Shower vs Bath

[ARWadsworth]

is it complete bollocks?

[Cash]

I don't know about that Adam, but my sister-in-law has three granddaughters who regularly stay with her for months-on-end and spend up to half-an-hour apiece in her power shower a day doing whatever they do in there during that time.

Costs S-i-L a bloody fortune in electricity - and it's a good job the water isn't metered as well!

Cash

[R D S]

If I have a shower and leave the plug in I rarely get anywhere near filling the bath. Plus I have the boiler temp turned down when I have a shower and right up full when running a bath with the tap not fully open so it's properly hot.

So I reckon I save when showering.

[Steve Walker]

It could well be true for a power shower. We have a gravity fed shower over a bath. Simply taking a shower with the plug in shows consumption to be around half that of taking a bath - it's a bit difficult to relax and read a book though!

SteveW

[John Rumm]

As with all these things, probably over egged for emphasis. It glosses over details of how the shower water is heated, and whether the water is metered. How many people in the "average family" and how often they shower. Why would a "power shower" use more water than one fed from mains pressure hot water for example?

A DHW bill of £416/year just for showers sounds unrealistic...

We need numbers!

Say the 8 min shower is at 8 L/min that's near enough the 62L they quoted. If the incoming water is at 10 (year round average), and the final mix at 40, then the energy embodied is 8 x 8 x 30 x 4200 = 8MJ

Divide by 3.6MJ (1kWh) = 2.2 kWh per shower.

So with gas at 90% efficiency that would be 2.45 kWh per shower. So 12p worth of gas ish

That would require 3467 showers per year to use their quoted £416...

Compare that with "2600 showers by 100 families over a 10 day period", or put it another way 2.6 showers per day per family. That would be 949 showers per year, or £113 worth of energy + 60m^3 of water.

Electric shower, three times the price of energy, but half the water - so £170 perhaps. E7 hot water cylinder, probably similar.

This ignores the fact that some of that energy will be captured into the space of the house and hence offset the space heating requirements.

Executive summary:

Yup, sounds like bollocks.

(why do they never allow comments on articles like that, where one could rip a strip off the "Environment reporter" for the traditional lack of science in eco bollocks.

[brass monkey]

It's complete bollocks, I take a shower once a year, whether I need it or not. (smiley omitted on purpose).

[Andrew Gabriel]

I can believe it.

I used to time myself in the shower by blocking the plughole with a foot, and trying to finish the shower before the shower tray filled, and normally achieved it OK.

However, I had to replace the showhead about a year ago, and it turns out the new one has a higher flow rate (or maybe just isn't yet as blocked as the old one), and I can no longer do this.

In any event, I don't get through anywhere near half a bath full of water. I recall the EU was planning on a max flow rate limit allowed for showers, which would have killed off the drencher type (not that I like them anyway).

[Paul - xxx]

Bollocks.

'specially if you mostly bathe with a full bath, and top-up when it gets cold, or you drop the book as you fall asleep ....

The best (worst?) I had in a shower with the plug in was about halfway full .. I'd been out on the mountainbike, got extremely cold and stood/sat in the shower for far longer than I would normally do for a 'normal' shower.

I bathe to relax, I shower to wash .. mostly .. ;)

[Tim Watts]

Where did they get that data logger? I guess it's a sonic flowmeter, but it's tiny.

[charles]

The water is pumped out a higher pressure - just look at the shower tray, it fills faster.

[Dave Liquorice]

Certainly does when "they" say average whole house energy bills are somewhere between =A31000 and =A31500...

I'd say 8l/min a bit on the high side but 40C rather cool. I know when ever I use one of those blasted "safety" mixers set to 43 it's too cool and I have to overide it. I'd say temp nearer 50C. With the lower flow rate though the energy is probably still about right.

10kW shower for 8 mins is 1.3 kWh. Hum maybe not... 4 x 8 min showers/day *every* day is 11680 minutes or 194.66 hrs at 10kW is 1946.6 kWh =A30.15p/kWh =3D =A3292. Most showers are not 10kW an= d I seriously doubt the the average household really has 4 x 8 min showers *every* day.

Some of it is bollocks like the annual bill. Not so sure about the water consumption though. One poster has said they fill the bath, only No.1 Daughter does that. the rest of us is only 4 or 5 inches at the most. We don't have a shower so can't do the plug test.

[Brian Gaff]

If I'm going to have to get wet all over then I use a bath, It must be almost due for my three month bath actually... grin I do think though that some people over cleanse, destroying good and bad flora and fauna. Bits and pits was what we used to do, as we did not have showers or anything other than a tin bath when I were young.. Leans on old walking stick.

Brian

[Brian Gaff]

Well you could always use a Kindle with voice enabled sitting on the nearest dry area.

Brian

[jgharston]

Yeah, these modern girls, I think they think they're coal miners. Next door's latest lodger would have a 40+min shower before leaving in the morning, and then a 40+min shower after getting home, completely oblivious to the pound notes gurgling down the drain and my neighbour knotting her legs waiting to get to the loo.

JGH

[Roger Mills]

Maybe they assume that a family of 4 will share the same bath water, but shower individually?

[Man at B&Q]

Complete bollocks.

How was the "average bath" data collected. Matbe bathing habits have changed too.

How were the people being logged selected? If self selected (e.g. replying to an advert to have their showers minitored) then it largely invalidates any data.

MBQ

[Andrew May]

Ahh, the 'research' is by Unilever.

"Hilde Hendrickx, a behavioural scientist in Unilever's R&D department, said that the company decided to carry out the survey because "quite a large proportion of our (products') environmental impact occurred when people used them"."

Err, yes. They don't produce much greenhouse gases if they aren't being used and are just sitting on the shelf do they?

[chris French]

No, but there is the manufacture and transport etc.

[David Robinson]

water quantities and times about right for our house.

cost? no idea. seems unlikely that half our heating bill is going on showers.

Already knew that the idea of showers using much less water than baths was nonsense by simply putting the plug in to check. It's comparable to a small bath, but less than a big one.

What really annoys me is the rigidly proposed ultimatum that the only answer to the problem is to do less of something we enjoy, and we can't argue, because it's for the environment.

100 years ago we'd have found a technical solution to deliver what we want. Now the answer appears to be to enforce misery instead. So much for progress. But then, some of those talking just _want_ to impose misery, and are just using "the environment" as an excuse.

(Do I win my grumpy old man award yet?)

Cheers, David.

[Tim Streater]

No, you get an award for summarising the situation succinctly.

You ask any teenager whether they care for the environment, they'll say yes and then berate you for spoiling it. Then they'll go home and take their 40 minute shower (because not to do that would be "gross") and insist on all the latest designer gear, TV, computer in their bedroom, etc ad nauseam.

(Do I win my grumpy old man award yet?)