Would it be more efficient to turn down/off water heaters the way we do HVAC when we're not home?

That’s only true if heating ‘as fast as possible’ is much less efficient than ‘keeping at 140’. But water heaters don’t have a ‘superfast inefficient’ mode; they’re either heating or not and so they’re just as efficient at turning fuel into heat in the water whether they’re heating water up or keeping it hot.

So it’s all about total heat loss, and letting it cool down and then heating it up will use less fuel. Again, for a hot water heater, I don’t think there’s going to be much difference over 8 hours, but letting it cool will be marginally more efficient.

Look at it this way: If you had perfect insulation, that let no heat at all escape, then it wouldn’t matter if you turned the heater on on not: Your water tank (or your house) would stay at the same temperature forever. The only reason you need a heater to maintain the temperature is because your insulation isn’t perfect: Some heat does leak out, and that’s exactly the heat that you’re replacing. Letting it cool will decrease the amount that leaks out, and thus decrease the amount you’re replacing.

Indeed. It’s really hard to make an inefficient heater. With most devices, inefficiency takes the form of some energy being converted to heat instead of whatever form of energy it is that you want. But when heat is the form of energy you want, what’s an inefficient form?

That sounds like an utterly miserable way to take a shower. At that point you might as well just take Mexican showers in the sink.

I have installed a number of timers for controlling water heaters. It is already a thing. It’s more common in situations with multiple water heaters, one stays on and the others shut off during lower use periods.

It is absolutely more efficient to not heat the water when it’s not needed and bring it up to temperature when it is.

The reason it isn’t all that popular is it takes a really long time to heat 40 gallons of water to temperature. So if you get home early or forget to set it correctly for your day off you’ll have no hot water when you want it. People find cold water really inconvenient(I think unreasonably so in many cases) so would rather just waste energy to avoid the inconvenience even if it is super rare.

With smarter timers and having stuff smart phone linked the technology could certainly improve, if say your smart phone tracks you going home it could automatically turn the heater on. I don’t see it heading that way though.

The technology push has been more for on demand water heaters which are more efficient than tanks in terms of energy use and they also take up less physical space. The initial up from cost and cost of service however isn’t at a point where it’s really saving money over the old tanks.

It would be very easy to make an inefficient water heater, one where more heat ends up in the surrounding atmosphere faster vs. staying in the water until it’s used. Failing to insulate the tank sufficiently would be a good start.

No it’s not. The inefficiency manifests in the temperature of the flue gas: the hotter it is, the less efficient your heater is. My old furnace was 80% efficient - that is, the flue gas carried away 20% of the fuel’s energy, leaving only 80% of it to heat my house. My new furnace is 97% efficient - so efficient that the flue gas isn’t warm enough for buoyancy to drive it up the chimney (it has to be driven out with an exhaust fan), and so efficient that water condenses out of the flue gas and has to be sent down the drain.

Water heaters have the same issue. Good insulation minimizes how often you need to fire the burner to keep the water hot, but good design is also required to maximize the percentage of the fuel’s energy that actually gets transferred to the water from the burner.

This looks like the optimal solution. With instant heat you only heat the water you are about to use, so you don’t waste energy heating more water than you need and letting it cool again. The water that you do heat you use immediately, so it doesn’t get to cool. Plus, modern instant heat systems will let you specify the exact temperature you like, so you don’t end up heating water and then adding cold water to cool it down to a comfortable temperature.

It’s called a Navy shower, as supposedly that’s how it’s done on submarines and ships to conserve fresh water.

Some companies even make showerheads with little cut-off valves (button or lever) to arrest the flow of water while you soap up, and then let you turn it on without having to readjust the pressure or temperature.

While I’m sure in theory you save a lot of water, I can’t imagine that in practice, Navy showering saves you a significant amount of water relative to the inconvenience of showering that way.

There’s a lot of pages online dedicated to determining water heating costs, efficiencies for replacement, etc. I worked out some numbers to determine about what you might save by reducing the standby heating losses by turning your water heater off for 16 hours a day (8 while gone to work, 8 overnight).

To heat 40 gal/day using an electric tank heater in power alone converted to $ might cost you about 50 cents, which takes into account a 24 hour standby heating loss. If you were to cut the time your loosing heat to 8 hours you could save about 7.75 cents per day, or about 15%. Do this every day and you’ll save about $28 per year.

Yes you’ll save a bit… whether it’s worth the cost of a timer or not depends. I’d say $25-30 definitely isn’t worth the effort to manually switch the tank on and off each day by hand. Then also consider the difference in duty the heater would go through and whether it would impact the life of the unit. I’d imagine running the heater for 2 x 4 hour periods where it’s be running most of the time might put less stress on it than having it cycle on/off a dozen times a day for shorter durations to “top up” the heat. I think overall you’d save more either by buying a higher efficiency unit or using less hot water. Though with the latter you’ll end up at some point running into extra costs of inconvenience by skimping too much. This cost will vary person to person.

The number of responses shows that this isn’t a simple situation. The same is true for setting back the thermostat in your house. There’s so many variables that it’s difficult to come up with even a good rule of thumb.

One thing that’s a big factor is the fuel source. Electric is slow, but its efficiency is the same regardless of the tank temperature. Gas (or oil, but those are rare) is faster and can be quite efficient, but their efficiency actually goes down the hotter the water gets, since heat transfers faster when there’s a bigger temperature differential. This is a factor for boilers as well, where you can achieve something like 95% efficiency with a water temperature of 120 degrees but that goes down to 85% efficiency when you get close to boiling.

There’s also issues with efficiency ratings between different types of appliances. A traditional gas water heater that just has a simple heat exchanger up the middle and a standard flue is constantly losing heat up that flue no matter how well insulated it is. So there’s likely more benefits to setting that back than an already well-insulated electric water heater that has no penetrations through the tank other than the water pipes and wiring plus an additional insulation jacket around it.

Power vented high-efficiency water heaters (and furnaces and boilers too) can achieve the greatest gas efficiency, but those glowing fuel usage ratings almost never include the additional electricity they use for the draft fans, pumps, dampers, and other controls. A hot air furnace for instance can easily eat 1,000 watts in the blower, and even fairly simple hot water heating systems can still require a decently powerful pump, and pumping water is very energy intensive. Steam boilers look awful on paper because their maximum efficiency is pegged at about 85% (because they can’t condense the water vapor out of the exhaust gasses), except for the fact that they use virtually no electricity at all, except for the thermostat controls and possibly a tiny condensate pump. So just how all these different systems operate can have a huge impact on how well setbacks work.

In the case of shutting off a water heater for the day after it’s already been somewhat depleted by a shower, that would be more energy efficient than having it turn off say a half hour later after it’s already reheated, but how do you even control for such a scenario? Going back to how slow or fast different fuel sources are also has relevance to lifestyle. If you need the hot water right away when you get home, then there might not be much of a setback time left between leaving in the morning and returning in the evening. If you’re like me and shower before bed rather than in the morning, then you could theoretically only need hot water in the evening. You’d just have to put up with a cold shave or face washing, which I suppose can help wake you up. That would be more beneficial than two on/off cycles every day.

Even with HVAC systems this can be an issue. In my case, I live in a 100 year old apartment with essentially no wall insulation. So leaving the a/c running all day is pretty wasteful. However, when I get home in the evening and start cooking is also when the sun hits my apartment the hardest. So if I don’t have the a/c on at least an hour before I get home (or earlier if it’s really hot out) then it will never catch up and I’ll be sweating into the night as the heat radiates through the brick walls. If the a/c was oversized then it could handle that better (as would a water heater that was undersized), but that causes other problems like poor dehumidification (or not enough hot water to take a shower and run the dishwasher or laundry anywhere close to each other).

See how difficult this gets?

It’s pretty easy to figure out how much for a given shower head.

My shower uses about 2 gallons a minute. So, if I replace 1 minute of letting the hot water run over me with turning it off, I save ~700 gallons a year, or about $8 worth of water. And a few bucks in not heating that water. So, from that perspective, it’s not worth it. I’m happy to pay $0.03 a minute to bask in nice hot water every morning.

Also, I wonder if this is still done out of necessity, or tradition. Submarines have so much excess power that I find it hard to believe that they’re seriously limited in how much fresh hot water they can generate.

The problem isn’t the “hot”; it’s the “fresh”. Ships have to carry all the fresh water they are going to use on the voyage, and every litre you use in the shower is a litre you can’t drink, or cook anything in.

It’s not just submarines that are equipped with “navy showers”; I believe there standard on any vessel that is supposed to be capable of operating for prolonged periods on the high seas.

I thought they used all the waste heat generated from the engines to desalinate/distill seawater.

They have the capability, but I don’t think they distill enough to really allow all the crewmen to take what they call “hollywood” showers every day, even if they do have enough for cooling and crew uses otherwise.

What most people said… Its usually always more efficient to dial it down, even for just half an hour…

BUT if the water tank is in inside your house, heat leaking from the tank goes to heating the house, so if you are heating the house anyway, then the waste heat isn’t really wasted.
Its the temperature of the water in the storage tank that you are adjusting by turning it off. The lower the temperature, the less it wastes by losing heat to the air.
If you don’t need the really hot water, eg close to boiling to make kitchen utensils so that they dry on their own, and you a single tank of shower/bath temperature water is enough for your uses, then turn the thermostat down to your desired temperature permanently… That is, you might want to use really hot water, or you might want to extend the volume of tank by adding cold water to hot water to make warm water …