On 30/04/2022 07:56, Roland Perry wrote:
> although I think that catchy name is fairly new - crops up regularly.

It's useful to prod people into thinking about what really needs to be
switched on 24/7 whether it is in standby or not. You may only make a
grand total of 10W saved per house but multiplied up to 5000000 homes
and that's 50MW a day.

On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 09:05:53 +0100, Scott wrote:

> On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 22:18:04 +0100, Steve Walker
> <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
> [snip]
>
>>The one that always annoys me is the sort of figure they quote for
>>leaving the TV on standby. Our living-room TV is a few years old now,
>>but takes less than 0.2W on standby. So for, say, 20 hours of standby a
>>day, at 28p per unit, that's less than 41p per year. I think I'll put up
>>with the cost for the convenience of not having to switch it on at the
>>socket and wait for it to "boot" up each time.
>
> There are some interesting ideas out there. Friend of mine is now using
> a battery powered radio to save cost of mains electricity.

The 'greenie' estimates for cost of standby mostly seem to assume a gross
cost of 24/7/365, rather than the marginal cost (i.e. when not in use)
which is a bit less.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 19:46:13 +1000, mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> wrote:

> On 30/04/2022 07:56, Roland Perry wrote:
>> although I think that catchy name is fairly new - crops up regularly.
>
> It's useful to prod people into thinking about what really needs to be
> switched on 24/7 whether it is in standby or not. You may only make a
> grand total of 10W saved per house but multiplied up to 5000000 homes
> and that's 50MW a day.

5M homes won't be saving 10W

On 29/04/2022 10:31, alan_m wrote:

> I came to the conclusion not worth the hassle trying to save a penny a
> day making cups of coffee or tea so I've stuck with the electric kettle.
>

Agreed, but the elephant in the room is the cost of coffee. I'm all for
energy saving, but making an investment when your favourite coffee is on
offer - or by buying larger sizes - or choosing a different but good
enough coffee - or combinations of those strategies could, should, save
way more than "a penny a day".

Ditto, tea.

PA

In article <cv8n6ht1nuprfee9crr2bth5ri14f2q062@4ax.com>,
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> I was listening to the radio about rising energy bills then I had my
> breakfast. This got me thinking.

> I have a combi boiler. I intend to turn the heating off for the
> summer. Without the heating, the hot water seems to take longer to
> arrive wasting a lot of water and presumably gas. Would it be more
> efficient to boil a kettle for the washing up?

A kettle is far more 'efficient' at heating water as virtually all the
energy is used for that purpose.

Whether it is cheaper depends on the cost of the electricity against gas.

--
*Many people quit looking for work when they find a job *

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> But British Gas "research" says £24.61 for the TV! However, their figures
> have been heavily criticised as the 2013 EU legislation requires less than
> 0.5W in standby giving an annual cost of around £1.30.

I checked teh consumption of my old TV which was compliant according to the
handbook. If switched off by the remote it still consumed about 30w. this
dropped to <1w (but more than zero) when the off button on the set was
pressed. There's standby and standby, not necessarily the same.

--
Braind

"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

> A kettle is far more 'efficient' at heating water as virtually all the
> energy is used for that purpose.
>
> Whether it is cheaper depends on the cost of the electricity against gas.
>
I checked my gas kettle against my electric one some time ago. The cost of
boiling enoigh to make the tea was remarkably similar due to the better
efficiency of the electric kettle. The gas kettle was no doubt more
efficient at heating the room but would need more ventilation.

--
Braind

In message <59e139f2b7dave@davenoise.co.uk>, "Dave Plowman (News)"
<dave@davenoise.co.uk> writes
>In article <cv8n6ht1nuprfee9crr2bth5ri14f2q062@4ax.com>,
> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> I was listening to the radio about rising energy bills then I had my
>> breakfast. This got me thinking.
>
>> I have a combi boiler. I intend to turn the heating off for the
>> summer. Without the heating, the hot water seems to take longer to
>> arrive wasting a lot of water and presumably gas. Would it be more
>> efficient to boil a kettle for the washing up?
>
>A kettle is far more 'efficient' at heating water as virtually all the
>energy is used for that purpose.
>
>Whether it is cheaper depends on the cost of the electricity against gas.

Our Quooker would appear to be the ultimate in Vampire loading and I
confess to resisting the installation!
However, apart from the expected annual de-scale, I now confess to being
a convert. Not just my instant cups of Tea but how much use it gets by
SWNFI during normal catering and washing up activities.
>

--
Tim Lamb

In message <t4j0h6$hvd$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:46:13 on Sat, 30 Apr
2022, mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> remarked:
>On 30/04/2022 07:56, Roland Perry wrote:
>> although I think that catchy name is fairly new - crops up regularly.
>
>It's useful to prod people into thinking about what really needs to be
>switched on 24/7 whether it is in standby or not. You may only make a
>grand total of 10W saved per house but multiplied up to 5000000 homes
>and that's 50MW a day.

Are we in danger of confusing MW and MWh?

Anyway, 50MW is a tenth of one coal-fired power station, or about 20
large wind turbines, or consumption-wise about ten Eurostar trains. It's
all a bit in the noise level.
--
Roland Perry

Brian D <brian13434@lycos.co.uk> wrote:
> alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> But British Gas "research" says £24.61 for the TV! However, their figures
>> have been heavily criticised as the 2013 EU legislation requires less than
>> 0.5W in standby giving an annual cost of around £1.30.
>
> I checked teh consumption of my old TV which was compliant according to the
> handbook. If switched off by the remote it still consumed about 30w. this
> dropped to <1w (but more than zero) when the off button on the set was
> pressed. There's standby and standby, not necessarily the same.
>

But how long did you monitor it for? I have a vague recollection that some
appliances have a two-stage “shut down” and will drop to a lower standby
consumption after a period (maybe after checking for OTA updates?).

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

In article <mpro.rb5ie40028mfu04s8.brian13434@lycos.co.uk>,
Brian D <brian13434@lycos.co.uk> wrote:
> "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

> > A kettle is far more 'efficient' at heating water as virtually all the
> > energy is used for that purpose.
> >
> > Whether it is cheaper depends on the cost of the electricity against
> > gas.
> >
> I checked my gas kettle against my electric one some time ago. The cost
> of boiling enoigh to make the tea was remarkably similar due to the
> better efficiency of the electric kettle. The gas kettle was no doubt
> more efficient at heating the room but would need more ventilation.

I doubt the gas kettle was more efficinet. Feel above and around it for
wasted heat from the flame, and compare to an electric kettle.

Efficiency and cost ain't the same thing.

--
*Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery?

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article <mpro.rb5i6j0022rhp04s8.brian13434@lycos.co.uk>,
Brian D <brian13434@lycos.co.uk> wrote:
> alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> > But British Gas "research" says £24.61 for the TV! However, their
> > figures have been heavily criticised as the 2013 EU legislation
> > requires less than 0.5W in standby giving an annual cost of around
> > £1.30.

> I checked teh consumption of my old TV which was compliant according to
> the handbook. If switched off by the remote it still consumed about 30w.
> this dropped to <1w (but more than zero) when the off button on the set
> was pressed. There's standby and standby, not necessarily the same.

Just how old is that TV? 30w is more than many take when working. And the
majority of the power is used to 'light' the picture.

--
*A closed mouth gathers no feet.

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 30/04/2022 13:54, Tim+ wrote:
> Brian D <brian13434@lycos.co.uk> wrote:
>> alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> But British Gas "research" says £24.61 for the TV! However, their figures
>>> have been heavily criticised as the 2013 EU legislation requires less than
>>> 0.5W in standby giving an annual cost of around £1.30.
>>
>> I checked teh consumption of my old TV which was compliant according to the
>> handbook. If switched off by the remote it still consumed about 30w. this
>> dropped to <1w (but more than zero) when the off button on the set was
>> pressed. There's standby and standby, not necessarily the same.
>>
>
> But how long did you monitor it for? I have a vague recollection that some
> appliances have a two-stage “shut down” and will drop to a lower standby
> consumption after a period (maybe after checking for OTA updates?).
>
> Tim
>

My pvr takes about 30 seconds to go to deep standby. it saves the EPG
etc. to the hard disk so that it can boot to the same state later.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 10:05:51 +0100, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
wrote:

>In article <gbrp6hpf6n1qsrbve53r1pr00ijhkcvjdq@4ax.com>,
> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 22:18:04 +0100, Steve Walker
>> <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
>> [snip]
>
>> >The one that always annoys me is the sort of figure they quote for
>> >leaving the TV on standby. Our living-room TV is a few years old now,
>> >but takes less than 0.2W on standby. So for, say, 20 hours of standby a
>> >day, at 28p per unit, that's less than 41p per year. I think I'll put up
>> >with the cost for the convenience of not having to switch it on at the
>> >socket and wait for it to "boot" up each time.
>
>> There are some interesting ideas out there. Friend of mine is now
>> using a battery powered radio to save cost of mains electricity.
>
>Have they costed the battries? It used to be 10x mains, perhaps 5 times as
>much now.

I tried to advance this argument but she said batteries are not very
expensive and last a long time. She also suggests that a battery
powered FM radio will be a lot more efficient than any DAB radio.

"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

> > I checked my gas kettle against my electric one some time ago. The cost
> > of boiling enoigh to make the tea was remarkably similar due to the
> > better efficiency of the electric kettle. The gas kettle was no doubt
> > more efficient at heating the room but would need more ventilation.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I doubt the gas kettle was more efficinet. Feel above and around it for
> wasted heat from the flame, and compare to an electric kettle.
>
> Efficiency and cost ain't the same thing.
>
Read the whole sentence.

--
Braind

On 30/04/2022 13:54, Tim+ wrote:
> Brian D <brian13434@lycos.co.uk> wrote:
>> alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> But British Gas "research" says £24.61 for the TV! However, their figures
>>> have been heavily criticised as the 2013 EU legislation requires less than
>>> 0.5W in standby giving an annual cost of around £1.30.
>>
>> I checked teh consumption of my old TV which was compliant according to the
>> handbook. If switched off by the remote it still consumed about 30w. this
>> dropped to <1w (but more than zero) when the off button on the set was
>> pressed. There's standby and standby, not necessarily the same.
>>
>
> But how long did you monitor it for? I have a vague recollection that some
> appliances have a two-stage “shut down” and will drop to a lower standby
> consumption after a period (maybe after checking for OTA updates?).

My Sony TV (bought in 2012) only goes into "proper" standby after 7.5
minutes. Presumably in case the user changes his mind and wants to turn
it on again. The USB sockets (one of which I use to power an LED strip
behind it) remain powered up.

It's the lack of attention to details like this that leads to talk of
"zombie devices".

--
Max Demian

On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 21:40:06 +1000, Dave Plowman (News)
<dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <cv8n6ht1nuprfee9crr2bth5ri14f2q062@4ax.com>,
> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> I was listening to the radio about rising energy bills then I had my
>> breakfast. This got me thinking.
>
>> I have a combi boiler. I intend to turn the heating off for the
>> summer. Without the heating, the hot water seems to take longer to
>> arrive wasting a lot of water and presumably gas. Would it be more
>> efficient to boil a kettle for the washing up?
>
> A kettle is far more 'efficient' at heating water as virtually all the
> energy is used for that purpose.

It's more complicated than that with a single cup of hot water.

There is no wasted hot water when done in the microwave,
there will always be some unused hot water with most kettles
because most need more than just the cup of water in the kettle.

> Whether it is cheaper depends on the cost of the electricity against gas.

On 30/04/2022 18:54, Jock wrote:

>
> There is no wasted hot water when done in the microwave,
> there will always be some unused hot water with most kettles
> because most need more than just the cup of water in the kettle.
Most modern kettles have a flat plate element at the base of the kettle
and can boil a single cup of water. Operated this way you possibly need
to clean out the flaking limescale on a regular basis.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote
> Jock wrote

>> There is no wasted hot water when done in the microwave,
>> there will always be some unused hot water with most kettles
>> because most need more than just the cup of water in the kettle.

> Most modern kettles have a flat plate element at the base of the kettle

None of mine do and they are all modern kettles. And those will lose
heat thru the base of the kettle which is why not all modern kettles
are done like that, particularly the ones you just lift off the base that
supplys electricity to the element.

> and can boil a single cup of water. Operated this way you possibly need
> to clean out the flaking limescale on a regular basis.

On 30/04/2022 19:59, Jock wrote:
> alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote
>> Jock wrote
>
>>>  There is no wasted hot water when done in the microwave,
>>> there will always be some unused hot water with most kettles
>>> because most need more than just the cup of water in the kettle.
>
>> Most modern kettles have a flat plate element at the base of the kettle
>
> None of mine do and they are all modern kettles. And those will lose
> heat thru the base of the kettle which is why not all modern kettles
> are done like that, particularly the ones you just lift off the base that
> supplys electricity to the element.

All the kettles that I've seen that lift off the supply base have flat
plate printed elements. They allow a very small amount of water to be
boiled.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 30/04/2022 10:46, mm0fmf wrote:
> but multiplied up to 5000000 homes and that's 50MW a day.
ROFLMAO

--
“it should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism
(or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans,
about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and
the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a
'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,'
a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for
rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet
things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that
you live neither in Joseph Stalin’s Communist era, nor in the Orwellian
utopia of 1984.”

Vaclav Klaus

On Sun, 01 May 2022 09:08:26 +1000, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> On 30/04/2022 19:59, Jock wrote:
>> alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote
>>> Jock wrote
>>
>>>> There is no wasted hot water when done in the microwave,
>>>> there will always be some unused hot water with most kettles
>>>> because most need more than just the cup of water in the kettle.
>>
>>> Most modern kettles have a flat plate element at the base of the kettle
>> None of mine do and they are all modern kettles. And those will lose
>> heat thru the base of the kettle which is why not all modern kettles
>> are done like that, particularly the ones you just lift off the base
>> that
>> supplys electricity to the element.
>
> All the kettles that I've seen that lift off the supply base have flat
> plate printed elements.

None of mine do.

> They allow a very small amount of water to be boiled.

But waste heat thru the base.

On 30 Apr 2022 at 10:46:13 BST, mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> wrote:

> On 30/04/2022 07:56, Roland Perry wrote:
>> although I think that catchy name is fairly new - crops up regularly.
>
> It's useful to prod people into thinking about what really needs to be
> switched on 24/7 whether it is in standby or not. You may only make a
> grand total of 10W saved per house but multiplied up to 5000000 homes
> and that's 50MW a day.

What does "50MW a day" mean?

--
The reason you think government is the solution is because you think freedom is the problem. But the truth is that government ensures that the most evil, ruthless people end up in control, because the state is a single point of failure, and a high-value target of corruption.

Alan Lovejoy

On 01/05/2022 02:29, Jock wrote:

> But waste heat thru the base.

Strange that when I boil a mug of water in my kettle the base remains
remarkably cool! The plastic sides of the kettle above the element are
warm to hot but not the base. Perhaps they have come up with a novel
idea of building some insulation into the kettle beneath the element?
Perhaps because the element has such a large surface area that boils
water so fast that the base of the kettle hasn't got time to heat up
before you use the cup of water?

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 30/04/2022 09:36, alan_m wrote:
> On 30/04/2022 09:05, Scott wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 22:18:04 +0100, Steve Walker
>> <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>>> The one that always annoys me is the sort of figure they quote for
>>> leaving the TV on standby. Our living-room TV is a few years old now,
>>> but takes less than 0.2W on standby. So for, say, 20 hours of standby a
>>> day, at 28p per unit, that's less than 41p per year. I think I'll put up
>>> with the cost for the convenience of not having to switch it on at the
>>> socket and wait for it to "boot" up each time.
>>
>> There are some interesting ideas out there.  Friend of mine is now
>> using a battery powered radio to save cost of mains electricity.
>
> :) :)
>
> If the idea came from facebook it must be true.
>
>

hand-cranked radios are still on sale

https://radiofidelity.com/best-wind-up-radio/