Energy price rises and price cap discussion.

[DelayRepay]

For a while I had a 'broken' machine which failed to heat the water at all but otherwise worked fine. The clothes washed fine too as far as I could tell but after a few months towels started getting a bit smelly. I suspect that it is to do with the ingredients of liquid soap rather than the washing cycle. I determine this because I have been recycling bath water for other purposes and the buckets collect a gloopy slimy residue with the same smell.

I can't tell you the science, but I can tell you if you soak the towels in a solution of warm water and vinegar it will deal with the soapy residue.

As to temperature, if I need to heat water (immersion) at at least 50 degrees to kill any bugs, surely something similar applies to laundry? All those shirts you sneezed into the elbow of.

I usually washed my work shirts at 40, and didn't have an issue. Occasionally I'd treat them to a hotter wash if the collar was stained. I have not worn a formal work shirt since March 2020 though. Now I tend to switch between 30 and 40 depending on what's in the load and how dirty it is. It's good to do a 60 or 90 degree wash occasionally as it clears the 'gunk' out of the machine.

Also, as @Bletchleyite refers to leaving detergent on clothes after a shorter wash, and someone referred to how ECO and low temperature washes take advantage of modern detergents, how do these work on non-bio powders - for us softies with sensitive skin?

I sometimes use an extra rinse cycle, and it's surprising how soapy the water is.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Some GCSE science.
Newton's law of cooling: the rate of heat loss of a body is directly proportional to the difference in temperatures between the body and its environment.
Law of conservation of energy: energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

Assume your thermostat and heating system is perfect, i.e. when it's set it always delivers the exact right amount of heat required to keep the house at a constant temperature.

Therefore (and by the law of conservation of energy), the energy used by the heating system is exactly equal to the energy that is lost from the house as heat.

Let's declare some variables:
- To = outside temperature
- Tt = thermostat temperature
- Th = house temperature

Say you go out for an hour and you don't know whether to keep the heating on or not.
Option 1: You keep the heating on. By Newton's law of cooling, the amount of energy used is k * (1 hour) * (Tt - To), where k is some constant.
Option 2: You turn the heating off. Your house cools down as it loses heat. For argument's sake, let's say you've set a timer or used an app to turn the heating back on 10 minutes before you get home so it's toasty when you get in. Here the heat loss and hence amount of energy used is k times the integral of (Th - To) over the 1-hour period.

Since at all times To <= Th <= Tt, it's pretty clear that Option 2 uses less energy than Option 1.

GCSE, well after my time. I got a 'C' at O level physics but that was a long time ago.

My thought was, if materials absorb / lose heat at different rates then some items in my house will heat up more slowly during the heating phase, then lose their heat more slowly in the non heating phase. For example a thick wood table or lots of books. The surface temperature will be close to room air temperature but the heart of the material may not be. Hence, when I leave home the furniture continues to lose heat to the room air which then loses it to the external temperature. When I return home, I heat the air but the now cold heart of the table absorbs some of that heat, so I have to heat more air. Similarly if a room is fully warmed and I open the patio door, the warm air rushes out / cold rushes in but the furniture remains warm to the touch and in its heart - for a period until equilibrium is restored. Is there not a period, however short, that it is better to prevent that block of wood from cooling down?

I don't keep the oven on because the temperature difference is large: 20C versus 200C and it is relatively poorly insulated. If the oven were 100% efficiently insulated you could keep it on all the time.

Yes, it's always cheaper to turn off the heating if the house in unoccupied. Same reason you always turn off the oven when you aren't cooking anything, even if you're going to cook something later.
@Adoarable has explained eloquently.
Also, consider these two charts, which visualise what has been said. Heat loss is equivalent to k * the shaded area. The shaded area is larger in case 1, therefore more heat has been lost in case 1, therefore you've used more fuel. QED. It's really basic thermodynamics and not at all difficult to understand, which is why I felt justified to describe people who believe the counter-factual in the way I did.

Now, it might be more comfortable or preferable for other reasons to keep the house warm, but you only keep the walls etc warm by continually replacing the heat that they are dissipating to the atmosphere. To pretend or try to convince that it uses less fuel to do this than not keeping the house warm when unoccupied is anti-science, and, yes, moronic.

I'm sure there are many things that you do not fully understand. Does that make you a moron in those matters? A reasoned explanation, giving people the ability to understand your argument is probably much more productive.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

GCSE, well after my time. I got a 'C' at O level physics but that was a long time ago.

My thought was, if materials absorb / lose heat at different rates then some items in my house will heat up more slowly during the heating phase, then lose their heat more slowly in the non heating phase. For example a thick wood table or lots of books. The surface temperature will be close to room air temperature but the heart of the material may not be. Hence, when I leave home the furniture continues to lose heat to the room air which then loses it to the external temperature. When I return home, I heat the air but the now cold heart of the table absorbs some of that heat, so I have to heat more air. Similarly if a room is fully warmed and I open the patio door, the warm air rushes out / cold rushes in but the furniture remains warm to the touch and in its heart - for a period until equilibrium is restored. Is there not a period, however short, that it is better to prevent that block of wood from cooling down?

No. The amount of heat that you'd need to inject to warm the block of wood back up again is still less than that total heat you'd have had to expend to keep it warm all the time you were out.

One point that is however debatable is that, depending on how much you care about the environment/what you're paying for energy, you may feel that, if you're only out for a short time then the additional energy you use in keeping the house warm while you are out is worth paying for in order to have the convenience of an already-warm house on your return, rather than having to wait a short while for it to warm up again).

(I do agree with you though that it's insulting and not reasonable to call people who don't have that knowledge/understanding 'moronic')

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

It is true that nothing can help this winter, but that's the reality of where we are. You can't undo 40 years of energy policy in a few months.

Not entirely true the majority of electricity and gas price have been sold forward at prices set years ago and prices around £50-75/MWh not the £250-300MW/h that is the day ahead price currently which they use for price cap. Furthermore majority of renewable energy is being sold through power purchase agreements over 5-25 year timelines at a price they need to cover the construction costs plus c5% profit margin mainly linked to RPI/CPI. The price of renewable power was higher but that is no longer the case with power prices so much higher yet we as consumers don't see the benefit from all the subsidies that have gone into renewables. What happens in our power market is the price is set by the most expensive generator on the system and when the grid demand is high its calling on less efficient generators who are buying their gas in the day ahead market and paying a lot for it due to world prices driving up the cost for everybody. This in turn is making huge profits for suppliers largely not the generators but they benefit if they do benefit if selling into balancing mechanism but that is small part of total supply. The suppliers are then using the price cap to set their tariffs irrespective of what its actually costing them and many are raking in huge profits as a results and AREN'T subject to windfall tax.

I know its seems counter intuitive but the best thing that could happen is to remove the energy cap and let the supplier set the price yes it will still be higher than 12mths ago but in all likelihood far lower than the projections.

 

[trebor79]

Is there not a period, however short, that it is better to prevent that block of wood from cooling down?

No.

I don't keep the oven on because the temperature difference is large: 20C versus 200C and it is relatively poorly insulated. If the oven were 100% efficiently insulated you could keep it on all the time.

Doesn't matter. Principle is the same.

 

[najaB]

Doesn't matter. Principle is the same.

Well, if it was 100% insulated then it wouldn't matter if you turned it off or not, as long as you didn't open the door.

 

[trebor79]

I'm sure there are many things that you do not fully understand. Does that make you a moron in those matters? A reasoned explanation, giving people the ability to understand your argument is probably much more productive.

Fair enough.
I wasn't calling you a moron, but I've come across arguments like this before and it does get exasperating when people stick to their guns even when it's explained.
Hopefully you have enough information now to understand.
Like the guy recently who told me electric cars are a scam perpetrated by the electricity industry because if they fitted generators to the back wheels you'd never have to charge them...

Well, if it was 100% insulated then it wouldn't matter if you turned it off or not, as long as you didn't open the door.

But again, this is a thermodynamic impossibility.

 

[najaB]

But again, this is a thermodynamic impossibility.

Of course. But it does illustrate the point that, if a house is sufficiently insulated, the difference in energy use between leaving the heating on and turning it off becomes insignificant.

 

[trebor79]

Of course. But it does illustrate the point that, if a house is sufficiently insulated, the difference in energy use between leaving the heating on and turning it off becomes insignificant.

Sure. But I think we were talking about standard UK housing stock, not a PassiveHaus.

 

[najaB]

But I think we were talking about standard UK housing stock, not a PassiveHaus.

That's exactly the point. Something approaching PassivHaus level should be the standard for all new construction in the UK.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's exactly the point. Something approaching PassiveHaus level should be the standard for all new construction in the UK.

I'd go as far as mandatory for all new planning applications, effective immediately.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Well, if it was 100% insulated then it wouldn't matter if you turned it off or not, as long as you didn't open the door.

So as soon as someone invents a teleport, that will be the first market for it... teleporting food in and out of the oven so you don't have to waste energy by opening the oven door

 

[nlogax]

That's exactly the point. Something approaching PassivHaus level should be the standard for all new construction in the UK.

There's already a draft bill in place for this exact proposal to be considered by the Scottish parliament.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There's already a draft bill in place for this exact proposal to be considered by the Scottish parliament.

Good, now England/Wales/NI need to do it too!

 

[Baxenden Bank]

So as soon as someone invents a teleport, that will be the first market for it... teleporting food in and out of the oven so you don't have to waste energy by opening the oven door

Or some kind of food heating device which didn't need to be brought up to temperature first. You could place your food in, press some buttons, it would be cooked, then you remove it. Oh I don't know, by exciting the molecules in some way. But that science is also beyond my layman science.

The key point, relevant to the thread, is the need for scientists / experts / campaigners to be honest with people. To be willing to explain the measures which can / need to be taken, to be honest about the costs / savings which can realistically be achieved in the real world. Given the recent Covid experience there has been too much of 'do this because we say say' not backed up by evidence (for example face coverings, where, when what type, impact).

I referred to the out of date advice on the Energy Saving Trust website. How many people will turn off all their items on standby, not achieve the promised £35 per year savings, then dismiss all their other advice as a result?

Here's another, which to my simple mind equates to 'keep your heating on whilst out to maintain a constant temperature';

keeping your home a constant temperature helps save energy

from: energy at home

with detail

Whether you are looking for quick wins around your home or a professional to install insulation, the suggestions below will help maintain a constant temperature in your home.

from: reducing home heat loss

 

[najaB]

Here's another, which to my simple mind equates to 'keep your heating on whilst out to maintain a constant temperature';

That seems a little disingenuous given the headline which that phrase is the sub-head to:


And the page it links to is all about insulation - which will help keep the home a constant temperature.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It wouldn't surprise me if it was better to keep the home at the same temperature while you are in it rather than yoyoing from "too cold" to "too hot" on a timer as most people do - or at least it'll be more comfortable without really costing any more unless you have a really lossy house and just want it on for the first hour while you get up, shower and put a jumper on. Mine via Tado is set up to be a set temperature (just dropped it to 19 degrees from 20 to see how that feels and save a few quid, though I obviously won't know for a few months) and a set lower one overnight which it never seems to reach (16). Tado automatically lets it drop if I go out and brings it back up as I start to come back - it's much better than pretty much all the other smart thermostats yet is relatively poorly known due to the power of British Gas's marketing on the vastly inferior Hive.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

That seems a little disingenuous given the headline which that phrase is the sub-head to:
View attachment 119288

And the page it links to is all about insulation - which will help keep the home a constant temperature.

But that is how people in the real world see things. A quick skim rather than in depth reading and thought and as a result getting the wrong end of the stick. 2+2 = 5 etc.
The line there could better be: insulating your home helps save energy.
Keeping your home a constant temperature, say 30C, doesn't save energy!
Plus there are far too many happy, smiley, lovey people in the pictures, as in the example above. Do people really get that happy looking at rolls of insulation or a lower than previous electric bill?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Plus there are far too many happy, smiley, lovey people in the pictures, as in the example above. Do people really get that happy looking at rolls of insulation or a lower than previous electric bill?

No, but it works as a form of very effective marketing - if you see happy people allegedly doing X, you'll want to do X too.

If seeing happy people genuinely upsets you (as distinct from just seeing it as slightly cynical but effective marketing) I'd seek help to be honest.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

No, but it works as a form of very effective marketing - if you see happy people allegedly doing X, you'll want to do X too.

If seeing happy people genuinely upsets you (as distinct from just seeing it as slightly cynical but effective marketing) I'd seek help to be honest.

It reminds me of pamphlets by a religious group keen on door-to-door evangelising.

Or what was the picture on the front cover of the Prince 2 handbook - a bloke with a similar excessive smile doing the 'o' thing with thumb and forefinger. All my group, including the course tutor though that way too cheesy.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It reminds me of pamphlets by a religious group keen on door-to-door evangelising.

Ah, fair enough.

Or what was the picture on the front cover of the Prince 2 handbook - a bloke with a similar excessive smile doing the 'o' thing with thumb and forefinger. All my group, including the course tutor though that way too cheesy.

Americanised IT books and training material almost always are!

 

[najaB]

But that is how people in the real world see things. A quick skim rather than in depth reading and thought and as a result getting the wrong end of the stick. 2+2 = 5 etc.

Someone skim reading is going to see "Reducing home heat loss" not the sub-head that's half the size underneath it.

 

[AM9]

It wouldn't surprise me if it was better to keep the home at the same temperature while you are in it rather than yoyoing from "too cold" to "too hot" on a timer as most people do - or at least it'll be more comfortable without really costing any more unless you have a really lossy house and just want it on for the first hour while you get up, shower and put a jumper on. Mine via Tado is set up to be a set temperature (just dropped it to 19 degrees from 20 to see how that feels and save a few quid, though I obviously won't know for a few months) and a set lower one overnight which it never seems to reach (16). Tado automatically lets it drop if I go out and brings it back up as I start to come back - it's much better than pretty much all the other smart thermostats yet is relatively poorly known due to the power of British Gas's marketing on the vastly inferior Hive.

It really does make a difference. The amount of power that your house/flat/room needs to be at a given temperature is directly related to that temperature vs that outside, so for every hour that it is maintained there but isn't needed at that temperature, there is excess energy being consumed. It may be that energy costs are a small enough part of your disposable wealth in which case it becomes a luxury, but at a national level, it is irresponsible to promote the myth that it is beneficial in any way to only heating when needed.
Things were different when homes were heated by solid fuel, and a fire could take anything up to an hour to reach full heat output, and unless damped down (which is effectively wasting heat) a similar time to reduce it's consumption. Modern gas boilers can reach full operating temperature in less than 2 minutes and electric heating is almost instantaneous.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Things were different when homes were heated by solid fuel, and a fire could take anything up to an hour to reach full heat output, and unless damped down (which is effectively wasting heat) a similar time to reduce it's consumption. Modern gas boilers can reach full operating temperature in less than 2 minutes and electric heating is almost instantaneous.

The boiler can get max output, yes, but if the fabric of the house cools it can take quite a long time to boost back up again, as evidenced when I come back from holiday, where if I've been away for 2 weeks it takes all day to get up to temperature. Depends on the spec of boiler and radiators.

There are other disadvantages of letting the fabric of a house cool too much, such as vastly increased condensation and damp. Almost all the "angry people in local newspapers" type stories you see of people in mouldy Council houses are because they are underheated (understandably) but also underventilated, e.g. most UK extractor fans aren't good enough to clear damp from a bathroom quickly enough, so you need to open the window (or door, and a window in the nearest room) while and after bathing and showering, same for cooking.

The fix is of course insulation and heat-recovery ventilation, but then that costs, which is why I believe it should be free (and mandatory for new builds and rentals).

 

[AM9]

The boiler can get max output, yes, but if the fabric of the house cools it can take quite a long time to boost back up again, as evidenced when I come back from holiday, where if I've been away for 2 weeks it takes all day to get up to temperature. Depends on the spec of boiler and radiators.

There are other disadvantages of letting the fabric of a house cool too much, such as vastly increased condensation and damp. Almost all the "angry people in local newspapers" type stories you see of people in mouldy Council houses are because they are underheated (understandably) but also underventilated.

Yes, those issues are sometimes important, but it is fundamental deception that is certainly not needed in these climate sensitive days, to say that keeping a house at the same temperature whether occupied or not saves energy (or even uses the same energy), vs only heating it when needed because somebody is actually in the house. The laws of physics say otherwise and it is refected in fuel bills.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

The boiler can get max output, yes, but if the fabric of the house cools it can take quite a long time to boost back up again, as evidenced when I come back from holiday, where if I've been away for 2 weeks it takes all day to get up to temperature. Depends on the spec of boiler and radiators.

There are other disadvantages of letting the fabric of a house cool too much, such as vastly increased condensation and damp. Almost all the "angry people in local newspapers" type stories you see of people in mouldy Council houses are because they are underheated (understandably) but also underventilated, e.g. most UK extractor fans aren't good enough to clear damp from a bathroom quickly enough, so you need to open the window (or door, and a window in the nearest room) while and after bathing and showering, same for cooking.

The fix is of course insulation and heat-recovery ventilation, but then that costs, which is why I believe it should be free (and mandatory for new builds and rentals).

The issue being the difference between 'efficient energy use' and 'comfort'. Letting the house cool down whilst away uses the least energy (see I do listen to science) but delivers lower comfort. When I worked in a large office building and we had the long christmas break (closed 25/12 to 1/1) the heating was turned off and only back on again on the first day back at work. It would take two or three days before the office was comfortable to properly work in - depending on the temperature over the break of course. People sat in coats and gloves but hey, it was energy efficient!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, those issues are sometimes important, but it is fundamental deception that is certainly not needed in these climate sensitive days, to say that keeping a house at the same temperature whether occupied or not saves energy (or even uses the same energy), vs only heating it when needed because somebody is actually in the house. The laws of physics say otherwise and it is refected in fuel bills.

For the record I'm talking about the difference between:
1. Heating for timed slots, e.g. morning and evening, while at home
2. Heating to a specified temperature for the whole time at home other than when in bed

Which I think isn't quite as clear cut, particularly as a lot of people doing (1) will get too cold and so will overheat to compensate.

 

[najaB]

Yes, those issues are sometimes important, but it is fundamental deception that is certainly not needed in these climate sensitive days, to say that keeping a house at the same temperature whether occupied or not saves energy (or even uses the same energy), vs only heating it when needed because somebody is actually in the house. The laws of physics say otherwise and it is refected in fuel bills.

If you are keeping the house at the same temperature by actively injecting thermal energy, then yes it is a waste. If you're keeping the house at the same temperature by reducing the loss of thermal energy and capturing free energy (e.g. sun) then it is not.

 

[DC1989]

Has there been a answer on why the standing charge increases as well as the electricity unit costs? It's all well and good reducing usage. I have reduced usage by 40% but am still paying more due to an increase in standing charges

 

[najaB]

Has there been a answer on why the standing charge increases as well as the electricity unit costs? It's all well and good reducing usage. I have reduced usage by 40% but am still paying more due to an increase in standing charges

Uhm... Reasons?