On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 19:19:58 +1100, 2987fr, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rot Speed, wrote:

If you feel strongly about it, onstead of posting brain dead Mail
fiction, why not contact an MEP such as Farage who is well known for
speaking up on UK citizens interests.

Because there is nothing an MEP can do about it.
Specially one that only has 5 weeks as an MEP to go.

Just what does it take to make you shut your senile big gob, you senile
Ozzie cretin? A baseball bat across it? tsk

--
Richard addressing Rot Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

On 22/02/2019 09:15, Robin wrote:
On 22/02/2019 08:41, RJH wrote:
snip
Probably not worth it. But convenient and accurate filling/dispensing
for just what's used, an insulating shell, and variable temperature
may well be worth considering.

I agree about variable temperature, although the working group in the
previous EU programme were rather cack-handed in handling the fact that
most things don't need water at 100 degrees but "some tea drinkers
insist on" boiling water.


Well yes, I do as it goes. I've got one of those one-cup water heater
things, and tea definitely tastes different with the c.90C water it
dispenses. But fine for herbal teas, instant coffee, minor washups.


--
Cheers, Rob

"Andy Bennet" wrote in message
...
... and you can heat it overnight on cheap rate electrity. BTW our 220l
vented tank has a heat loss of 78W (delta T not specified). and as you say
that goes towards heating the house anyway.

Yes, I suppose as long as you have space in your house for a really big
cylinder then you can heat the water overnight, keep it hot with relatively
little loss which the heatpump can replenish, and hope that you never use
all that water before the next time it can be heated (cheaply).

The house that I was mentioning earlier with the heatpump and whining air
duct in each room had the largest cylinder I've ever seen: about 6 feet tall
and 2'6" diameter. Hell of a volume of water there!

"NY" wrote in message
o.uk...
"harry" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 21 February 2019 21:34:59 UTC, NY wrote:
"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
That makes them about twice as efficient as a gas power power station
(ours are around 40%, and most of the 'dash for gas' ones were lower),
so it makes no sense unless we aren't running any gas power stations
by then.

When has common sense ever affected any environmental kneejerk decision.

It makes perfect sense if you understand the technology.
Which clearly,you don't.

There are probably many reasons that coal is bad and other forms of energy
are better. I don't dispute that.

But the problem comes when you close the coal stations *before* having
sufficient replacement in place, leaving the country running very short of
energy at times.

I do wonder whether it is better to burn gas in people's houses to heat
them directly, as opposed to burning it centrally in a power station and
then using the electricity to heat the houses.

They dont in fact burn much gas in power stations to heat houses given
that gas powered generators are mostly running in peak demand times.

It isnt even clear that much gas is burnt in power
stations instead of being used for cooking directly
either given that few have gas ovens anymore.

All energy conversion tends to produce heat as a waste by-product.

But that mostly goes to waste in power stations.

Given that fact, it is better that this heat is produced where it is
needed, rather than in a power station where it has to be got rid of with
cooling towers or other heat exchangers.

Yes, but thats mostly relevant to base power generation,
not so much with peak power generation that is where
gas is mostly used in power generation now.

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
harry wrote:

NY wrote:

The kettle thing is particularly short-sighted because it takes a fixed
amount of energy to heat a fixed amount of water:

Well ****-fer-brains, the reason is smaller power stations is needed to
deliver that power.
Ti's about peak loads.

But more people will be using their underpowered kettles at any given
instant, so the same power stations required.

Not if there still is a significant spike when the ads come on TV.

"2987fr" wrote in message
...

Not with a kettle they dont except with the amount of water you heat
and few kettles do a minimum amount of water very well at all.

Our kettle, a cheap one from Lakeland or somewhere, is quite happy heating
up 500-750 ml of water - just enough for a *large* mug of coffee. It has the
heating element embedded in the metal base of the kettle, so there is no
curly element within the water which has to be completely covered.

NY wrote
2987fr wrote

Not with a kettle they dont except with the amount of water you heat and
few kettles do a minimum amount of water very well at all.

Our kettle, a cheap one from Lakeland or somewhere, is quite happy heating
up 500-750 ml of water - just enough for a *large* mug of coffee.

Thats a bloody large mug of coffee.

It has the heating element embedded in the metal base of the kettle, so
there is no curly element within the water which has to be completely
covered.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
It isnt even clear that much gas is burnt in power
stations instead of being used for cooking directly
either given that few have gas ovens anymore.

Yes, I was surprised when I bought a new house in 2000, with cooker already
fitted by the builder, to find that the hob was gas but the oven was
electric. Electric ovens do have the big advantage that they can be easily
controlled by a timer to come on later in the day, whereas I understand that
the equivalent functionality in gas ovens is a lot more complicated because
they have to operate a gas valve by solenoid and then check that the gas has
been lit, otherwise go through the lighting cycle a couple more times, and
then give up and turn the gas off.

My parents have a little holiday cottage in a tiny village. There was and
probably never will be a gas supply. My parents chose bottled gas (!) for
central heating. Then a couple of decades the gas company installed a large
main that passed within a few hundred metres of the village. The residents
asked how much it would cost to have a tee off this to the village. They
were quoted a ridiculous amount, and a disproportionate amount was for
digging the trench. One of the farmers offered to dig that with his JCB,
leaving the skilled work of laying the pipe to the skilled people. But no,
that was Not Allowed. The approved contractor had to be used.

It's a shame that my parents chose bottled gas rather than oil, because the
gas cylinders are horrendously expensive (*) in relation to the number of
days of heating they give. Even when the original boiler packed up and had
to be replaced, my parents replaced it like-for-like rather than switching
to oil.


(*) About £150 for 2x47 kg propane, which last about 2-3 weeks when
supplemented by a coal stove in the living room. The fact that the house is
200 years old, with single-thickness stone walls (no cavity) means that its
insulation is pretty crap.

NY wrote
Rod Speed wrote

It isnt even clear that much gas is burnt in power
stations instead of being used for cooking directly
either given that few have gas ovens anymore.

Yes, I was surprised when I bought a new house in 2000, with cooker
already fitted by the builder, to find that the hob was gas but the oven
was electric. Electric

Yeah, almost universal now, gas ovens dont work very well at all.

Fine for hobs, but not ovens.

ovens do have the big advantage that they can be easily controlled by a
timer to come on later in the day,

And work much better than gas ovens even
when you dont need a delayed start.

whereas I understand that the equivalent functionality in gas ovens is a
lot more complicated because they have to operate a gas valve by solenoid
and then check that the gas has been lit, otherwise go through the
lighting cycle a couple more times, and then give up and turn the gas off.

That mostly does work fine with boilers tho.

My parents have a little holiday cottage in a tiny village. There was and
probably never will be a gas supply. My parents chose bottled gas (!) for
central heating. Then a couple of decades the gas company installed a
large main that passed within a few hundred metres of the village. The
residents asked how much it would cost to have a tee off this to the
village. They were quoted a ridiculous amount, and a disproportionate
amount was for digging the trench. One of the farmers offered to dig that
with his JCB, leaving the skilled work of laying the pipe to the skilled
people. But no, that was Not Allowed. The approved contractor had to be
used.

It's a shame that my parents chose bottled gas rather than oil, because
the gas cylinders are horrendously expensive (*) in relation to the number
of days of heating they give.

But do avoid the standing charge with piped gas when you arent using it.

Mate of mine still has bottled gas for his house for that reason
even tho piped gas is available in every street in my town and
has been for decades now.

Even when the original boiler packed up and had to be replaced, my parents
replaced it like-for-like rather than switching to oil.

No one has used oil here now for a hell of a long time;
Much more expensive than electricity or gas.

(*) About £150 for 2x47 kg propane, which last about 2-3 weeks when
supplemented by a coal stove in the living room. The fact that the house
is 200 years old, with single-thickness stone walls (no cavity) means that
its insulation is pretty crap.

On 22/02/2019 08:59, Andy Burns wrote:
harry wrote:

NY wrote:

The kettle thing is particularly short-sighted because it takes a fixed
amount of energy to heat a fixed amount of water:

Well ****-fer-brains, the reason is smaller power stations is needed
to deliver that power.
Ti's about peak loads.

But more people will be using their underpowered kettles at any given
instant, so the same power stations required.

Christ! harry is thick.




--
€œI know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of
conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which
they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by
thread, into the fabric of their lives.€�

ۥ Leo Tolstoy

NY pretended :
The kettle thing is particularly short-sighted because it takes a fixed
amount of energy to heat a fixed amount of water: it is irrelevant whether
it's 3 kW for 2 minutes or 1.5 kW for 4 minutes - the amount of energy used
is the same.

If the element is 100% efficient, which an electric kettle is - the
longer it takes to boil, the more heat lost whilst waiting for it to
boil - the more energy lost. Reduce the Kw input enough and it would
never boil. Larger Kw = higher efficiency.

On 22/02/2019 08:24, 2987fr wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 21/02/2019 21:42, charles wrote:
In article , NY
wrote:
"ARW" wrote in message
...
On 21/02/2019 14:28, NY wrote:

And you have to "sell" the idea that it will be more expensive to
install, and maybe to run, and (according to the article) will take
longer to heat up a room - presumably because it is lower power.
That's a hell of an advertising and PR campaign that you are going to
need :-)

Something like..

"It's not lower powered, it's more efficient."

That's almost as bad as the low-powered vacuum cleaners which don't
produce enough suction so you have to keep going over the same bit of
carpet, or lower-powered kettles which take longer to heat the water...
but the legislators can't see further than "it uses less power".

The kettle thing is particularly short-sighted because it takes a fixed
amount of energy to heat a fixed amount of water: it is irrelevant
whether it's 3 kW for 2 minutes or 1.5 kW for 4 minutes - the amount of
energy used is the same.

but you might get more radiation losses with the longer time?

you WILL get more radiation losses...

But not enough to matter. But its far from clear that half power kettles
are worth it.

Its clear that they are not.

I had a freind who got extremely upset if I filled his kettle more than
necessary to make a cuppa.

Let's look at the numbers.

A pint is what? 450ml? So maybe I added an extra half pint of cold at
let's say 10C. 225ml of water to be raised by 90C.

20.25kcal A staggering 23 Wh.

Lets say I do this 4 times a day 365 times a year.

at 20p a unit its over £6!!!!

yeah right. And at least 50% of that is discountable against heating anyway.

Average heating bills on a typical house are around 2-3kW CONTINUOUS
averaged out over the year.

When you do teh sums ist pretty celar waht is genuine energu savings
(insulation, heat pumps, running the house a bit cooler) and what is
utter ******** virtue signalling designed to sell product (kettles and
hoovers, diesel cars etc etc).





--
€œI know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of
conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which
they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by
thread, into the fabric of their lives.€�

ۥ Leo Tolstoy

2987fr used his keyboard to write :
Not with a kettle they dont except with the amount of water you heat
and few kettles do a minimum amount of water very well at all.

Our kettle, Morphy Richards jug type - has no visible element, flat
bottom and the water gauge's lowest level is far too high. I normally
put in a bit more than I need, but still not enough to show on the
sight level. SWMBO just fills it every time and it is constantly on the
boil. I rarely drink tea, I mostly drink coffee, either from a coffee
machine or 50/50 milk and water heated in the cup, in the microwave for
1:30.

On 22/02/2019 08:41, RJH wrote:

The kettle is well within the top 5 consumers of household electricity

Total Utter ********.

Its amongst the bottom 5.


and is the one appliance that virtually every household has and uses.
Many little gains that are cheap and easy to adopt add up.


Oh FFS a **** who cannot do sums.

Electric lights are by far and away the greatest users of electricity
unless you use heaters.

Then always on appliances like fridges and routers .... I probly spend
ten times more on computing kit than I do on kettles.


Then electric cookers or anything else heating serious volumes of
air/water/food.

Unles you make a cupp at three times an hour in which case the kettle
may in fact have stayed warm anyway, its pathetically small amounts involved

A 1KW kettle for a minute, is the same electricity as a 50W something or
other for 20 minutes. .

And all of this tends to pale into inisgnifance behind heating bills anyway.


--
€œI know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of
conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which
they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by
thread, into the fabric of their lives.€�

ۥ Leo Tolstoy

On 22/02/2019 08:55, NY wrote:

There are probably many reasons that coal is bad and other forms of
energy are better. I don't dispute that.

Yep. Sulphur and other trace pollutants.

But the problem comes when you close the coal stations *before* having
sufficient replacement in place, leaving the country running very short
of energy at times.
#
Yup.

I do wonder whether it is better to burn gas in people's houses to heat
them directly, as opposed to burning it centrally in a power station and
then using the electricity to heat the houses.

It is very very marginal. With a heat pump. CCGT at say 50% and a 3:1
uptick gets you '150%' efficiency...in terms of gas to heat. stuff that
down a 80% transmission networl and that goes down to 120%, so pretty
mnear break even.



All energy conversion
tends to produce heat as a waste by-product. Given that fact, it is
better that this heat is produced where it is needed, rather than in a
power station where it has to be got rid of with cooling towers or other
heat exchangers.

Except when you have a nuclear power station you dont really care. The
fuel is so cheap..

France runs on nukes and direct electric heating very happily.


--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

harry explained :
Well ****-fer-brains, the reason is smaller power stations is needed to
deliver that power.
Ti's about peak loads.

The difference so far as the supply network is concerned and it's peak
load - between 2Kw for one minute and 0.5Kw for four minutes is...?

On 22/02/2019 09:01, Andy Bennet wrote:
On 22/02/2019 07:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/02/2019 20:51, NY wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
I don't know how the DHW works. Perhaps a second stage heat pump.
She seems happy with it but the house is now on the market:-)

DHW uses heatpump as preheater then immersion.

So you have to heat a cylinder of water in advance, rather than
having the heat-on-demand of a combi boiler. Yet another nail in the
coffin for the system as far as I am concerned. Having to plan ahead
when you are going to have a bath (or keep the cylinder permanently
hot) is a real retrograde step.

Â*Â*WEell a modern mains perssure tank lose very little heat and since
you are already all electric with heating it loses it inside te house
where its need 9 minths of the year.

And its way better than a combi in terms of hot water delivery,


... and you can heat it overnight on cheap rate electrity. BTW our 220l
vented tank has a heat loss of 78W (delta T not specified). and as you
say that goes towards heating the house anyway.

Sadly in my case it goes towards heating the vented attic :-)


--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

On 22/02/2019 09:24, NY wrote:
"Andy Bennet" wrote in message
...
... and you can heat it overnight on cheap rate electrity. BTW our
220l vented tank has a heat loss of 78W (delta T not specified). and
as you say that goes towards heating the house anyway.

Yes, I suppose as long as you have space in your house for a really big
cylinder then you can heat the water overnight, keep it hot with
relatively little loss which the heatpump can replenish, and hope that
you never use all that water before the next time it can be heated
(cheaply).

The house that I was mentioning earlier with the heatpump and whining
air duct in each room had the largest cylinder I've ever seen: about 6
feet tall and 2'6" diameter. Hell of a volume of water there!

That is about standard for a family house.

I think I have a 220L as well.


--
€œThose who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit
atrocities.€�

€• Voltaire, Questions sur les Miracles Ã* M. Claparede, Professeur de
Théologie Ã* Genève, par un Proposant: Ou Extrait de Diverses Lettres de
M. de Voltaire

2987fr submitted this idea :

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
harry wrote:

NY wrote:

The kettle thing is particularly short-sighted because it takes a fixed
amount of energy to heat a fixed amount of water:

Well ****-fer-brains, the reason is smaller power stations is needed to
deliver that power.
Ti's about peak loads.

But more people will be using their underpowered kettles at any given
instant, so the same power stations required.

Not if there still is a significant spike when the ads come on TV.

So the TV broadcasters need to be encouraged to stagger their ad break
times. A modern TV which can use a HDD to pause a program helps to ease
the network load peaks.

On 22/02/2019 09:30, 2987fr wrote:


"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
harry wrote:

NY wrote:

The kettle thing is particularly short-sighted because it takes a fixed
amount of energy to heat a fixed amount of water:

Well ****-fer-brains, the reason is smaller power stations is needed
to deliver that power.
Ti's about peak loads.

But more people will be using their underpowered kettles at any given
instant, so the same power stations required.

Not if there still is a significant spike when the ads come on TV.

so what? First of all we dont all watch te same channels anymore.
Secondly we build Dinorwig to cater for exactly this proble, A short
term peak.

Ther are 20 million households. If all of them simultaneoustly switch
on a 2KW kettle thats 40GW! So waht? even if they weer 500W kettles
thats still 10GW.

The fact is they simply dont. They are staggered. and the net effect of
20 million 500W kettles staying on longer is identical to the effect of
20 million 2KW kettles staying in shorter.

Ther is no rational cases to be made for reducing kettle power. Indeed
there are rational reasons for increasing it, to save electricity.




--
€œThose who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit
atrocities.€�

€• Voltaire, Questions sur les Miracles Ã* M. Claparede, Professeur de
Théologie Ã* Genève, par un Proposant: Ou Extrait de Diverses Lettres de
M. de Voltaire

On 22/02/2019 10:36, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
2987fr submitted this idea :

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
harry wrote:

NY wrote:

The kettle thing is particularly short-sighted because it takes a
fixed
amount of energy to heat a fixed amount of water:

Well ****-fer-brains, the reason is smaller power stations is needed
to deliver that power.
Ti's about peak loads.

But more people will be using their underpowered kettles at any given
instant, so the same power stations required.

Not if there still is a significant spike when the ads come on TV.

So the TV broadcasters need to be encouraged to stagger their ad break
times. A modern TV which can use a HDD to pause a program helps to ease
the network load peaks.

There'll be new "smart" TVs that enforce variable delays, different in
different households. And advertisers will "lobby" for the elimination
of advert skipping. It's the Internet of (rubbish) Things!

--
Max Demian

On 22/02/2019 09:21, 2987fr wrote:


Not with a kettle they dont except with the amount of water you heat
and few kettles do a minimum amount of water very well at all.

that is where concealed element kettles win

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

In article , NY
wrote:
"Andy Bennet" wrote in message
...
... and you can heat it overnight on cheap rate electrity. BTW our 220l
vented tank has a heat loss of 78W (delta T not specified). and as you
say that goes towards heating the house anyway.

Yes, I suppose as long as you have space in your house for a really big
cylinder then you can heat the water overnight, keep it hot with
relatively little loss which the heatpump can replenish, and hope that
you never use all that water before the next time it can be heated
(cheaply).

The house that I was mentioning earlier with the heatpump and whining air
duct in each room had the largest cylinder I've ever seen: about 6 feet
tall and 2'6" diameter. Hell of a volume of water there!

enough for a decent bath.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 22/02/2019 10:04, Rod Speed wrote:
NY wrote
Rod Speed wrote

It isnt even clear that much gas is burnt in power
stations instead of being used for cooking directly
either given that few have gas ovens anymore.

Yes, I was surprised when I bought a new house in 2000, with cooker
already fitted by the builder, to find that the hob was gas but the
oven was electric. Electric

Yeah, almost universal now, gas ovens dont work very well at all.

Fine for hobs, but not ovens.

ovens do have the big advantage that they can be easily controlled by
a timer to come on later in the day,

And work much better than gas ovens even
when you dont need a delayed start.

Gas ovens heat up much more quickly. I used to bake bread in a gas oven;
I raised it in the oven set very low and just increased the setting for
baking. No need for pre-heat.

Do they still use gas marks rather than degrees Celsius in gas ovens? I
haven't seen an explanation why gas ovens use these arbitrary numbers
rather than degrees (Fahrenheit or Celsius), though I have some ideas
why it might have happened.

--
Max Demian

On 22/02/2019 10:24, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 22/02/2019 08:41, RJH wrote:

The kettle is well within the top 5 consumers of household electricity

Total Utter ********.

Its amongst the bottom 5.


and is the one appliance that virtually every household has and uses.
Many little gains that are cheap and easy to adopt add up.


Oh FFS a **** who cannot do sums.

Electric lights are by far and away the greatest users of electricity
unless you use heaters.

Then always on appliances like fridges and routers .... I probly spend
ten times more on computing kit than I do on kettles.


Then electric cookers or anything else heating serious volumes of
air/water/food.

Unles you make a cupp at three times an hour in which case the kettle
may in fact have stayed warm anyway, its pathetically small amounts
involved

A 1KW kettle for a minute, is the same electricity as a 50W something or
other for 20 minutes. .

And all of this tends to pale into inisgnifance behind heating bills
anyway.



I note you don't actually cite any figures. Those who do[1] suggest
kettles are on average about 4 per cent of average UK electricity
consumption. I'd call that small but far from insignificant.

[1] eg

"The annual energy consumption of domestic electric kettles has been
measured by the UK Energy Saving Trust, based on kettles in 412
households. Average kettle annual electricity consumption was 167 kWh.
This is correct for the UK, but consumption in other EU States will be
different, higher or lower, depending on user behavior. Two other
studies86 have published domestic kettle usage data:

ï‚· The UK government Market Transformation Programme (MTP) assumes a
gross volume of 1542 litre per year and per household for the electric
kettle, which €“taking into account one-third over-filling€”comes down to
a net consumption of 1000 litres/household/year.

ï‚· Netherlands TNO Voeding calculate a net consumption of 1000 litres of
boiling water, with 650 litres for hot drinks and 350 litres for cooking
(vegetables, pasta, etc.)

The €œQuooker Energy Analysis showed that typical electric kettles
consumes 564 kWh of primary energy (2030MJ) based on boiling 1000 litres
per year. This is equivalent to 226kWh of electricity but with
production energy is excluded is 217kWh / 1000 litres,

The Household Electricity survey which studied 250 UK households between
2010 and 2011 founf that 168 kWh / kettle per year is consumed (very
similar to the MTP figure."

from draft final report from Ecodesign Working Plan 2015-2017


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 19:19:58 +1100, "2987fr" wrote:



"Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp" wrote in
message ...
On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 00:33:02 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...en-target.html

Well they are poisoning the users I suppose.
Once again Lam a trendsetter. No gas in our house!

Should being the operative word.

More lies by a racist Brexit traitor.

If you feel strongly about it, onstead of posting brain dead Mail
fiction, why not contact an MEP such as Farage who is well known for
speaking up on UK citizens interests.

Because there is nothing an MEP can do about it.
Specially one that only has 5 weeks as an MEP to go.

Well not a problem then is it?

AB

On 22/02/2019 06:18, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 21 February 2019 22:03:33 UTC, George Miles wrote:
Ed Davey MP told our 2018 Green Libdem conference:
"In government we were experimenting with electrified heating, heat pumps, experimenting with biomass, and district heating. But at relatively low volumes. There's a reason for that. That is that there's a real challenge if you use those technologies to replace methane gas, it looks like it will be very expensive, take a long time, and have a lot of political reaction. Most people are used to their gas boilers and central heating systems, nice and simple with north sea gas. To rip out all that? I call that politically brave. We haven't quite worked out how to do that.

Instead there's a lot around Hydrogen (which really wasn't happening when I was Secretary of State).

Whether or not hydrogen or some other form of hydrogen mix or a biofuel could be used as a replacement for fossil fuel gas. We're a long way off from knowing if that is going to happen, so don't rush off say Ed says hydrogen's the way of the future. it may be, it may not, we don't know.


Hydrogen is total bollix.
Expensive, inefficient and dangerous.
It will never happen.

Just shove it through the existing pipes. Convert everyone like from
coal to natural gas. Coal gas contained a lot of hydrogen anyway.

--
Max Demian

On 22/02/2019 10:24, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 22/02/2019 08:41, RJH wrote:

The kettle is well within the top 5 consumers of household electricity

Total Utter ********.

Its amongst the bottom 5.


and is the one appliance that virtually every household has and uses.
Many little gains that are cheap and easy to adopt add up.


Oh FFS a **** who cannot do sums.


From one who can?

Electric lights are by far and away the greatest users of electricity
unless you use heaters.

Then always on appliances like fridges and routers .... I probly spend
ten times more on computing kit than I do on kettles.


Yes, that's *you*. I understand of course that you think that the world
revolves around you and your sad ways, but I'd like to present a
possibility: it doesn't.

Besides which I presented the figures, and some peer reviewed research,
on this topic a year or so ago on this very NG. I even took the trouble
to write to the author about a couple of queries raised here.


--
Cheers, Rob

On 22/02/2019 10:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 22/02/2019 08:24, 2987fr wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 21/02/2019 21:42, charles wrote:
In article , NY
wrote:
"ARW" wrote in message
...
On 21/02/2019 14:28, NY wrote:

And you have to "sell" the idea that it will be more expensive to
install, and maybe to run, and (according to the article) will take
longer to heat up a room - presumably because it is lower power.
That's a hell of an advertising and PR campaign that you are
going to
need :-)

Something like..

"It's not lower powered, it's more efficient."

That's almost as bad as the low-powered vacuum cleaners which don't
produce enough suction so you have to keep going over the same bit of
carpet, or lower-powered kettles which take longer to heat the
water...
but the legislators can't see further than "it uses less power".

The kettle thing is particularly short-sighted because it takes a
fixed
amount of energy to heat a fixed amount of water: it is irrelevant
whether it's 3 kW for 2 minutes or 1.5 kW for 4 minutes - the
amount of
energy used is the same.

but you might get more radiation losses with the longer time?

you WILL get more radiation losses...

But not enough to matter. But its far from clear that half power
kettles are worth it.

Its clear that they are not.

I had a freind who got extremely upset if I filled his kettle more than
necessary to make a cuppa.


Good.

Let's look at the numbers.


OK :-)

A pint is what? 450ml? So maybe I added an extra half pint of cold at
let's say 10C.Â* 225ml of water to be raised by 90C.

20.25kcal A staggering 23 Wh.

Lets say I do this 4 times a day 365 times a year.

at 20p a unit its over £6!!!!


Times over 20 million households. Costs are not just monetary, or per user.

yeah right. And at least 50% of that is discountable against heating
anyway.


Well yes, in your case, where you need 365.24.7 heating. I accept that
you seem to say you do - most don't.

Average heating bills on a typical house are around 2-3kW CONTINUOUS
averaged out over the year.


That seems to be the total energy consumption - of which, yes, space and
water heating takes up the bulk.

When you do teh sums ist pretty celar waht is genuine energu savings
(insulation, heat pumps, running the house a bit cooler) and what is
utter ******** virtue signalling designed to sell product (kettles and
hoovers, diesel cars etc etc).


How can you expect anybody to take you seriously with that type of
reasoning? Any energy saving is a saving. Wasting energy is wasting
energy. Not difficult.

--
Cheers, Rob

On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 18:52:52 -0000, NY wrote:

I get the distinct impression that the government are banning existing CH
systems (as with ways of generating electricity) before they have got a
replacement that is at least as good. Replacing with something worse is
worthy of the strongest possible contempt.

I suppose modern houses can at least be insulated better than existing
houses are.

Maybe the idea is to encourage developers/builders to fit better
insulation.

On 21/02/2019 19:13, Andy Bennet wrote:
On 21/02/2019 18:52, NY wrote:


(*) I presume it does, since you say that it replaces your wet system.

No, it was to replace our existing boiler and couple up to our existing
wet rad system. Problem is we would need a 16kW output system at high
temperature. To get high temperature (up to 80C) out of a air source
system you need a two stage system, one outside air heat exchanger plus
a further heat pump indoors to raise the temperture further. The outside
unit is quite a large two fan unit. We were not convinced it would be
quiet enough. Plus it needs a firm concrete base to stand on. All things
considered a very expensive install.

The most efficient system is a ground source heat pump but this is just
too cost prohibitive for a retrofit system. I guess it would be more
suitable for new builds.

Less useable in high density housing though... as with many "green"
projects they are good for virtue signalling if you have spare land and
money.

All things considered it was a toss up between a high cost install and
cheap running, or a low cost install but more expensive to run. The
electric boiler won hands down purely on replacement cost, low
maintenace, low noise and a unit smaller than a gas boiler.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
NY wrote
2987fr wrote

Not with a kettle they dont except with the amount of water you heat
and few kettles do a minimum amount of water very well at all.

Our kettle, a cheap one from Lakeland or somewhere, is quite happy
heating up 500-750 ml of water - just enough for a *large* mug of coffee.

Thats a bloody large mug of coffee.

It is: a Harry Potter "Marauder's Map" mug, filled about 1 1/2 times. Or a
conventional mug filled twice.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

No one has used oil here now for a hell of a long time;
Much more expensive than electricity or gas.

As far as I know, most (*) houses in the UK use gas if it is available, or
oil if there's no gas supply; either way heating water for circulating
through radiators. Some people may opt for LPG, or for heat pumps or storage
heaters or bottled gas (**). Our last house had no gas, so we used oil - we
had a big enough tank that we could buy it at the best price, usually spring
or autumn, avoiding the peak demand of winter and summer (summer is peak
demand in hot countries for air-con, apparently ***). Our supplier had a
price break at 1000 litres, and our 1400 litre tank allowed us some
flexibility about timing while still letting us fit a minimum of 1000 litres
per delivery - usually. It's a hell of an outlay all at once, but then
nothing for a long time after that.


(*) A bold statement: I'm bound to be proved wrong by statistics that
someone will quote ;-)

(**) It probably made sense for my parents to use bottled gas for the
cottage, given that it was only really used in the summer, apart from
frost-free heating all year round. But my wife and I are living there full
time at the moment, having sold our house and not yet found another, and the
cost for regular heating is astronomical. I'm not sure whether it costs more
to use only gas, or to use coal in the stove in the lounge so the central
heating doesn't need to work so hard.

(***) I've never understood why greater use of air-con, which is powered by
electricity, should drive up diesel and heating oil prices, especially in
countries like the UK which don't have so much usage of air-con.

On 22/02/2019 09:22, RJH wrote:
On 22/02/2019 09:15, Robin wrote:
On 22/02/2019 08:41, RJH wrote:
snip
Probably not worth it. But convenient and accurate filling/dispensing
for just what's used, an insulating shell, and variable temperature
may well be worth considering.

I agree about variable temperature, although the working group in the
previous EU programme were rather cack-handed in handling the fact
that most things don't need water at 100 degrees but "some tea
drinkers insist on" boiling water.


Well yes, I do as it goes. I've got one of those one-cup water heater
things, and tea definitely tastes different with the c.90C water it
dispenses. But fine for herbal teas, instant coffee, minor washups.



You have the wrong sort.. the ones that heat for about 40 seconds and
then dispense put out boiling water, they have to as its the steam that
propels the water out all in one go.

The ones that trickle don't put out boiling water.

"Max Demian" wrote in message
o.uk...
Do they still use gas marks rather than degrees Celsius in gas ovens? I
haven't seen an explanation why gas ovens use these arbitrary numbers
rather than degrees (Fahrenheit or Celsius), though I have some ideas why
it might have happened.

Yes I've never understood why gas ovens historically used arbitrary "gas
marks". I'm not sure whether modern gas cookers still have the oven
calibrated that way. I've never had one myself (it was always all-electric
or gas hob / electric oven), but my parents have an all-gas cooker, though
that's probably about 20 years old now so not an indicator of modern
practice. I remember them having to buy it as a panic purchase when their
old gas cooker, which they bought when they were married, so 56 years ago,
was condemned by the gas engineer who came to fix a slow leak from one of
the hob burners. I remember my mum had made a stew which she was going to
put in the oven as soon as the gas engineer had finished, and it had to go
in the fridge until they had a new cooker to cook it. And they had to live
on things that could be microwaved - they couldn't even heat up a pan of
baked beans or grill some toast.

I remember that it originally had a gas taper: a little jet on the end of a
plastic hose which you lit from a burner and then used to light an ignition
point on the floor of the oven or beside the burner of the grill. That gas
taper was condemned many years ago because the hose was too easy to trap in
the oven door - that was probably done about the time that the UK changed
over from "town gas" (manufactured in a "gas works" by roasting coal) to
"natural gas" in the early 70s. After that we had to use wooden spills to
light the oven and grill. I remember the little blanking plate that was
fitted where the plastic hose had connected on the side of the cooker. That
cooker had a feature that you don't get on many modern cookers - an
eye-level grill rather than one under the hob, maybe shared with a small
oven: eye-level makes it much easier to check that the grill has been lit
successfully (or left on accidentally), and to see how your bacon is
cooking.

On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 20:21:16 +1100, 2987fr, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rot Speed, wrote:


Not with a kettle they don¢t except with the amount of water you heat
and few kettles do a minimum amount of water very well at all.

So, for how long will you go on about this idiotic kettle thing again,
senile Rot? Do you really have nothing better to do in your senile "life"
other than troll on Usenet, you 85-year-old, obnoxious, senile pest? BG

--
"Anonymous" to trolling senile Rot Speed:
"You can **** off as you know less than pig **** you sad
little ignorant ****."
MID:

On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 20:55:21 +1100, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:

Our kettle, a cheap one from Lakeland or somewhere, is quite happy heating
up 500-750 ml of water - just enough for a *large* mug of coffee.

That¢s a bloody large mug of coffee.

Yeah, I'd like to stuff such a one into your big gob, senile Rot!

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On 22/02/2019 11:23, mechanic wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 18:52:52 -0000, NY wrote:

I get the distinct impression that the government are banning existing CH
systems (as with ways of generating electricity) before they have got a
replacement that is at least as good. Replacing with something worse is
worthy of the strongest possible contempt.

I suppose modern houses can at least be insulated better than existing
houses are.

Maybe the idea is to encourage developers/builders to fit better
insulation.

That's easy enough - just update the building regs with a higher minimum
level for new builds / substantial alterations.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 20:30:25 +1100, 2987fr, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rot Speed, wrote:


But more people will be using their underpowered kettles at any given
instant, so the same power stations required.

Not if

In auto-contradicting mode again, a pathological senile idiot? tsk

--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing senile Rot:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID:

On 22/02/2019 10:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 22/02/2019 08:24, 2987fr wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 21/02/2019 21:42, charles wrote:
In article , NY
wrote:
"ARW" wrote in message
...
On 21/02/2019 14:28, NY wrote:

And you have to "sell" the idea that it will be more expensive to
install, and maybe to run, and (according to the article) will take
longer to heat up a room - presumably because it is lower power.
That's a hell of an advertising and PR campaign that you are
going to
need :-)

Something like..

"It's not lower powered, it's more efficient."

That's almost as bad as the low-powered vacuum cleaners which don't
produce enough suction so you have to keep going over the same bit of
carpet, or lower-powered kettles which take longer to heat the
water...
but the legislators can't see further than "it uses less power".

The kettle thing is particularly short-sighted because it takes a
fixed
amount of energy to heat a fixed amount of water: it is irrelevant
whether it's 3 kW for 2 minutes or 1.5 kW for 4 minutes - the
amount of
energy used is the same.

but you might get more radiation losses with the longer time?

you WILL get more radiation losses...

But not enough to matter. But its far from clear that half power
kettles are worth it.

Its clear that they are not.

I had a freind who got extremely upset if I filled his kettle more than
necessary to make a cuppa.

Let's look at the numbers.

A pint is what? 450ml? So maybe I added an extra half pint of cold at
let's say 10C.Â* 225ml of water to be raised by 90C.

20.25kcal A staggering 23 Wh.

568 ml, a pint takes about 60 Whr to heat by 90c.
I'm not surprise a natural philosopher can't do sums.


Lets say I do this 4 times a day 365 times a year.

Lets say someone at home actually does it ten time a day.


at 20p a unit its over £6!!!!

yeah right. And at least 50% of that is discountable against heating
anyway.

Or added on to cooling in summer.


Average heating bills on a typical house are around 2-3kW CONTINUOUS
averaged out over the year.

Yeah gods why do you need that much heating?
My heating is only actually running for about six hours a day in winter
and never in summer. It doesn't use fuel for all that time either.


And you think everyone else does the same as you.



When you do teh sums ist pretty celar waht is genuine energu savings
(insulation, heat pumps, running the house a bit cooler) and what is
utter ******** virtue signalling designed to sell product (kettles and
hoovers, diesel cars etc etc).