by Tim Fulton on August 27, 2010
Written by: gasstingy
I’ve been wanting to convert to dual flush toilets for a couple of years now, but when I tried to find a replacement toilet or conversion kit for my existing toilets I had no luck. Lately, I got to looking again, and found the HydroRight Drop-in Dual Flush Converter
in the Grainger catalog. I bought it (w/tax and S&H, $32) and put it in my master bathroom toilet. It didn’t take too long to install (15 minutes +/-) and it works great. Of course, I took no pictures and made no keen observations to try and compare the water usage before and after the conversion. I was so pleased that I immediately bought another of the same brand, but this time I did an internet search. For about the same money, I went to Amazon.com and bought another one. So I’d get free shipping, I bought a 1.5 gpm shower head at the same time.
A few details about the toilets. Both are American Standard, kind of an old fashioned look with the flush handle on the side, not in front. But, the box said it fits ANY toilet so I figured I could justify getting my money back if it didn’t fit mine. You’ll note in the pictures, the flush isn’t by a lever operated handle, but a cable operated push button. This toilet had an old style refill valve with the long arm and big float ball to stop the water. That had to be replaced in order to do the conversion as the arm and ball won’t clear the biggest part of the kit. I didn’t bother showing pictures of how that’s done. The big parts are shown, and the biggest part uncouples into two pieces for easier installation. All told, I couldn’t even do the second one in ten minutes like the instructions say it should take. Probably not their fault, everything takes me a bit longer. Of course, I could blame it on stopping to take notes and pictures, and time the operation and swap the refill valve, etc. All told, I did all of that and finished in just under a half hour.
As for the keen observations to try and show how much water I’m going to save, I tried the old and new refill valves before converting to the dual flush and it took 55 seconds for the toilet to refill from the time I pushed the flush lever. Then I swapped to the new dual flush mechanism and tried again with the biggest flush. It took the same 55 seconds. Then, I decided to relocate that little tube that goes into the stand pipe to refill the toilet bowl. Instead of shooting into the pipe, I turned the clip around and it shoots down the outside of the pipe. The toilet bowl doesn’t get quite as much water, but it still gets plenty. New refill time, 40 seconds for the long flush. Refill time for the short flush is 18 seconds. I only timed the short flush with the toilet bowl refill tube on the outside of the stand pipe though. So there it is. The water ran 73% as long on the long flush, so about a 27% water savings on the big flush from relocating the bowl refill tube to fill the tank faster instead of wasting it in the bowl. For a short flush, it ran 33% as long, so we’ll save about 67% of the water compared to before when we choose the short flush.
The side benefit is that I’ve tried nearly every flapper in town to get both toilets to quit seeping water out, to no avail. This stopped the seepage, so all of that wasted water is halted as well.
Check out more info on gasstingy’s conversion in his forum thread.
Welcome to EcoRenovator! If you like the site and want to get automatic updates, check out the RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
by Tim Fulton on March 18, 2010
I’ve personally been looking for a new TV for a little while now. So, I went to the energy star website and downloaded their excel spreadsheet of TVs. I then sorted them by size and secondarily by efficiency (annual estimated usage). Then, I went on google’s product search and got prices on all of them. The result is a list of energy efficient TVs for each size that met my criteria. The criteria being no more than 180 kWh yearly estimated energy consumption (150 kWh for the 32″ TVs). This was comparable to the CRT television that the new one will replace. I wanted something at least or more efficient than what I already had.
So, here is the list. The TVs are first broken into different sizes, then they are ranked by price. As you can see, generally speaking, the more you pay the more efficient the TV is. Also, the prices have shipping included in them. However, I’m sure the price will fluctuate rather quickly.
32″ TVs
I lowered the requirement of 180 kWh per year usage to 150 kWh for this category. There were just too many TVs that met the 180 kWh requirement.
37″ TVs
40″ TVs
42″ TVs
Small list here. The odd thing here is the Panasonic is actually as plasma TV. I was surprised to find a plasma make the list.
46″ TVs
Despite a small 42″ list, the 46″ list is quite large. I also threw in the 47″ LG since it is close in size.
52″ TVs
Yup, there is even some pretty efficient 52″ TVs out there! I was amazed. If I wanted to spend that much, I could go up to a 52″ TV from a 27″ CRT and have roughly the same power usage. I also threw the Sharp in the list because it was close and the price is very competitive.
So, thats the list. I hope it helps you find a good TV that fits your needs/wants and also helps lower your energy usage. I know my new TV is somewhere on this list.
by Tim Fulton on March 4, 2010
Over the last couple of months, we have installed a Trane programmable thermostat. We have also logged energy usage and verified the energy and cost savings from the thermostat installation. So far, it has been doing a brilliant job of saving energy, and in only two months has already saved enough money to have paid for itself.
Now, Trane was also nice enough to give us an extra XL800 thermostat to give away! We are very happy to give things to our readers and members. In fact, we’re so happy that we are going to sweetening the pot a bit with a couple extra things. We will add in a smart power strip
, and also an online subscription to homepower magazine.
So, lets go over the rules:
- There will be three winners of the giveaway. The first winner will get his or her choice of the prizes. The second winner will get his or her choice of the remaining prizes, and the third winner will get the last remaining prize.
- The winners will be randomly chosen from a list of active forum members. So, if you aren’t signed up on the forum, you need to sign up and post at least once before March 18th.
- On March 19th the winners will be announced on the forum.
by Tim Fulton on March 1, 2010
A few months ago we installed the Trane thermostat you see above in a house that previously had an old manual thermostat. Since then, we have been monitoring the energy usage and are now reporting back on the energy savings from the thermostat.
The thermostat was installed in early November. Thankfully, the billing period for that month started right at the beginning of the month too, so using the utility bill as a measuring stick should be quite accurate. Anyway, here are the numbers:
October:
Heating degree days – 626
Gas usage (therms) – 388
Gas usage per heating degree day – .358
November:
Heating Degree Days – 858
Gas usage (therms) – 405
Gas usage per heating degree day – .289
December:
Heating Degree Days – 1638
Gas Usage (therms) – 422
Gas usage per heating degree day – .307
So, with a little bit of math we can see that the thermostat reduced energy usage around 20% in November. We can also see that as it gets colder out, the house becomes less efficient at staying warm. This is quite normal. Even still with it being over twice as cold out, the new thermostat is still providing a 15% savings in December. That is a really huge savings for one simple install that you can do yourself (and if you think you can’t, join our forums and we’d gladly walk you through it).
All said and done, this thermostat has already saved the home owner almost $150 in heating costs (using 20% and 15% respectively on the bills). That is pretty incredible for only having two months of usage under its belt. To keep this in a bit of perspective, this is an old house (over 100 years) and the energy usage is on the high side. So, the cost savings might be a bit high, but the energy savings as a percentage are likely quite accurate.
So, how can you get your hands on a Trane XL800 thermostat? There is a locate a Trane dealer feature on their site. Just plug in your zip code and it finds the nearest dealer. It also looks like they float around on ebay a bit, so you could snag one there. Lastly, Trane was kind enough to give us an extra thermostat to give away to our readers. More details on that in a few days.
by Tim Fulton on February 17, 2010
This article was originally posted by one of our forum members, Ben Nelson:
Wow, I just crunched the numbers, and realized that I am now saving $162 per year, for about 5 minutes of work.
How is that possible?
Well, start with the “low-hanging fruit.”
Conserve as cheaply as possible whatever is most expensive. At my house, it’s waste water. Where I live, we have a well for our incoming water, but a “holding-tank” for waste water. That’s basically a buried tank in the backyard that all water from the toilet, sink, washer, shower, and any other drain in the house goes to. We live just down the street from a lake, and have a high enough water level that water actually oozes out of our front yard, about 2 feet from the road. Neither sewer or a septic system are options here. (Actually, a mount septic system would be possible. It would cost $15,000, and literally take up the entire backyard.)
The holding tank is 2000 gallons. When it is full, it cost $90 for a pumper truck to come out and empty it.
If my wife and I were both AVERAGE AMERICANS, using 69 gallons of water per person per day at home, we would fill that tank in 15 days. Paying $90 TWICE a month ($180!!!! monthly!) is NOT my idea of a good time!
So, what can we do about it?
We have already taken various water conservation measures, involving the clothes washer, and toilet, the two biggest water-wasters in the home.
The third largest home water user is the shower.
Our existing shower head pumps through 2.5 gallons of water per minute. That’s pretty much the standard. At the Home Improvement Store, nearly EVERY shower head was rated at 2.5gpm.
Now lets think about this. Say I take a 5 minute shower. Everyday. So does my wife.
That’s:
2.5gpm x 5 min = 12.5 gallons per shower
x 2 people = 25 gallons per day
The tank holds 2000 gallons / $90 pumping fee = $.045 = 4.5 cents per gallon. I spend almost 5 cents per gallon to throw water away!!!
$0.045 x 25 gals = $1.125 per day to shower
x 30 = $33.75 per MONTH to shower.
That’s more than my CABLE BILL!
Who knew showering was so expensive!?
I quickly headed to the store to find a flow-restrictor, new showerhead, or some other way to save water in the shower.
Looking through the rather large display of showerheads at the store – some costing over $100 – I could only find ONE water-saving showerhead. ONE. That’s it. No flow restrictors, no other showerheads. Just that one.
So I bought it.
Replacing the old showerhead with the new one took about five minutes total. Four minutes of that were to find a slip-lock pliers to help unscrew the old head. One minute to screw on the new showerhead.
The new showerhead is 1.5 gallons per minute.
1.5gpm x 5 min shower = 7.5 gallons
x 2 people = 15 gallons
x $0.045 = $0.675 per day for showering
x 30 days = $20.25 per month for showering.
Old showerhead = $33.75 monthly
New Showerhead = $20.25 monthly
Monthly savings = $13.50
And the best part? The showerhead cost $12. That means I have a return on investment of less than one month.
$13.50 x 12 months = $162 per year savings.
That also means I would have to pump the tank almost two fewer times per year, AND save that much wear and tear on my well pump.
Not bad for a $12 investment and five minutes of work.
