Why aren't building codes updated to mandate either tankless water heaters in all new construction or insulated hot-water-loops? When we built our rambler in the late 1980's, the plumber installed an insulated hot-water loop which ran to all remote bathrooms and the kitchen and back out into the garage, where the water tank was located. A small electric pump kept the water circulating. Here's the deal - when we went to use the sinks or shower from our master bedroom, which was WAY at the opposite corner from our garage, we didn't have to let the water run and run and run - it was instantly hot, because the plumbing just tied into the loop.
All of the water that is wasted down the drain while waiting for it to warm up - that's low-hanging fruit if you're trying to conserve water, people!
I think it would depend on where you are as to which system is better. Since your pipes(even if insulated) would suffer heat loss, your HWH would have to work harder and consume more energy. If your in California, where a larger portion of the power supply is from renewables and there is the obvious water shortage, then this is a great solution. If your in parts of the midwest where there is no water shortage, but most of your energy is coming from coal fired or natural gas plants, then you could argue the increase energy usage would be worse then the water usage. I think as mentioned in an earlier comment, a tankless HWH gives you the benefit of instant heat without the energy drain from mainting the water temperature in the tank(or the water circulating in the house).
On a different site(wired maybe) someone actually tested it and walked away impressed. Apparently it has a high pressure mode, so you could use the low pressure for lathering and high pressure for cleaning and still walk away using far less water. And like anything else, this will trickle down into a lower price bracket rather quickly if it proves to be popular.
Ironic that Tim Cook is being courted to back this when the Apple Watch still isn't officially rated for showering. Is this Apple's solution? Reduce the water flow rate? LOL
This has been done and used in one of the toughest environments around for years-- the International Space Station. It gets all water from air, sweat, human waste, anything that has a byproduct generating or causing condensate H2O, etc...
At 8.3 lbs/gal (1.0 atm, room temp, etc...) it would be the most expensive consumable shipped to the ISS -- unless of course they found a way to ship dehydrated. ¡
I think it would depend on where you are as to which system is better. Since your pipes(even if insulated) would suffer heat loss, your HWH would have to work harder and consume more energy. If your in California, where a larger portion of the power supply is from renewables and there is the obvious water shortage, then this is a great solution. If your in parts of the midwest where there is no water shortage, but most of your energy is coming from coal fired or natural gas plants, then you could argue the increase energy usage would be worse then the water usage. I think as mentioned in an earlier comment, a tankless HWH gives you the benefit of instant heat without the energy drain from mainting the water temperature in the tank(or the water circulating in the house).
On a different site(wired maybe) someone actually tested it and walked away impressed. Apparently it has a high pressure mode, so you could use the low pressure for lathering and high pressure for cleaning and still walk away using far less water. And like anything else, this will trickle down into a lower price bracket rather quickly if it proves to be popular.
Your are absolutely right, different systems would be required for different areas ... OR a system that is adaptable. Here in Florida just now, a water shortage isn't the problem for sure! On the other hand our bone head Governor stands firmly in the way of home user created electricity being sellable back to the grid even though we (in theory) have lots of sunshine.
Science fiction is usually the best predictor of the future in technology. I'm going for the T'Pol decontamination shower.
Tankless hot water heaters are both 1. Horrendously expensive for larger models and 2. they utterly fail in hard water environments compared to traditional models. Pass.
Tankless hot water heaters are both 1. Horrendously expensive for larger models and 2. they utterly fail in hard water environments compared to traditional models. Pass.
Tim: "Showers are becoming an area of great interest for us at Apple."
I have a shower head that I got from Lowe's that puts out 1.6 gpm. I paid $39.95. I take 4-5 minute showers witch includes the time for hot water to arrive. So why would I want this. The ROI is going to be much longer than 2 years. As anoher commenter pointed out if you solve the problem of waiting for hot water you will do much more good.
I had one of these at my old place, it even had a lever to turn off the water for the most part, it would dribble a little to help keep the water hot, but it misted somewhat, you get wet, turn it to off mode, soap up, turn it back on and rinse. Ya, it wasn't more then $40. Who in thier right mind is going to buy a $400 mister? That's just silly.
I had one of these at my old place, it even had a lever to turn off the water for the most part, it would dribble a little to help keep the water hot, but it misted somewhat, you get wet, turn it to off mode, soap up, turn it back on and rinse. Ya, it wasn't more then $40. Who in thier right mind is going to buy a $400 mister? That's just silly.
I I know I had one of those years ago but the vast number of homes that don't have instant hot water right at the point of the shower need such a system.
My home is three years old. I chose a conventional, storage tank water heater like most homes have for a number of reasons including:
1. Enough hot water for 2-3 showers if I lose the utility that heats the water.
2. The extra cost of an on-demand water heat would never reach the break-even point over its life.
3. Properly-sized plumbing with the use of a water manifold results in hot water reaching its destination quickly.
Using thermostatic shower valves that are "set it and forget it", I turn one one handle and by the time I step in the shower seconds later, the water is at my preset temperature.
At $299, no thank you. My 1.5 gpm shower head still gives me sufficient flow for a 4-minute shower. That mean I only use 6 gal each time same as this one.
I had one of these at my old place, it even had a lever to turn off the water for the most part, it would dribble a little to help keep the water hot, but it misted somewhat, you get wet, turn it to off mode, soap up, turn it back on and rinse. Ya, it wasn't more then $40. Who in thier right mind is going to buy a $400 mister? That's just silly.
most dumbazs dont turn off shower when soaping up including me...it's a habit of water waste and needs to change.
At $299, no thank you. My 1.5 gpm shower head still gives me sufficient flow for a 4-minute shower. That mean I only use 6 gal each time same as this one.
With modern wall-mounted home water heaters, there's no waiting for the water to heat up.
What country do you live in? The standard in the US is still a central water heater located in the basement. Even still, there are hot water recirculating pumps that accomplish the same thing (on-demand hot water), albeit with a slight increase in energy use (in the form of more natural gas or oil consumed to heat your water).
I've long thought that in this day and age a system that the water run until the desired temperature is reached, doesn't go down the drain. Imagine how much water that would save! You see pictures of folks in California using a bucket for this and that water goes on their plants but surely this could be internalized in the water system itself so the water than runs until the pipes warm up is automatically returned to the storage tank by the use of thermal valves. (patent pending)
The modern way to do plumbing is PEX. In traditional plumbing with copper, the hot water is a like a tree. You have to heat up the whole tree and all its branches even if you just want hot water in one location. With PEX, which is a flexible plastic, you have a central manifold and each fixture has a dedicated tube which can be much smaller in diameter hence overall uses less water and because it is plastic it isn't conductive so you don't lose any heat. Other benefits of PEX are ease of installation, no theft of copper during construction, each fixture has its own shut off valve for maintenance, and seismic resistance due to it's flexibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
With modern wall-mounted home water heaters, there's no waiting for the water to heat up.
Good solution, especially with a large system feeding hot water into into a PEX system. Smaller natural gas heaters next to every plumbing location is not as practical and electric units are costly to operate.
Comments
Why aren't building codes updated to mandate either tankless water heaters in all new construction or insulated hot-water-loops? When we built our rambler in the late 1980's, the plumber installed an insulated hot-water loop which ran to all remote bathrooms and the kitchen and back out into the garage, where the water tank was located. A small electric pump kept the water circulating. Here's the deal - when we went to use the sinks or shower from our master bedroom, which was WAY at the opposite corner from our garage, we didn't have to let the water run and run and run - it was instantly hot, because the plumbing just tied into the loop.
All of the water that is wasted down the drain while waiting for it to warm up - that's low-hanging fruit if you're trying to conserve water, people!
I think it would depend on where you are as to which system is better. Since your pipes(even if insulated) would suffer heat loss, your HWH would have to work harder and consume more energy. If your in California, where a larger portion of the power supply is from renewables and there is the obvious water shortage, then this is a great solution. If your in parts of the midwest where there is no water shortage, but most of your energy is coming from coal fired or natural gas plants, then you could argue the increase energy usage would be worse then the water usage. I think as mentioned in an earlier comment, a tankless HWH gives you the benefit of instant heat without the energy drain from mainting the water temperature in the tank(or the water circulating in the house).
On a different site(wired maybe) someone actually tested it and walked away impressed. Apparently it has a high pressure mode, so you could use the low pressure for lathering and high pressure for cleaning and still walk away using far less water. And like anything else, this will trickle down into a lower price bracket rather quickly if it proves to be popular.
That's only 5 fold the water surface area per water droplet!
Ironic that Tim Cook is being courted to back this when the Apple Watch still isn't officially rated for showering. Is this Apple's solution? Reduce the water flow rate? LOL
So true!
Your are absolutely right, different systems would be required for different areas ... OR a system that is adaptable. Here in Florida just now, a water shortage isn't the problem for sure! On the other hand our bone head Governor stands firmly in the way of home user created electricity being sellable back to the grid even though we (in theory) have lots of sunshine.
Science fiction is usually the best predictor of the future in technology. I'm going for the T'Pol decontamination shower.
As Damn_Its_Hot points out, if we could utilize solar and recycle you could shower all day!
Tankless hot water heaters are both 1. Horrendously expensive for larger models and 2. they utterly fail in hard water environments compared to traditional models. Pass.
Tim: "Showers are becoming an area of great interest for us at Apple."
I have a shower head that I got from Lowe's that puts out 1.6 gpm. I paid $39.95. I take 4-5 minute showers witch includes the time for hot water to arrive. So why would I want this. The ROI is going to be much longer than 2 years. As anoher commenter pointed out if you solve the problem of waiting for hot water you will do much more good.
I had one of these at my old place, it even had a lever to turn off the water for the most part, it would dribble a little to help keep the water hot, but it misted somewhat, you get wet, turn it to off mode, soap up, turn it back on and rinse. Ya, it wasn't more then $40. Who in thier right mind is going to buy a $400 mister? That's just silly.
Father John Misty?
I love innovation.
It's not about the cost at this point.
Where the Nebia goes from here - we'll see.
The design is clean, the handheld reminds me of a Dyson fan.
I I know I had one of those years ago but the vast number of homes that don't have instant hot water right at the point of the shower need such a system.
My home is three years old. I chose a conventional, storage tank water heater like most homes have for a number of reasons including:
1. Enough hot water for 2-3 showers if I lose the utility that heats the water.
2. The extra cost of an on-demand water heat would never reach the break-even point over its life.
3. Properly-sized plumbing with the use of a water manifold results in hot water reaching its destination quickly.
Using thermostatic shower valves that are "set it and forget it", I turn one one handle and by the time I step in the shower seconds later, the water is at my preset temperature.
Is it HomeKit compliant? :-)
Yeah, sit downstairs and make it go cold on my wife upstairs!!!
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
At $299, no thank you. My 1.5 gpm shower head still gives me sufficient flow for a 4-minute shower. That mean I only use 6 gal each time same as this one.
Hmmmm. So what do you think of this then?:
On special for $1,466, reduced from $3,371
With modern wall-mounted home water heaters, there's no waiting for the water to heat up.
What country do you live in? The standard in the US is still a central water heater located in the basement. Even still, there are hot water recirculating pumps that accomplish the same thing (on-demand hot water), albeit with a slight increase in energy use (in the form of more natural gas or oil consumed to heat your water).
I've long thought that in this day and age a system that the water run until the desired temperature is reached, doesn't go down the drain. Imagine how much water that would save! You see pictures of folks in California using a bucket for this and that water goes on their plants but surely this could be internalized in the water system itself so the water than runs until the pipes warm up is automatically returned to the storage tank by the use of thermal valves. (patent pending)
The modern way to do plumbing is PEX. In traditional plumbing with copper, the hot water is a like a tree. You have to heat up the whole tree and all its branches even if you just want hot water in one location. With PEX, which is a flexible plastic, you have a central manifold and each fixture has a dedicated tube which can be much smaller in diameter hence overall uses less water and because it is plastic it isn't conductive so you don't lose any heat. Other benefits of PEX are ease of installation, no theft of copper during construction, each fixture has its own shut off valve for maintenance, and seismic resistance due to it's flexibility.
With modern wall-mounted home water heaters, there's no waiting for the water to heat up.
Good solution, especially with a large system feeding hot water into into a PEX system. Smaller natural gas heaters next to every plumbing location is not as practical and electric units are costly to operate.
What's an iWatch?