ᐅ Faucet without a mixer? Separate hot and cold taps only?

Created on: 22 Jul 2016 21:31
E
Elina
I am currently looking for new faucets, starting with the bathroom. Right now, there is a common single-lever mixer, but in our case, the water is either hot/warm or cold and should not be mixed—or it would be pointless.

Is there another solution besides having two cold water taps connected separately to the respective pipes, since washbasins usually only have one hole?

Basically something like the old-style taps with turn knobs on the left and right, but without the turning handles. Maybe with push buttons?

It should be a bit modern. Also, you don’t want to have to turn the taps for ages until the strongest flow finally comes out.

I have also thought about sensor faucets, but I’m bothered by the batteries.

Somehow, I am missing the right term to search for (searching for “two-temperature faucet” or “faucet without mixer” returns no results).
P
Peanuts74
26 Jul 2016 08:22
Well, it seems there are frugal people in every area. 1000 kWh is really extreme. During my extreme saving phase back then, I also managed to drive my nearly 200 hp car from the 90s with just 6.x liters of fuel...
Basti270926 Jul 2016 08:43
Peanuts74 schrieb:
Well, it seems there are frugal people in every area. 1000 kWh is really low.
During my extreme saving phase, I even managed to drive my nearly 200 hp car from the 90s with around 6.x liters per 100 km (about 39 mpg US)...

No idea how that happens... as I said, we don’t really pay attention to it. After moving in with my girlfriend, I actually got rid of the energy-saving bulbs in the apartment... for example, the bathroom had a 4 x GU10 spot fixture, with one bulb already at 35 watts. In the other rooms, Osram bulbs with about 30% energy savings were installed, so not even LED.

Maybe a cable is wired wrong somewhere, I have no clue. But I’m fine with that. Now, in the new house, I’m just waiting for my first annual bill...
P
Peanuts74
26 Jul 2016 08:50
Well, you can check the meter from time to time...
D
Deliverer
26 Jul 2016 09:18
Saving water is commendable – but in Germany, it’s not really necessary. We have enough water. If we don’t run it through the pipes, the utility companies do, to prevent the pipes from clogging. So, the less water we use, the more expensive each liter becomes.

And calling a plumber because the pipe behind the toilet is blocked again due to a "super-saving flush button" costs more than properly flushing 12 liters (3 gallons) per flush.

Besides: as long as I eat meat, I don’t have to worry about saving 100 liters (26 gallons) here or there. Producing a meat patty/burger requires 2,500 liters (660 gallons) of water. And that usually doesn’t happen in water-rich Germany!

In short: skipping meat once a week saves as much water as 15 average Germans use through their pipes that day.

Just my 2 cents...
E
Elina
26 Jul 2016 12:03
I’m not intentionally saving water, so I’m surprised the usage is that low. I do water the garden sometimes (but only the newly planted plants; the others have to manage on their own).
I don’t eat meat; I’m a vegetarian with a slight tendency towards HCLF* vegan. My partner is as well now.

Yesterday, I timed my shower: 2 minutes 56 seconds. I would have guessed twice as long. And today I read the water meter: 23 cubic meters since the beginning of the year. Looks like it will be a bit more than 33 cubic meters this time around!

While I was at it, I also read the electricity meter: 1240 kilowatt-hours from the grid and 859 kilowatt-hours self-generated. That’s quite a lot (the air conditioning and the electric car probably contribute to that). The entire previous year’s consumption was 1830 kilowatt-hours from the grid and 1420 kilowatt-hours self-generated (from the grid = power supplied by the utility company).

*High carb low fat
D
Deliverer
26 Jul 2016 12:07
There is of course nothing wrong with an ecological lifestyle, whether intentional or not! But we are probably going off-topic...