Efficient front loaders use less electricity, less water, and less of the energy source (gas or electricity) used to heat water. The attached link to the Energy Star page gives more information.

Reducing water use also saves electricity used to distribute the fresh water and to process the waste water.

To me, having a hot water recirc system is a convenience question, not an economic or conservation one. I decided against it after hearing that the more constant water flow (even though at a gentle rate) can result in premature wear and leaks in the hot water pipes. My crawl space is accessible, I figured it would be an easy retrofit if I ever changed my mind.

Here is a link that might be useful: Energy efficient clothes washers

Here in CA, we seem to be getting the electricity we need in spite of a shut-down of a nuclear power plant, but as for water, we're in a bad way. So for us, conserving water would be a priority over electricity.

socks, I live in California too. What are you referring to, in suggesting that conserving water vs using electricity involves a prioritization? I'm stumped.

The thirstiest water user in the state is the agriculture industry (Ever driven through the arid Sacramento Valley where fields are flooded with water to make rice paddies for growing rice?). It's also a big money earner too, but much can be done to use water more efficiently.

Most residential use, except in city centers, is for landscape irrigation. There are still many communities where homes have no water meters and pay a flat rate. Indoor water use in the 'burbs, especially in hotter areas and SoCal, isn't the problem.

Just a note: I think the flooded rice fields occur during the winter when we have water run-off. Years ago (not many) lots of the orchards used 'flood irrigation' and lots of it and now days the folks growing our fruits and veggies use drip irrigation along with sensors so they can tell via computer when they need to water whatever they are growing. The agri-industry has worked miracles in lots of ways in order to conserve that precious commodity.... and most cities that once had unmetered sub-divisions, have changed that. I would suggest that the difference from the drought in 1979 has been huge....and the population growth is now the real conservation effort that needs to be addressed..... as well as global warming.

Nanny, there is no serendipitous runoff (or supply), it's carefully managed. Snow melt runoff into the delta is a priority use, otherwise salt water incursion would foul the fresh water captured "upstream" for water districts and ag use.

Rice is grown through the summer. Dry fields are flooded in the spring and kept flooded until the fall harvest (in areas with 95-100 degree weather). As for ag water use, I'm no expert as to efficiency, but I've heard the US lags behind other parts of the world. Other than in some vineyards (where drip emitters can frequently be seen), I think they're rare. I've never seen them with row crops.

Here is a link that might be useful: California Rice info

The DD of good friends has worked for MUD and private water companies in the bay area. From the year she went to Stanford for her undergrad engineering degree she has been warning about the unsustainable uses of water in California -- and other parts of the US.

We forget that a lot of the state is desert, only made to 'bloom' with imported water -- and all dependent on snowmelt.

The City of Chicago still has huge areas of unmetered, flat-rate water service, and all old cities have *ancient* water (and sewer) pipes, leaking...leaking...rupturing.

Wash ...

... less ...

... frequently?

Wear the clothes a couple o' times prior to washing?

And would it cause premature death (at a far distant day, I mean) were one to not shower daily?

ole joyful

I'm doing exactly what you suggested, joyful. Washing bigger loads, putting in more clothing while not overloading the machine, wearing clothes a little longer. And please don't tell anyone, but if I'm not going out and not sweaty/filthy from working in the yard, I skip showering.

Snidely, I guess what I was trying to say is that to me, saving water over electricity would be desirable.

Snidely -- I don't know about premature wear on water pipes. (Ours are copper by code.) Our plumber did say that a recirculating pump puts some strain on a water heater. It's hard to know if that's why we needed to replace one last year; it was 12 years old.

Where there's a long or cold run between water heater and faucet, you can watch a lot of water go down the drain. I know I would hate to have to collect that and haul it elsewhere for use.

I'd looked into tankless water heaters, but there were too many downsides, at least when we built.

socks said "saving water over electricity would be desirable."

I'm still stumped, what situation or activity presents that tradeoff?

Chisue, the wear comes from simple friction of the constantly running water (during hours of operation, if on a timer). As it was explained to me. Water in a house's pipes is usually not running.

I wouldn't consider 12 years of service from a standard water heater as representing a premature death. It's not bad - heater life depends on many factors, including how many people are in the house, how high the temp setting is, temperature of the incoming water supply, pH and mineral content of the water, etc.,

You'd be surprised how little water is really running down the drain. It may seem like more than it is because most faucets produce a narrow and aerated stream. It does depend on the distance, but just as an FYI, a 1/2 inch diameter pipe holds about 1 gallon for 100 feet of run. So if you're 50 feet of run away from the water heater, that's 2 quarts to run before it gets hot. Not much. As I said before, at least in my area, the major water uses are for agriculture and landscape watering.

Most of California gets no appreciable rain between April and late October, so lawns and plants other than natives need to be watered every few days.