is using energy. Must..turn...it...off...
Posted by: putnam-denizen at January 5, 2007 7:34 PM
Question:
Does it help the environment to conserve cold water in NY (given gravity is sending it to us and there is no fltering)? what about when the reservoirs are full? I don't see any environmental impact.. if anything it makes the waste water treatment plants work less hard since the waste will be more diluted.
Posted by: OE at January 5, 2007 10:38 PM
I absolutely HATE those lo-flow things! You can't get a decent shower because it takes much longer to rinse the soap and shampoo off. It is also not invigorating like a good hard wet shower is. You might as well take a--yuck--bath. In every apartment I rented I immediately replaced the lo-flow shower head with a nice powerful head.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 5, 2007 11:29 PM
forget lo-flo! Like the seinfeld episode, I have the illegal hi-flo. You buy a regular one - of the right kind - and open it up to remove the little plastic device that keeps the max flo below the legal limit. Nothing like a proper shower.
If you notice those plush hotels seem to install massively huge flowing showers sometimes from several nozzles so I'm not going to let this just be a pleasure for the rich. If there is a water problem in new york, then meter and charge it.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 6, 2007 6:14 PM
I moved out of my last apartment because the lack of water pressure made it impossible to properly bathe. the idea of a shower is that most of your body is "showered" with water -- I'd been forced to focus on individual body parts and clean myself in a plodding, deliberate manner. my new apartment has normal, pre-low-flow regulations water pressure. showers are now pleasurable and quick. I'm certain I consume less water now. However, thje toilet is low flow and besides it's constant clogging, I find myself very often having to flush twice before all the um, poop, is gone (although sometimes I forget).
Posted by: pfa at January 6, 2007 7:23 PM
To those who say they "hate" them, that's short-sighted. Like the often recurring debate about low-flow toilets, and as with any other product, there will be lousy ones, ok ones and great ones (endorse Oxygenics, above).
Most of world uses low-fow showers and toilets, so the necessary dollars have been spent to produce well-regarded products.
So do some research and try out new products instead of relying on one bad experience.
But I fear this is an argument which will never have a resolution. I cannot believe that anyone would NOT use low-flow shower heads, just as the dissenters can't believe anyone uses them.
I think they should be mandated like 1.6gpm toilets were 15 years ago., which is the only way to make some people conserve. When it becomes the norm, nobody will notice anymore.
Posted by: cmu at January 7, 2007 12:32 PM
you said poop.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 7, 2007 9:48 PM
How can I tell if I have a low-flow shower head, or just low-pressure water?
I really cann't stand taking a (wasteful) shower that takes so long, and requires the kind of "single body part" focus mentioned above.
Posted by: david at January 8, 2007 1:52 PM
This is an interesting discussion with a lot of different takes on the issue and I'm coming into it late.
The Waterpick massage showerheads are low-flow and have settings that give you pretty good pressure.
There are blackwater and grey water systems on the market to recycle water from some parts of the house for use elsewhere. There are sanitary issues but with a minimum of treatment/filtering, and if you downcycle the water (drinking and sink water to the toilet, and toilet water to irrigation outside) you can avoid them.
It's definately not useful to the city to "dilute" your wastewater for the wastewater treatment plant. The wastewater goes through the same processes regardless and the more water we use, the more capacity they have to have. Increased sanitary sewage will lead to increased overflow of the system into nearby waterbodies during rain events. It's also not a good idea to wait until the reservoirs are empty to begin conservation measures. Much of water use is habit, and if we get in the habit now, we can avoid droughts rather than living through them.
Finally, I totally agree with Anon 2:36 but not with their tone. We do have to start now, but it's not so hopeless as all that. There will be a radical change (crash?), but the more concious consumers are, and the more technologies that are developed now, the softer that crash will be.
Posted by: greenhomenyc at January 8, 2007 3:27 PM
greenhomenyc - I wasn't posting anonymously at 2:36, but no biggie... I think my tone overpowered my idea, in my previous post. I was trying to push the "start conserving now" idea, but I think that got overshadowed by the "you're going to have to anyhow, cause our resources are dwindling fast and we're doooooomed" idea.
Basically, we all need to conserve more. But the reason for that is not that it's just a nice idea, or that it's the morally upstanding thing to do, or that it'll save us money in the long run. We need to conserve now because if we don't, and we barrel right past the point where a soft landing is even possible, it's going to be catastrophic for all of us.
About the graywater home systems: I remember seeing a really simple solution in my friend's apartment in Park Slope a few years ago: their bathroom sink was mounted on top of the toilet tank, so that it drained into the tank. Makes perfect sense. Brush your teeth, or wash your hands, then flush the toilet with the water from that... I guess you'd need some kind of mechanism to keep it from overfilling or not filling enough: maybe store the used water in a separate holding tank, and only have it drain into the main toilet tank after the next flush? Anyways. I thought it was pretty neat.
Posted by: sylvia at January 8, 2007 4:51 PM
Bravo Clean Henry. I have two. They are worth every nickel. The standard one's can be had at HD or Lowe's for about $8. You get the low-flow energy savings coupled to the hight-output cleaning experience. And they come with simple on/off valves which keep the faucet open but the shower-head closed - you know, for soaping up! For those of you who have soured to the idea of low flow based upon Kramer and Jerry's post low-flow hairdo's, join the team and come on in for the big win!
Posted by: Ken at January 8, 2007 5:25 PM
NOT TO BE LOST AMONGST greenhomenyc's REDUNDANCY (hey, I rilly want a real shower again):
HOW CAN I TELL if I have a low-flow shower head, or just low-pressure water?
I really can't stand taking a (wasteful) shower that takes so long, and requires the kind of "single body part" focus mentioned above.
Posted by: david at January 8, 2007 5:41 PM
I don't know, David. But you can get a cheap non-low-flow shower head for around $10 at your local hardware store and switch it out for your current one, and see if that fixes the problem.
Posted by: sylvia at January 9, 2007 9:42 AM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.