After giving myself a giant environmentally-friendly pat on the back for how green it was for me to buy a used washer and dryer, a big hole was pointed out in my argument.
I had considered the costs of electricity and manufacturing, but neglected to consider water costs. Commenter “First Step” points this out:
I think you’re overlooking the real reason that the “efficient†washers are better for the environment–much lower water usage. If you live in an area where water is scarce and/or expensive, you will recoup the cost of the more expensive washer very quickly. We bought the $1000 washer 6 years ago when we moved to an area where water cost more than twice what we had been paying. On water savings alone, we recouped the cost of the washer in about 3 years. Our washer uses less than 10 gallons per load versus 40 for the previous model.
Since water is becoming scarce in more and more areas, expect to see more incentives to get the old style washers out of use.
I admit that water cost hasn't been an issue where we live. We pay a minimum monthly fee plus a per-gallon charge after we exceed a certain amount. The only extra costs we've incurred on our water bill are for dumb things like forgetting to pay on time. We've never used so much water in one month that we've had to pay extra, so that's probably the reason why I didn't even consider the water costs.
Buying a water-efficient washer makes marginal financial sense for people in my situation, but I know now not everyone is in the same boat. If you pay for every gallon you use each month, then water efficiency becomes a factor. Or, if you have a large family or use a lot of water for some other reason, and end up paying above and beyond some flat fee each month, then water efficiency becomes a factor.
“First Step” says to expect more incentives to get old-style washers out of use, but they're not necessary. Supply and demand should do this naturally. As in, “Gee, my water bill doubled after they changed their pricing model. Let's look at payback time for a newer washer.” Or, more directly, “Gee, I can only use 2,000 gallons of water this month, and my clothes washer consumes 400 of those gallons. What about getting one that only uses 100 gallons?”
Anyway, bottom line is to take water use, as well as how you have to pay for that usage, when deciding what kind of washer to get.
One thing to be aware of with the newer “water efficient” models is that some of the designs do not clean well. Sure, they use less water, but if you have to run each load twice to get them clean, that kinda defeats the purpose. I was all gung-ho for getting one of the new Energy Star top-loaders with the short agitator, until I started reading the reviews. You also have to use a special kind of soap (the HE) which can cost more than the regular soap(another thing to factor in). The price of water isn’t really an issue around here, so I ended up with a used regular washer, and instead will attempt to save some money and energy by setting up a clothes-line in the backyard.
Not everyone has the cash up front to buy a $1,000 washer, either. Seems like financing it would negate some of the savings … especially in an area where water costs aren’t yet an issue.
Even in places where water is an issue, water is generally cheap. It is infrastructure costs that are expensive whether you use much water or not. By far the largest cost is not water, but heating it, which can be expensive even with a low cost energy source.