• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Energy price rises and price cap discussion.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,425
Location
nowhere
Though a heat pump running in reverse is an air cooler (or vice versa), same as installing aircon though it may or may not manage humidity (most train aircon is in fact air cooling as it doesn't). There was a rather silly article in the Times today suggesting it'd kick out less heat outside, er, no... :)

Most domestic 'heat pumps' being installed are air to water units and (at least as far as I'm aware) aren't reversible - either in the design of the refrigerant circuits themselves or the rest of the system (though admittedly I can't see any reason why running Chilled water through conventional radiators wouldn't deliver a cooling effect, albeit much less effect than a 'conventional air conditioner' with fan coil units and not something you could do if you've got a potable HWS cylinder! Given the increasing likelihood and frequency of sustained warm periods, I'd personally be inclined to go all-in on refrigerant if installing a heat pump and run a multi-split/VRF system in domestic settings rather than 'just' replacing the boiler! A lot more expensive with the need to run new piping and install new indoor units in place of the radiators but rather more benefit from a comfort perspective! That or a centralised ducted air system but I don't think that's something that could be practically done in most UK houses

I think clinging to the idea that air conditioning is only air conditioning if it's looking at humidity is a bit of a misnomer - just about every application I've seen (and I've looked at quite a few!) is purely temperature focused, humidity control is somewhat rarer and only something I've seen in particular specialist applications (or high end installations!)
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,317
Location
St Albans
Most domestic 'heat pumps' being installed are air to water units and (at least as far as I'm aware) aren't reversible - either in the design of the refrigerant circuits themselves or the rest of the system (though admittedly I can't see any reason why running Chilled water through conventional radiators wouldn't deliver a cooling effect, albeit much less effect than a 'conventional air conditioner' with fan coil units and not something you could do if you've got a potable HWS cylinder! Given the increasing likelihood and frequency of sustained warm periods, I'd personally be inclined to go all-in on refrigerant if installing a heat pump and run a multi-split/VRF system in domestic settings rather than 'just' replacing the boiler! A lot more expensive with the need to run new piping and install new indoor units in place of the radiators but rather more benefit from a comfort perspective! That or a centralised ducted air system but I don't think that's something that could be practically done in most UK houses

I think clinging to the idea that air conditioning is only air conditioning if it's looking at humidity is a bit of a misnomer - just about every application I've seen (and I've looked at quite a few!) is purely temperature focused, humidity control is somewhat rarer and only something I've seen in particular specialist applications (or high end installations!)
Running a heat pump in an air cooling mode to supply chilled water into a conventiopnal central heating system would not work satisfactorily. To provide even slight cooling, the water in the radiators would need to be cold enough such that any moisture in the rooms would cause condensation such that it would affect the internal decorations and sift furnishing. Conventional work for heating because their surface temperature is much higher than the ambient air, (c. 30 deg C) thereby causing a useful convection airflow. To cool a room would require a similar differential so at +35 deg C, the water inside the radiators would be close to freezing, and all conductiver surfaces of the water circuit would be saturated with condensation.
 

thenorthern

Established Member
Joined
27 May 2013
Messages
4,129
I am in the odd situation in that I took out a fixed price plan before the prices went up and I have a very very energy efficient home for electricity and heating meaning at the moment I have free energy for the next year as the cost of living payments more than cover the cost of energy. While I am not arguing about having free energy it does seem odd and not right though that during an energy crisis I am getting free energy.

I read somewhere that houses built after 1995 are the best ones to buy as it was around when peak North Sea gas happened meaning energy costs were about to rise so insulation became more common. Also it was around the time the Kyoto Protocol was being negotiated so energy efficiency became more important.

Also with energy costs many people make mistakes about what costs what to run.
 

Baxenden Bank

Established Member
Joined
23 Oct 2013
Messages
4,045
I am in the odd situation in that I took out a fixed price plan before the prices went up and I have a very very energy efficient home for electricity and heating meaning at the moment I have free energy for the next year as the cost of living payments more than cover the cost of energy. While I am not arguing about having free energy it does seem odd and not right though that during an energy crisis I am getting free energy.

I read somewhere that houses built after 1995 are the best ones to buy as it was around when peak North Sea gas happened meaning energy costs were about to rise so insulation became more common. Also it was around the time the Kyoto Protocol was being negotiated so energy efficiency became more important.

Also with energy costs many people make mistakes about what costs what to run.
I did think that at some point some light users of electricity would start to make a surplus out of the government hand-outs. It would perhaps be better to knock x pence off each unit or give out free units up to a certain amount. That way light users would still get a discount but not actually make money. Another option would be to strip out specific costs within the overall cap for example: standing charges, VAT, green levies, the cost of refunding failed suppliers.

Regarding 'what costs what to run'. I think many people would benefit from detailed information about typical usage PER USE. Although consumption can be worked out from the rating plate, by those with time and the maths skills to do it, it doesn't really help with budgeting or encouraging less use of power hungry appliances - in total or at peak times. The bland garbage put out by the Energy Saving Trust (I had the misfortune to look at something on their website last night) does not help. You want an example, ok, they make a claim that you can save £35 per year by turning off items on standby. Well that might have been correct back in 2013, or if your house is still mostly running equipment from that date, but since 2013 EU Regulation (yes tablets of stone from the devil himself) have limited the amount of electricity that appliances can use on standby. Similarly they make a claim how much money you can save by updating to a new appliance over it's lifetime, without telling you how many years that is calculated for.

The Times debunks it:
However, since 2013, appliances like computers, games consoles, microwaves and TVs have had the amount of power they consume in standby capped at just 0.5w under EU and now UK rules. A device that consumes 0.5w amounts to 4.38kWh of consumption if it was left on all year, for 8,760 hours, it would cost £1.24.

Readers may find the following articles useful, both from The Times and with clear evidence of the story being rehashed after 7 months!
Revealed: how much you really save by not leaving TVs on standby
Sunday October 17 2021, 12.01am, The Sunday Times
George Nixon
Revealed: how much you really save by not leaving TVs on standby
Be eco-aware at home and save £305 a year, experts say. Can this be true?


The TV at home does not spend a lot of time off. There are five of us in our flat share and so, with different working hours and lifestyles, it tends to be on most of the time.

But when it is not even on, I am tempted to turn it off at the plug socket because I’ve always been told that will save us money and help the planet. That would annoy my flatmates, though, and would it even help?

The Energy Saving Trust, a government-funded organisation, offers 11 helpful hints that could save you £305 a year, it says, including switching appliances from standby to off, doing one less wash a week or boiling a kettle less. I decided to run the rule over those costs.

Switching off standby​

The Energy Saving Trust reckons you can save £35 a year by turning off sockets at the wall instead of leaving devices on standby. How many TVs would you need to switch off at the wall overnight to save the £35 a year? The answer is 38.

Who has 38 TVs in their home?

Mine is a 43in Hisense Roku 4K smart TV, which uses 2 watts when on standby so if it was left on standby for a year, it would cost us £3.68 and waste minimal amounts of energy.

There are reams of EU regulations on power consumption and, having pored over them, I can confidently say that the suggestion that £35 can be saved by not having gadgets on standby just does not stack up.

In fact it hasn’t been true since 2013, when things such as computers, games consoles, microwaves and TVs have had to limit the amount of power they consume in standby mode to 0.5 watts. At the present price of electricity, something that consumed this much power and was left on for an entire year would cost 92p.

Similar regulations cover laptops, mobile phones and electric toothbrush chargers when they’re plugged into the mains but are not charging anything.

It gives me no pleasure to point this out, particularly as I have previously gone above and beyond this in the name of energy efficiency.

I was once caught in the act of switching off the TV, which was on standby, for the nth time by a colleague at the pub I worked in. He raised an eyebrow, laughed, and asked if I was being a bit “particular”. I think we all know what he meant by particular.

The trust said my calculations assume that all existing appliances in UK homes meet the latest regulatory limits on standby power. However, given that the regulations have been in place since 2013, I’m comfortable with that assumption.

Turning down the thermostat​

There’s nothing wrong with taking small steps where we can. In the face of something huge like a global gas crisis and rising energy bills, it makes sense. We can’t all be like the Icelanders, who generate almost all their electricity from renewables, and with prices soaring and the planet suffering, we need to be careful not to use more energy than we really need. But we should make sure we follow the science. I don’t think anyone enjoys the conversation about the thermostat; when it goes on, for how long and, crucially, at what level. No one ever agrees, and my flat is no different.

The good news is that it does make a difference. Modelling by the Department of Energy and Climate Change in 2012 estimated that households could cut their energy consumption by 13 per cent, about 1,530kWh at the time, by reducing their thermostat from 19 to 18 degrees.

This remains true, and is one of the best of the Energy Saving Trust’s tips, saving at least £50 a year — and more for those on standard variable tariffs that will go up along with the price cap in April.

Getting smart​

In total, the Energy Saving Trust says you can save £120 a year if you combine turning down the thermostat with smart controls — that is, heating controls where you set a timer or control appliances by an app — so that the radiators only come on when you need them, or by using themostatic radiator valves (the knobs on your radiators) to lower the temperature.

One of the myths of heating your home is that keeping your house constantly heated at a low temperature is more efficient than only trying to warm it up when you are there. The key is to turn off the radiators in the rooms that you don’t use, and only warm the rooms that you do.

If you have a lot of routine in your lifestyle then timer heating controls will work well for you. If you’re always popping in and out, an app that lets you turn the heating on before you get home may be best.

“Whether a smart controller will save you money and whether it is right for you will depend on your lifestyle, how you currently control your heating and whether you prefer using an app to using a traditional controller”, the Energy Saving Trust said.

Using the washing machine less​

The Energy Saving Trust also says you can save £8 a year by doing one less wash a week. There’s nothing inaccurate about that, you take the energy consumption of one cycle of your washing machine, multiply that by 52 and take the cost.

The most popular washing machine from John Lewis has an estimated energy consumption of 0.69kWh, so 36kWh across 52 washes, which at an electricity cost of 21p per kWh would save £7.56.

But this is where principles meet practicality. I, a 24-year-old man, tend to only do one wash a week anyway, unless I’m washing my sheets or towels. My girlfriend tells me she does two or three and could easily cut that back.

But for families who need to do at least one wash a day, can they really cut back?

Changing bulbs​

I’m generally useless at anything practical and, unlike seemingly most men, more than happy to admit it, but the one thing I can do is change lightbulbs. Which is lucky, because you’d be surprised how much money that can save you.

Lightbulbs have gradually been getting more efficient over the past decade. Incandescent bulbs were banned in the EU in 2012. Now from this month halogens are going too. We’re all being encouraged to switch to more efficient LED lightbulbs, which provide the same level of light, or lumens, at a far lower wattage.

An 806 lumens LED lightbulb is 8 watts and can cost £4. Previously, a halogen bulb would require 42 watts of power for 700 lumens of light, so LED lights are several times more efficient.

If left on for 500 hours a year the LED bulb would cost 84p at the current price of electricity, while the halogen bulb would cost £4.41. It would have paid for itself in just over a year. Think about how many lightbulbs you have in your house right now: 10? 15? 20? More? That’s a lot of money for not a lot of work.

Managing the highest spike in energy bills in recent memory or solving climate change isn’t simply a matter of changing the lightbulbs, but it’s not a bad place to start.

Which energy saving tips are really worth the effort?

Sunday May 29 2022, 12.01am, The Times
George Nixon

It might be getting into summer now, but even if you’ve turned the heating off, your energy bills are still more expensive since the price cap rise in April. Every unit of electricity you use is 33 per cent more expensive than it was before April and every unit of gas is 75 per cent more — and they will rise again in October.

The only sure-fire way to keep a lid on your bills is to cut how much you’re using. But not all energy saving tips are equal. Here are the ones worth doing.

Before you start . . .
You need to work out how much energy the appliances in your home consume.

You’ll find power consumption information in those dusty old booklets for your dishwasher, microwave or fish tank, or you can look up a device online.

If this is in watts you’ll need to convert it to kilowatt hours (kWh), the standard unit of energy measurement for electricity and gas prices.

To do this multiply the watts by the number of hours you use a device for at a time then divide it by 1,000 (the number of watts in a kWh). If you use a device for minutes instead of hours, multiply the watts by the minutes then divide by 60 first.

Multiply your kWh figure by the cost of your gas or electricity to find out how much each use costs.

For example if you have a 2,500w kettle that takes two minutes to boil you would multiply 2,500 by two to get 5,000, then divide by 60 to get 83.33. Divide by 1,000 and you get 0.0833kWh.

You then multiply this by the price you are paying per kWh of electricity — under Ofgem’s latest energy price cap it is 28.34p (for gas it’s 7.37p) and you get 2.36, or 2.36p to boil the kettle.

A further wrinkle, though, is that the product information cannot always be taken at face value. If you want a more precise reading, you can use an electricity monitor or consumption meter. You can plug this in between the mains socket and your appliance to see how much it costs to run. They are available online for about £15.

Efficiency makes a big difference to the cost of appliances. The most energy-efficient fridge-freezer, the LG GBB92MCBAP, costs £40.63 a year to run at the current price cap, according to the consumer group Which?, while the least efficient fridge it tested, the Hotpoint FFU3D W 1, costs £178.66.

When you need a new appliance, check the energy rating before you buy. The most efficient are graded A.

Should I boil my water in a kettle or on the stove?
If you’re boiling water to cook pasta should you fill up the pan with boiling water or boil it on the stove?

Boiling one litre of water from 20C to 100C requires 0.09kWh of energy, but because the appliances we use to heat it are not 100 per cent efficient the energy used will be more.

An electric kettle is about 80 per cent efficient, so would take 20 per cent more energy to boil the same litre of water, while a gas hob is about 30 per cent efficient and need 70 per cent more. A kettle would use 0.11kWh to boil one litre, and the hob would use 0.15kWh and do it slower.

But even though it takes longer and is worse for the environment, boiling water on a gas hob is cheaper, costing 1p a litre versus 3p in an electric kettle because gas is cheaper per kWh.

Modern electric hobs can be about as efficient as a kettle, while induction hobs can be up to 90 per cent efficient.

If you’re worried about the environment, use the kettle, if money is the priority and you have a gas hob, use that.

More crucial is to boil only as much as you need. A standard mug is about 300ml, which would require 0.03kWh of electricity to boil in a kettle, costing 1p. That’s against 3p to boil 1l or 5p if you filled up a full 1.7l kettle.

Would buying a big chest freezer help me save money in the long run?
Everyone seems to be embracing bulk-buying, batch-cooking and deep- freezing food to save money on shopping and cooking. It’s certainly a good way of cutting down on food waste. But be wary of getting an additional appliance — it’s still cheaper to run one large fridge-freezer than a small fridge and bigger chest freezer.

A small fridge with a capacity of about 34l uses about 61kWh, so would cost about £17 a year to run. Add to that a medium-sized chest freezer with a capacity of 150l to 299l and you consume roughly 230kWh a year, costing about £65 and taking the total to £81.40.

The LG fridge-freezer found by Which? to be the most energy efficient has 233l of fridge space and 107l of freezer space, and costs £40.63 a year to run, so you would be doubling your costs to get that extra freezer space.

But where there is money to be saved is in how you cook, freeze and defrost.

Which? said that a typical electric fan oven costs about £55 a year to run on average, based on five hours of cooking a week at 170C. That works out at about 21p per hour, £1.05 a week.

But you could use your oven less by batch cooking. If you cooked a double portion two nights a week and ate the leftovers on two days so that you only cooked five nights a week you would save about 30p a week, and potentially more if you also boiled less water and used the hob less as a result.

If you need a new oven then one of the most energy efficient models is the AEG BPK948330B.

Let anything you’re going to freeze cool to room temperature first, so your freezer doesn’t have to work as hard (this will also reduce risk of food poisoning). When defrosting, leave the item in the fridge overnight rather than microwaving just before you need it.

An 800W microwave has a power consumption of about 1270W (like everything it’s not 100 per cent efficient), although the defrost mode generally uses about 30 per cent of that, about 381W. If you defrosted something in the microwave for 10 minutes it would use 1.8p of electricity you could save by letting it defrost in the fridge.

Will a slow cooker save me money?
It can take about eight hours to cook a stew in a slow cooker on a low heat, compared with about three hours to cook the same stew in a typical fan oven at a cost of about 60p.

Lakeland’s 6l slow cooker on its low setting consumes 90w with a six-to-eight-hour cooking time. For eight hours that’s 0.72kWh, or 20.4p of electricity. On high it consumes 120w and takes three to four hours. Assuming four hours, that’s a consumption of 0.48kWh, or 13.6p of electricity.

So the cheapest option is to use the slow cooker, particularly on a high setting, but it does depend on what you are cooking. If you could make the meal in the oven in a hour or less, then that could be the cheaper option.

Should I turn off all those plugs?
Let’s face it, going round the house and turning off every sockets is a faff. Yet one of the most common energy saving tips is that you can save money — anywhere from £30 to £55 — by switching off so-called “vampire devices” sucking power from the plug day and night. The claim is that your TV, microwave, computer and other devices consume huge amounts of energy on standby mode.

However, since 2013, appliances like computers, games consoles, microwaves and TVs have had the amount of power they consume in standby capped at just 0.5w under EU and now UK rules. A device that consumes 0.5w amounts to 4.38kWh of consumption if it was left on all year, for 8,760 hours, it would cost £1.24.

To save the £35 a year the government organisation the Energy Saving Trust claims switching off standby devices saves you, you would need a total of 28 devices such as TVs, microwaves, laptop chargers and games consoles, and that’s assuming you never actually wanted to use them.

As far as energy consumption in your home goes, it’s unlikely to be the biggest culprit or save you much money.

Should I use the tumble dryer or hang my washing on the radiator?
Drying your clothes outside or on a rack in a well-ventilated spot in your home is undoubtedly the cheapest method of getting them dry.

But what if it’s wet outside or your clothes do not dry well inside?

First things first, don’t hang them over the radiator. It blocks it and makes your boiler work harder to heat your house. The boiler has to heat the damp clothes first before being able to heat the air. It takes four time more energy to heat water than air, and it’s the air temperature that your thermostat is measuring. Drying on radiators can also lead to damp problems in your home.

If you’re looking to save money, you should leave your tumble dryer well alone. Even the most efficient dryer around, the Miele TCB 140 WP, according to Which?, consumes 1.7kWh of electricity for a full 7kg load taking 155 minutes or 0.96kWh for a half load taking 95 minutes. That will cost 48.2p per full load or 27.2p for a half load. Other dryers can cost £1.50 per cycle.

A cheaper thing to use, if you have one, is a heated clothing rack. Lakeland’s heated airer (£150), which can hold up to 15kg of washing, has a power consumption of 300w. If you ran it for two hours that would be 0.6kWh of consumption, which would cost 17p.

Should you run appliances at night?
Running appliances like dishwashers, tumble dryers and washing machines at night, when there is less demand for electricity and it’s cheaper, is also often suggested as a way to save money.

But this only works if you’re on a tariff that gives you cheaper electricity at this time. These are known as Economy 7 or 10 tariffs, which give you cheaper electricity at off-peak times for seven and ten hours respectively.

The flipside of this is that peak-time rates are more expensive, so if you still use a lot of electricity in the daytime, you might find yourself paying more.

Scott Byrom, from the comparison site the Energy Shop, said these tariffs are often useful for people with electric storage heaters that can be warmed up at night, those with appliances that can be put on using a timer, or those working shifts outside of normal working hours.

He said you would have to be using at least 30 per cent of your energy consumption in the off-peak period in order to benefit from one of these tariffs.

Should I turn off radiators in rooms I’m not using?
Many people use an electric radiator to heat up one room without turning on the central heating. But these can be very expensive to run, at about 2kWh for every hour of usage (56.7p).

The Money Saving Expert founder, Martin Lewis, has an adage you should “heat the human not the home”, so a better thing to consider is an electric blanket or throw. These consume much less electricity, about 0.15kWh (4.3p an hour), 13 times cheaper than an electric heater.

These can cost up to £60, however, so if you don’t have one, a cheaper alternative is a hot water bottle wrapped up in a pillowcase or blanket. Boiling enough water on a gas hob to fill a 1.5l hot water bottle would consume 0.45kWh of gas, and cost 3p to do so. Use the kettle and it will cost 4.7p.

Are LED bulbs really worth investing in?
The energy saving tip that makes by far the biggest difference, apart from just turning your heating off, is changing your lightbulbs.

The sale of halogen bulbs was banned in October, and replacing them with LEDs saves the cost of new bulbs several times over. Plus they also last about 12.5 times longer, said Which?.

A 700 lumen halogen bulb would consume 42w of electricity, while an LED producing the same level of light would consume 10. If left on for 1,500 hours a year (about four hours a day), the halogen bulb would cost £17.85 to run and the LED would cost £4.25.

If you swapped out ten old lightbulbs, for a cost of about £20, and used them all that often, you would still save £116 a year after earning back the initial outlay.

Is a bath really that much worse than a shower?
It depends on how long you stay in the shower. The average 90l bath contains 30l of cold water and 60l of hot water, according to the boiler manufacturer Worcester Bosch, while an average shower dispenses 9l of water a minute, 6l of which is hot (about 42C).

The cost of heating a litre of water to that temperature from 5C is about 0.04kWh. That would mean running 60l of hot water in a bath would use 2.4kWh, which at the price of gas would be 17.69p.

Dispensing 6l of hot water a minute, a shower powered by your gas boiler would cost 1.77p per minute, and an electric shower at the higher per kWh price of electricity would cost 6.8p per minute. These savings don’t take into account the cost of water, but if you don’t have a water meter then you’re quids-in.

The price difference means if you shower in less than ten minutes with a boiler-powered shower it will cost you less than running a bath. If you have an electric shower, you have two and a half minutes. Get scrubbing.
 

thenorthern

Established Member
Joined
27 May 2013
Messages
4,129
I did think that at some point some light users of electricity would start to make a surplus out of the government hand-outs. It would perhaps be better to knock x pence off each unit or give out free units up to a certain amount. That way light users would still get a discount but not actually make money. Another option would be to strip out specific costs within the overall cap for example: standing charges, VAT, green levies, the cost of refunding failed suppliers.

Regarding 'what costs what to run'. I think many people would benefit from detailed information about typical usage PER USE. Although consumption can be worked out from the rating plate, by those with time and the maths skills to do it, it doesn't really help with budgeting or encouraging less use of power hungry appliances - in total or at peak times. The bland garbage put out by the Energy Saving Trust (I had the misfortune to look at something on their website last night) does not help. You want an example, ok, they make a claim that you can save £35 per year by turning off items on standby. Well that might have been correct back in 2013, or if your house is still mostly running equipment from that date, but since 2013 EU Regulation (yes tablets of stone from the devil himself) have limited the amount of electricity that appliances can use on standby. Similarly they make a claim how much money you can save by updating to a new appliance over it's lifetime, without telling you how many years that is calculated for.

I wouldn't describe myself as a light user more I spent hours working out how to save energy. Probably the biggest saving on energy for me has been selective room heating (for example at night time there is no point in heating any room other than my bedroom) also geofencing heating so it switches off when no one is at home.

Regarding cost to run things there are many variables that people don't think about. With televisions for example many people have sky boxes and sound bars both of which push up the cost of running it. Interestingly though as well a friend of mine has 10 GU10 50w halogen bulbs in her kitchen. If the cost of electricity is 20p a kilowatt hour then it is costing her 10p an hour to run. That very quickly adds up.
 

Baxenden Bank

Established Member
Joined
23 Oct 2013
Messages
4,045
Regarding cost to run things there are many variables that people don't think about. With televisions for example many people have sky boxes and sound bars both of which push up the cost of running it. Interestingly though as well a friend of mine has 10 GU10 50w halogen bulbs in her kitchen. If the cost of electricity is 20p a kilowatt hour then it is costing her 10p an hour to run. That very quickly adds up.
This is, I think, where people need some genuine guidance on specific costs for specific appliances in real time. Those display gadgets that they give out with smart meters are a gimmick as they only tell you in total what you are using at a given point or over a given period of time. It would have been far better to give (or loan for a period) a power meter so people could attach it in turn to each of their appliances.

When I hear of people living on cold food because they 'can't afford to heat food', I hear someone who hasn't done the sums and worked out that heating a tin of soup in the microwave costs 2.3p, or boiling the kettle for a cup of tea costs 2.7p. In my admittedly casual observations I have seen nothing by charities / advice agencies offering that kind of practical information or running a loan scheme for power meters.
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
When I hear of people living on cold food because they 'can't afford to heat food', I hear someone who hasn't done the sums and worked out that heating a tin of soup in the microwave costs 2.3p, or boiling the kettle for a cup of tea costs 2.7p. In my admittedly casual observations I have seen nothing by charities / advice agencies offering that kind of practical information or running a loan scheme for power meters.

....not helped by the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2 taking a call from a man who said he had worked out that it cost £1.68 for him to use his toaster for three minutes to make two slices of toast.

Jeremy Vine didn't question this, which then gives listeners a false impression of the running costs of everyday electrical appliances.

For a toaster to cost £1.68 to operate for three minutes, it would have to have a rating of over 110kw, which would blow the fuse box as soon as you switched it on, or the price per unit of electricity would have to be nearly £40, at which point there would be civil unrest.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,317
Location
St Albans
This is, I think, where people need some genuine guidance on specific costs for specific appliances in real time. Those display gadgets that they give out with smart meters are a gimmick as they only tell you in total what you are using at a given point or over a given period of time. It would have been far better to give (or loan for a period) a power meter so people could attach it in turn to each of their appliances.

When I hear of people living on cold food because they 'can't afford to heat food', I hear someone who hasn't done the sums and worked out that heating a tin of soup in the microwave costs 2.3p, or boiling the kettle for a cup of tea costs 2.7p. In my admittedly casual observations I have seen nothing by charities / advice agencies offering that kind of practical information or running a loan scheme for power meters.
Since having solar panels and a smart meter fitted, I have found the smart meter display very useful. I'm not interested in it telling me how much my consumption has cost each day or week, I can easily calculate that from the current price per unit. What I have found useful though is it giving the background electricity consumption at various times of day.
For example:
in daylight hours, the background demand is between 250 and 350W​
in evenings when lighting is required, that rises about 50W​
overnight when we are moving around the house it falls to 150WE to 200W​
Those figures are fairly constant winter to summer, (we have gas heating) but the consumption in the last month or so since the first heatwave has risen to 450-550W for much of the time to which I ascribe to the fridge/freezer/wine cooler as they are all in the kitchen. Instantaneous demand from kettle, washing machine, dishwasher, microwave are easily calculated based on intermittent use.

The probelm is that the general public has no idea of how much electricity they demand so these (free) displays are there to help that lay population.

....not helped by the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2 taking a call from a man who said he had worked out that it cost £1.68 for him to use his toaster for three minutes to make two slices of toast.

Jeremy Vine didn't question this, which then gives listeners a false impression of the running costs of everyday electrical appliances.

For a toaster to cost £1.68 to operate for three minutes, it would have to have a rating of over 110kw, which would blow the fuse box as soon as you switched it on, or the price per unit of electricity would have to be nearly £40, at which point there would be civil unrest.
Jeremy Vine is a persistent sensationalist, his lunchtime programme is the radio equivalent to click-bait. He should be ashamed of that because he was a respectable journalist.
 

DelayRepay

Established Member
Joined
21 May 2011
Messages
2,929
I got a leaflet from my energy supplier containing a selection of energy saving tips.

To be honest they are pretty useless, e.g. dry your washing outside to avoid using the tumble dryer. If people need to be advised that this is a way of saving electricity, then there's no wonder we're in a mess! What it didn't advise on, which would have been more helpful, was how to avoid creating damp if you want to dry your washing indoors without using the tumble dryer, either because it's raining or because you don't have any outside space.

It also gave the often quoted advice about turning the heating down by 1 degree. If I did that every time a newspaper or charity suggested it, my heating would be set to about minus 50 degrees now!

At the same time, there are people trying to save energy who are actually using more as a result. For example my mum proudly told me she's saving energy by using the 'quick wash' on her washing machine. She thought because it wasn't running for as long, it would use less energy. Actually, it uses more to compensate for the fact the clothes aren't soaking in water for as long.

The real problem though is that most people haven't got scope to reduce their usage significantly, especially if they were already being careful. Using the microwave instead of the oven will at best save a few pence per meal. I know this adds up over a year but when we're facing bills of thousands of pounds, it won't make much of a dent in them. The things that will help, like insulation or replacing old windows require a significant capital investment which most people don't have.

Like most people I am trying to reduce usage e.g. by taking shorter and cooler showers, washing clothes less often and only when I have a full load, waiting til the dishwasher's full before setting it going... but I don't expect any of these to have much of an impact on my bills.
 

Baxenden Bank

Established Member
Joined
23 Oct 2013
Messages
4,045
....not helped by the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2 taking a call from a man who said he had worked out that it cost £1.68 for him to use his toaster for three minutes to make two slices of toast.

Jeremy Vine didn't question this, which then gives listeners a false impression of the running costs of everyday electrical appliances.

For a toaster to cost £1.68 to operate for three minutes, it would have to have a rating of over 110kw, which would blow the fuse box as soon as you switched it on, or the price per unit of electricity would have to be nearly £40, at which point there would be civil unrest.
0.047kWh or 1.5p daytime. Or just 0.8p on nightime rates if you breakfast early enough or supper late enough! Wait till you hear the click at midnight then set loose the beasts to burn. :lol:

I suspect the likes of Jeremy Vine, on their BBC talent salary*, wouldn't know how much any of his bills were. That, fundamentally, is the problem. An MP on £85,000 may notice a £5,000 electric bill (£1,250 quarterly) but it won't hurt like it will for a pensioner on £10,000.

The bovine waste product will hit the ceiling mounted air circulation appliance once we reach autumn, once those costs start hitting home and are reflected in people's bills.

Continuing my BBC hate-rant. There was a story the other day that 'energy companies will start increasing their prices once the new cap is announced'. No, no no. They may start increasing people's direct debit amounts to reflect the price increase which comes into effect on 1 October. Related but not the same thing. I really would think that a BBC journalist, or at least their editor, would understand that.

*BBC Annual reports: Jeremy Vine: £295,000 - £299,999 band in 2020/21, down from £700,000 - £749,999 band in 2016/17. I guess the rest is hidden in BBC Studios or he is doing seriously fewer shows now.
 

Ediswan

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2012
Messages
2,872
Location
Stevenage
Continuing my BBC hate-rant. There was a story the other day that 'energy companies will start increasing their prices once the new cap is announced'. No, no no. They may start increasing people's direct debit amounts to reflect the price increase which comes into effect on 1 October. Related but not the same thing. I really would think that a BBC journalist, or at least their editor, would understand that.
Their current article (3 days old) says that monthly DD bills may increase before 1 October. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-62494406
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
6,203
Location
Surrey
I wouldn't describe myself as a light user more I spent hours working out how to save energy. Probably the biggest saving on energy for me has been selective room heating (for example at night time there is no point in heating any room other than my bedroom) also geofencing heating so it switches off when no one is at home.

Regarding cost to run things there are many variables that people don't think about. With televisions for example many people have sky boxes and sound bars both of which push up the cost of running it. Interestingly though as well a friend of mine has 10 GU10 50w halogen bulbs in her kitchen. If the cost of electricity is 20p a kilowatt hour then it is costing her 10p an hour to run. That very quickly adds up.
twenty years they gave away CFL bulbs in the millions my parents had 20+ unused when i had clear the place out. They were better than incandescent bulbs but had a a warm up time before you got full light level so they never used many of them. However, LED bulbs are brilliant straight on and an energy consumption 1/15th of incandescent but no ones giving them away now (actually the energy companies were obliged to fund energy saving). Won't save you a fortune but minimal cost to run and no one should be without light at home for themselves or their children.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,317
Location
St Albans
twenty years they gave away CFL bulbs in the millions my parents had 20+ unused when i had clear the place out. They were better than incandescent bulbs but had a a warm up time before you got full light level so they never used many of them. However, LED bulbs are brilliant straight on and an energy consumption 1/15th of incandescent but no ones giving them away now (actually the energy companies were obliged to fund energy saving). Won't save you a fortune but minimal cost to run and no one should be without light at home for themselves or their children.
Unless we are talking about those twits that filled their cupboards with 100W tungsten lamps, thinking that they had got one over the EU. :rolleyes:
 

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
4,469
At the same time, there are people trying to save energy who are actually using more as a result. For example my mum proudly told me she's saving energy by using the 'quick wash' on her washing machine. She thought because it wasn't running for as long, it would use less energy. Actually, it uses more to compensate for the fact the clothes aren't soaking in water for as long.

The real problem though is that most people haven't got scope to reduce their usage significantly, especially if they were already being careful. Using the microwave instead of the oven will at best save a few pence per meal. I know this adds up over a year but when we're facing bills of thousands of pounds, it won't make much of a dent in them. The things that will help, like insulation or replacing old windows require a significant capital investment which most people don't have.

Like most people I am trying to reduce usage e.g. by taking shorter and cooler showers, washing clothes less often and only when I have a full load, waiting til the dishwasher's full before setting it going... but I don't expect any of these to have much of an impact on my bills.
Related to this, I saw a Jack Monroe tweet (her usual Jeremy Vine esque drivel). In the replies someone had said they were "thinking of buying a hot water urn (the type with an element in the bottom) so I can keep the water hot all day and only have to boil the kettle once". Someone had tried to point out that would cost more to run than just boiling what you need each time, but were shouted down.
Then you've got the morons who think it's more efficient to keep the central heating on 24/7 "so that the fabric of the house doesn't get cold and you waste fuel heating it up again".

twenty years they gave away CFL bulbs in the millions my parents had 20+ unused when i had clear the place out. They were better than incandescent bulbs but had a a warm up time before you got full light level so they never used many of them. However, LED bulbs are brilliant straight on and an energy consumption 1/15th of incandescent but no ones giving them away now (actually the energy companies were obliged to fund energy saving). Won't save you a fortune but minimal cost to run and no one should be without light at home for themselves or their children.
Yeah I remember those. They were rubbish and gave out a horrible harsh light as well as taking ages to come to full brightness. Waste of resources which allowed them to dodge doing proper energy efficiency stuff that would have cost more.
Unless we are talking about those twits that filled their cupboards with 100W tungsten lamps, thinking that they had got one over the EU. :rolleyes:
Raises hand.
In fairness I refused to use the rubbish CFL bulbs. But a few years ago had the entire house converted to LED (except for 2 old lamps which have little halogen bulbs). I now do have a couple of boxes of tungsten bulbs which I have no use for!
 

Baxenden Bank

Established Member
Joined
23 Oct 2013
Messages
4,045
....not helped by the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2 taking a call from a man who said he had worked out that it cost £1.68 for him to use his toaster for three minutes to make two slices of toast.

Jeremy Vine didn't question this, which then gives listeners a false impression of the running costs of everyday electrical appliances.

For a toaster to cost £1.68 to operate for three minutes, it would have to have a rating of over 110kw, which would blow the fuse box as soon as you switched it on, or the price per unit of electricity would have to be nearly £40, at which point there would be civil unrest.
I think I see the callers problem. He has entered the unit price as pounds rather than pence, typing 32.43 (£32.43) rather than £0.3243 (my current rates as example)

Their current article (3 days old) says that monthly DD bills may increase before 1 October. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-62494406
I think that article is related (I sought it out after I posted), I was listening to the radio version where the journalist/newsreader definitely referred to 'prices being increased' then the soundbite referred to Direct Debits being increased. Typical attention grabbing headlinery.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,964
Location
Scotland
Also with energy costs many people make mistakes about what costs what to run.
Indeed. There are a lot of myths out there.
Then you've got the morons who think it's more efficient to keep the central heating on 24/7 "so that the fabric of the house doesn't get cold and you waste fuel heating it up again".
This one is 95% myth but there is some truth to it - depending on exact circumstances. Where this one comes from is that people, when they come into a cold house where the heating has been off all day tend to whack the heating up to full by turning the thermostat up to the maximum in the belief that it will heat the house up faster. Which means that they shoot past the ideal temperature, then turn the thermostat back down - possibly too low - and this does waste energy as they shoot up and down past the ideal temperature. And, of course, this will be even worse if they don't have any kind of zonal control over the heating, meaning that it's the temperature in one location (possibly the hallway) that's being used to try and control the heating.
 

DelayRepay

Established Member
Joined
21 May 2011
Messages
2,929
I had a smart meter fitted last week, and I'm finding it interesting watching the electricity 'usage now' screen when I turn things on or off.

I've never gone to the trouble of working out the exact consumption of my appliances but I've always worked on the basis that:
  • Things should be turned off when not being used (e.g. lights in unused rooms, TV if not being watched)
  • Although some people suggest unplugging things like the TV rather than using standby, this isn't worth the hassle as the standby usage is so low it makes virtually no difference. And it is a hassle getting to some of my plugs (behind furniture etc)
  • Anything that generates heat (kettle, washing machine etc) is likely to consume a lot of energy so usage should be minimised
Based on what my smart meter's shown me, I think my assumptions have been reasonably accurate. The smart meter's interesting but it's not identified anything I'm doing that is using excessive energy.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,317
Location
St Albans
I had a smart meter fitted last week, and I'm finding it interesting watching the electricity 'usage now' screen when I turn things on or off.

I've never gone to the trouble of working out the exact consumption of my appliances but I've always worked on the basis that:
  • Things should be turned off when not being used (e.g. lights in unused rooms, TV if not being watched)
  • Although some people suggest unplugging things like the TV rather than using standby, this isn't worth the hassle as the standby usage is so low it makes virtually no difference. And it is a hassle getting to some of my plugs (behind furniture etc)
  • Anything that generates heat (kettle, washing machine etc) is likely to consume a lot of energy so usage should be minimised
Based on what my smart meter's shown me, I think my assumptions have been reasonably accurate. The smart meter's interesting but it's not identified anything I'm doing that is using excessive energy.
The 'unplug everything' advice is misleading and those in the know should be embarrassed if they don't challenge it for what it is, i.e. a futile 'we must do something' gesture. Things that do drive domestic consumption are space and water heating, incandescent lighting, refrigeration, tumble dryers, and the latest craze, portable 'air conditioners'.
Washing machines are getting better as they use less water, wash at lower temperatures thanks to more advanced detergents, and have cycles tailored more closely to the task.
 

Hadders

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
27 Apr 2011
Messages
13,378
....not helped by the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2 taking a call from a man who said he had worked out that it cost £1.68 for him to use his toaster for three minutes to make two slices of toast.

Jeremy Vine didn't question this, which then gives listeners a false impression of the running costs of everyday electrical appliances.

For a toaster to cost £1.68 to operate for three minutes, it would have to have a rating of over 110kw, which would blow the fuse box as soon as you switched it on, or the price per unit of electricity would have to be nearly £40, at which point there would be civil unrest.
I heard that on the Vine programme and was surprised he wasn't corrected, or someone else call in to correct him.

Ended up giving a very misleading impression.
 

DelayRepay

Established Member
Joined
21 May 2011
Messages
2,929
The 'unplug everything' advice is misleading and those in the know should be embarrassed if they don't challenge it for what it is, i.e. a futile 'we must do something' gesture.
It might have been true years ago when appliances were less energy efficient. But I agree that today it's pointless given how little power a device on standby uses.

Washing machines are getting better as they use less water, wash at lower temperatures thanks to more advanced detergents, and have cycles tailored more closely to the task.
Yes - the advice booklet from my energy supplier suggested switching to a 30 degree wash would save £7 a year. It would probably save me less as I already use the 30 degree programme for some of my washing, and I'm a single person so don't run the washer as often as an 'average' household would.

The problem is that some of the 'experts' are presenting this advice as though it's a silver bullet that will off-set the price rises. There will be a lot of disappointed people who, having switched their washing machine to 30 and started unplugging the TV overnight, find their bill is still double what it used to be.

When I was a lot younger, one of my houses had a pre-payment meter so I am quite good at understanding what's likely to use a lot of electricity. Back then there were times when I'd put off doing the washing up or ironing clothes, but that was more about delaying the expense because the meter was low and the shop was closed, rather than trying to save money.

....not helped by the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2 taking a call from a man who said he had worked out that it cost £1.68 for him to use his toaster for three minutes to make two slices of toast.

Jeremy Vine didn't question this, which then gives listeners a false impression of the running costs of everyday electrical appliances.

For a toaster to cost £1.68 to operate for three minutes, it would have to have a rating of over 110kw, which would blow the fuse box as soon as you switched it on, or the price per unit of electricity would have to be nearly £40, at which point there would be civil unrest.
The question is, if he really thought a slice of toast was costing £1.68, why did he not just eat bread?

I wonder how much this chap thinks a 10 minute electric shower, or a load of washing, or doing the hoovering cost?!
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
I heard that on the Vine programme and was surprised he wasn't corrected, or someone else call in to correct him.

Ended up giving a very misleading impression.

As has been said earlier, it is likely that the customer mistook the price per unit as being in pounds rather than pence.

But the fact that Jeremy Vine didn't question it, or didn't correct it, speaks volumes about the nature of the Jeremy Vine programme.

My 850 watt toaster costs 1.27p to operate for three minutes.

Similarly my 7kw electric shower costs 10p to operate for three minutes, or 7p if I use it before 06:30 whilst the night rate still applies.

If it really cost £1.68 to operate a toaster for three minutes, then either people wouldn't use toasters anymore, or there would be protests in the streets about the price of electricity.
 

GusB

Established Member
Associate Staff
Buses & Coaches
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
6,709
Location
Elginshire
....not helped by the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2 taking a call from a man who said he had worked out that it cost £1.68 for him to use his toaster for three minutes to make two slices of toast.
Obviously that's not taking into account the other things that are running at the same time. I winced a little the other day when I switched the kettle on; the display jumped from its base-line 100-200W to 3.3kw (nothing out of the ordinary there) and then jumped a further 3kW! As it turned out, the water heater had switched on just a few seconds after I'd flicked the kettle switch.

The smart display has actually changed my behaviour quite a lot. Obviously there are some things that can't be avoided - the kettle being one. I've always just filled it with the required amount anyway. However, it was instrumental in identifying that my hot water was costing me far more by being on a timer and coming on a few times a day, than just leaving it switched on all the time and letting the thermostat switch on and off as required. At this time of year my solar panels should be doing most of the heavy lifting anyway.

Another thing I learned very quickly is that if I want to boil water on the hob, there isn't really much difference in the time it takes between settings 5 and 6, but the amount of electricity is quite significant. Since I made those small changes I haven't had the damn thing beep and me and scream "Overbudget" at me.

When I had a look at the stats on my electricity app, the largest source of energy use at the moment is the fridge.
At the same time, there are people trying to save energy who are actually using more as a result. For example my mum proudly told me she's saving energy by using the 'quick wash' on her washing machine. She thought because it wasn't running for as long, it would use less energy. Actually, it uses more to compensate for the fact the clothes aren't soaking in water for as long.

I was under this impression too, having mostly used the "30 at 30" setting. I'm the only one in the house now, so the washing machine tends to get used only once a week anyway and there's no real noticeable difference. I've been using the "Eco" setting a bit more now, but it takes so long that I only ever use it if I'm not planning to go anywhere for a few hours.

twenty years they gave away CFL bulbs in the millions my parents had 20+ unused when i had clear the place out. They were better than incandescent bulbs but had a a warm up time before you got full light level so they never used many of them. However, LED bulbs are brilliant straight on and an energy consumption 1/15th of incandescent but no ones giving them away now (actually the energy companies were obliged to fund energy saving). Won't save you a fortune but minimal cost to run and no one should be without light at home for themselves or their children.

When I worked in the Co-op a few years ago they had an offer on CFL bulbs; it was cheaper to buy 5 than to buy one. Despite the good deal, they did not sell very well at all. With staff discount they were ridiculously cheap and I bought a load for my house and another load for my now late father. He was of the opinion that incandescent bulbs were far superior and that he was earning enough to afford to use them. However, when LED bulbs became more popular he switched over fairly quickly. When we were emptying his house a few weeks ago, we found the CFL stash in the shed and, as I don't have any real objection to them, it means that I've got at least another 10 years' supply to hand!
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
98,389
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I was under this impression too, having mostly used the "30 at 30" setting. I'm the only one in the house now, so the washing machine tends to get used only once a week anyway and there's no real noticeable difference. I've been using the "Eco" setting a bit more now, but it takes so long that I only ever use it if I'm not planning to go anywhere for a few hours

I've always found "30 at 30" not to properly clean clothes. It gets visible muck out, but e.g. sweat is still there.

If using a low temperature, you need a longer cycle. But that's fine, because agitating clothes every 5-10 seconds or so isn't hugely energy-heavy.
 

Baxenden Bank

Established Member
Joined
23 Oct 2013
Messages
4,045
Then you've got the morons who think it's more efficient to keep the central heating on 24/7 "so that the fabric of the house doesn't get cold and you waste fuel heating it up again".
Other than the insulting use of the word 'morons' to describe people who just don't have accurate information to hand, it would be useful if you could expand on this point.

If I return to an unheated house after a few days away then all of the house is cold - the walls, the furniture, the furnishings and the contents. As I put heat into the house some of it, by the laws of physics/nature, is going to be absorbed by those items. You can't heat just an air bubble surrounding your person - although I do note the phrase 'heat the body not the house'. How many hours per day would a house need to be occupied before it actually was beneficial to keep the whole fabric heated permanently or the other way round how long would the house need to be unnoccupied to make it worth losing the heat after the morning burn and warming it again upon return?
 
Last edited:

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,876
Ultimately the political classes only plan is to blow tens of billions in a few months denying reality with regards energy prices.

The reality is that subsidising energy prices is going to consume more money than the Society can spare very very quickly.
Insulation probably isn't worth it given the restrictions on our available manpower and equipment pool and its limited effectiveness. (Even the pro insulation people talking about 10% energy savings most of the time)

The only way to get around this is to go and build generating plant as fast as possible so that this mess can never repeat itself.
 

Baxenden Bank

Established Member
Joined
23 Oct 2013
Messages
4,045
Ultimately the political classes only plan is to blow tens of billions in a few months denying reality with regards energy prices.

The reality is that subsidising energy prices is going to consume more money than the Society can spare very very quickly.
Insulation probably isn't worth it given the restrictions on our available manpower and equipment pool and its limited effectiveness. (Even the pro insulation people talking about 10% energy savings most of the time)

The only way to get around this is to go and build generating plant as fast as possible so that this mess can never repeat itself.
If only we had an alternative energy source under our feet and a means of turning that into energy. Fiddlers Ferry and friends say 'hi' by the way.

The headlong rush to close coal burners without having an alternative in place first. The reliance on gas from, shall we say, countries with dubious practices. A lack of long-term strategic thinking or planning. A reliance on 'the market' solving everything - which it will if you earn enough to pay £5,000 per year. I guess MP's will award themsleves a pay rise to cover their increased energy bills (those not claimed on expenses that is) and probably back-date it too.
 

Baxenden Bank

Established Member
Joined
23 Oct 2013
Messages
4,045
"Fast as possible" needs some clarification in terms of actual reality in the number of years this aspiration will actually take.
Not fast enough to deal with the current 'situation'. Hence one of the energy firms proposals, discussed in the weekend press, to set up a 'borrowing scheme' so they can hold prices down for a couple of years.

Whether there is currently a 'situation' depends upon how you look at it. Rabid free-marketeers, which includes the current Cabinet, think everything is working fine. Unfortunately their ideological purity is being confronted by the reality of politics. The peasant masses are revolting.

Found a handy tool to estimate power usage, though it'll need to be updated with the cap rising soon. Many household appliances represented. Imagine if the caller into Vine spent ten seconds having a quick google first.

https://www.sust-it.net/toaster-cost-calculator.php
Or the radio producer / presenter - before allowing the general public on-air. It would be quite easy to pre-select callers and research their points ahead of broadcast. But that wouldn't bait the public.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top