"True, high-tech lavatories are energy hogs, accounting for 4% of household energy consumption in Japan—more than clothes dryers or dishwashers."

[hardyweineberg]

"True, high-tech lavatories are energy hogs, accounting for 4% of household energy consumption in Japan—more than clothes dryers or dishwashers."
Source:https://www.economist.com/business/2009/07/23/flush-with-ambition

I have seen many sentences like this, and I am still confused about why they are grammatical. According to the sentence, 4% is more than clothes dryers or dishwashers, and this doesn't make sense.

1) Is the sentence a shortened form of "True, high-tech lavatories are energy hogs, accounting for 4% of household energy consumption in Japan—more than clothes dryers or dishwashers consume/use"?

2) If I write sentences like the one above, will they be considered confusing or wrong? For example, "Water heating is responsible for 30% of household energy usage, more than refrigeration and heating."

 

[jutfrank]

These sentences are fine.

1) Yes, obviously.
2) No.

 

[hardyweineberg]

These sentences are fine.

1) Yes, obviously.
2) No.

"(2) No"

Please, why? I don't think the sentence is different from the first one (the sentence from www.economist.com).

 

[jutfrank]

Please, why? I don't think the sentence is different from the first one (the sentence from www.economist.com).

Yes, the two sentences are equivalent. I'm saying that your 'heating' sentence is fine. It isn't necessary to add the verb use at the end. It's perfectly clear as it is.

 

[emsr2d2]

2) If I write sentences like the one above, will they be considered confusing or wrong? For example, "Water heating is responsible for 30% of household energy usage, more than refrigeration and heating."

2) No.

I think you misunderstood jutfrank's response. You asked if your sentence was wrong. Jutfrank said "No".