[Greenbuilding] low flow shower heads

[JOHN SALMEN]

I was trying to figure out the acronym for D.I.V.O.R.C.E.

 

Do It Valiantly Over Reluctant Client Excesses?

 

Do It Victimlessly Over Recalcitrant Couples Excuses?

 

Must be some better ones out there.

 

I've often wondered (after having to design numerous bathrooms that seemed
bigger than my house) what people are after in terms of bathing experiences.
My first multihead (12 - 6 per side) shower experience was in a 1920's
bathroom in an upper east side building in manhattan - it wasn't that
pleasant.  Considering it was a large building that is quite a water drain
over 90 years to date. My best shower was actually a cold water outdoor
shower in yugoslavia (didn't have the coins for the immersion). My best bath
was a in a public bath house in sibiu.  My worst bath was in an old cold
farmhouse in England (where I didn't have enough coins for the electric
meter).

 

 

 

 

From: greenbuilding-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
[mailto:greenbuilding-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Richard
Garbary
Sent: May-15-11 3:37 PM
To: Carmine Vasile
Cc: GB Forum
Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] low flow shower heads

 

Carmine:

 

The only solution: D.I.V.O.R.C.E.!

 

Tough client.

 

Regards,

 

Richard

 


============================================================================
==============================

On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Carmine Vasile <gfx-ch at msn.com> wrote:

Richard:  Your solution will not satisfy his wife because she made him buy a
multi-head shower withsix 6 2.5 gpm showerheads. I received another inquiry
from a homeowner with two back-to-back units that would draw 30 gpm. His
plumber suggested a commercial boiler costing lots of money. Carmine
 

  _____  

Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 12:24:15 -0400


Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] low flow shower heads

From: richard6 at gmail.com
To: gfx-ch at msn.com
CC: greenbuilding at lists.bioenergylists.org; steve at tjiang.org;
9watts at gmail.com; erin at trmiles.com; sacie.lambertson at gmail.com

 

To start with:

 

= Keep the 40 gallon water heater. Cost: FREE

= Put in a 2.5 gal/ 9 liter shower head with flow control/shutoff. Cost:
~$10 - $50. This will save him 6x his current energy cost

= Add an insulation blanket. Cost: ~$20 - $30

= Put an insulation pad underneath the water heater. Cost: ~$10

= Insulate any exposed water pipes. Cost: ~$10 - $25

= Install a 50%-DHR system. Cost: ~$700 - $1,000. In combination with the
2.5 gal. shower head this will save him 12x his current energy cost!

 

He'll never run out of hot water with this setup unless he as some other
bizarre hot water requirements. So tankless is NOT necessary. Heat loss
through a tank setup is minimal if properly insulated. He will not have to
upgrade his service $$$$$.

 

I would definitely NOT recommend a tankless electric/gas water heater.

 

Regards,

 

Richard

 


============================================================================
=============

On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Carmine Vasile <gfx-ch at msn.com> wrote:

Steve, Reuben & Richard: Last week I received a call from the owner of a
mult-head shower drawing 15 gpm of 105F water. He lives in North Carolina
and his 40 gallon electric tank-type water heater ran out of hot water in a
few minutes. I gave him my advice, install a tankless water heater with a
50%-DHR system to halve the load by recycling heat wasted down-the-drain.
Solar is not an option.  
   What would your advice have been?
Carmine

Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 13:40:29 -0700
From: steve at tjiang.org
To: greenbuilding at lists.bioenergylists.org
Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] low flow shower heads 



Terminology:A navy shower = turn on to wet skin; turn off to soap; turn on
to rinse.A hollywood shower = turn on full blast; start singing; soap; turn
off a the end.

A thermostatic value + volume control is  way better than a navy shower
button because you can adjust the volume down to a level just to keep you
warm while soaping.  This may convince more people to actually use less
water while showering than the pure "Navy shower" approach.   The downside
is thermostatic valves and volume controls setups are expensive.

<snipped> 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110515/8d45684c/attachment.html>