Energy Bills

Huskaris said:

Rob7Lee said:

Huskaris said:

Raith_C_Chattonell said:

Energy boss on this morning's 'Wake Up To Money' says appreciable money can be saved by simply adjusting your boiler flow temperature.  Good explanation here.

https://www.theheatinghub.co.uk/articles/turn-down-the-boiler-flow-temperature

I did this at the start of the year and more than anything, I enjoy the fact that the radiators aren't boiling hot, once the room reaches heat it isn't a constant case of too hot then too cold, but a consistent temperature because the flow temp is lower. 

Basically, saving or no saving, it's a lot nicer to live in a home with the radiators on for longer, at a lower temperature!

Just remember if the flow is also heating your hot water it needs to be at a certain temp.

Yeah, I have it at 65 (rather than 75) and the hot water is at 60, so it gets there. Thanks for that advice though because I am guessing the boiler would literally never switch off otherwise!

It's a balance, but yes it'd be forever trying to heat the water if it was the other way around.

I tried my boiler at 60, 65 & 70 and didn't seem to make a huge difference either way other than the lower of course the longer the house takes to heat up when cold. Mine's a 37kw boiler and I've down tuned it to 28kw. I think turning it down in summer and up in winter is the best compromise.

Ours was already cavity wall insulated and I reckon that makes the biggest difference. Even with the temp near minus outside the house (heated to 20, off at 10:30pm) won't drop much below 18 over night and it doesn't have full thickness in the loft.

ShootersHillGuru said:

To be honest both Labour and The Lib Dems saying what they would do is just getting ahead of what The Tories will do. Pure political point scoring Nothing more. No general election for two years and saying this was a no risk no lose strategy. You won’t hear any other policy details for 18 months and nor should you. Saying what your policy is when you have no control of the situation is usually a recipe for disaster. The energy crisis is a free hit for both Starmer and Davey. 

I think there is a reason why it is important that people know what is going to be done now. In fact, more than one. Firstly, some people will be getting extremely stressed by this and we know where that can lead even in some cases deaths, secondly some will have to make decisions like going on a variable rate or moving to a fixed rate (My son and his housemates fall into this category as they do their final year at the University of Bournemouth).

I can't believe nothing will be done in all honesty. I think Sunak is intelligent enough to understand the implications not just for individuals but for his party but I'm not so sure about Truss. 

It may even be too late already. Agree, it can't be kicked down the road. 

I did see something sent in jest today, suggesting that perhaps instead of giving the energy companies more money, we should stand outside our house every Thursday evening and give them a nice round of applause. I mean if it’s good enough for the NHS.

Off_it said:

Siv_in_Norfolk said:

Off_it said:

ME14addick said:

ROTW said:

It may possibly help if we could drill for gas?
Greenpeace Sues UK Government to Stop Massive Offshore Drilling Project (commondreams.org)

We can't keep kicking the Climate Change can down the road. If we don't change to greener forms of energy our situation is only going to get worse.

Anyone else getting the sense here that @ME14addick might be gluing herself to a road in the near future?

Possibly the M20 as a double protest?

Classy

1 - bit of cyber bullying 
2 - playing down seriousness of climate change issue 

You are better than that

Wow, really?

"Cyber bullying"? "Playing down the seriousness of climate change"? Not sure how you work that out.

Unless I've got my posters mixed up (which is possible) I thought @ME14addick was the lady who was previously a dyed-in-the-wool Tory voter but has had an about face in the past couple of years and now hates them and actively discourages people from voting for them. She also, I believe, lives in Kent and is very vocal about the ridiculous arrangements they wheel out for using the M20 as a lorry park.

All I was doing was commenting on her spectacular journey from Daily Mail reader to full on eco-warrior with a tongue in cheek comment about her next step possibly being gluing herself to the M20 as a double protest. Perhaps it was just too subtle on my part and came across not as intended. 

If @ME14addick was offended by my comments then I wholeheartedly apologise.

However, you don't need to feel obliged to apologise to me for jumping to the wrong conclusions as, to be completely honest, I really don't care what you think. But I don't want to cause offence where it wasn't intended, so I hope that clears things up.

I am the person you speak of @Off_it and you describe me very well, gluing my hands to the M20 is however a step too far, even for me

I'm not offended but thank you @Siv_in_Norfolk for defending me.

RaplhMilne said:

Here is my reality kicking in…. £819 a year to £315 a month…

Ask the cost of their variable capped rate, which in almost all cases is currently cheaper than any fixed rates.

Dave Rudd said:

Stupid question.

If global warming causes an increase in the temperature of the ocean, shouldn't we be focussing on energy systems which utilise the power of the sea?

In that way, as we take energy out (so, sea turbines, not those pathetic wind things with their limited capacity), the sea temperature drops.

Too simple?

Right now - too expensive.

Dave Rudd said:

Stupid question.

If global warming causes an increase in the temperature of the ocean, shouldn't we be focussing on energy systems which utilise the power of the sea?

In that way, as we take energy out (so, sea turbines, not those pathetic wind things with their limited capacity), the sea temperature drops.

Too simple?

there is this .. and the technology will become more and more common .. This Scottish tidal power project has generated record levels of electricity and is opening up new possibilities for renewable energy | World Economic Forum (weforum.org)

Jints said:

Dave Rudd said:

Stupid question.

If global warming causes an increase in the temperature of the ocean, shouldn't we be focussing on energy systems which utilise the power of the sea?

In that way, as we take energy out (so, sea turbines, not those pathetic wind things with their limited capacity), the sea temperature drops.

Too simple?

They are really expensive to construct and there aren't that many places which are suitable. You are wrong about wind farm capacity too. The biggest wind farm in the UK has 5 times a much capacity (c. 1,250MW) as the world's biggest tidal generator (c. 250MW). We are building one in Scotland which will have a capacity of about 350 MW. By comparison Hinkley Point C (nuclear) will have a capacity of about 3,200MW when it's built. We currently have total wind farm capacity of 26,000 MW providing about 25% of our electricity and the new round of leases will provide anothe 7,000 MW. 

Tidal should definately be a part of the mix but will only ever be a very, very small part. It just doesn't generate that much electricity. Wind, solar and (controversially) nuclear are much better. 

And tidal generators have no effect on sea tempratures. They use the kinetic energy of the movement of the water, they don't suck out energy from the water.

Sounds like you know a bit about this industry, so I will defer to your superior knowledge ... but ...

There aren't that many suitable places for sea turbines?  Umm ... how about in the sea.  Of which we have quite a lot.  We must be more limited in terms of location and numbers with wind turbines.

Capacity at present presumably reflects the level of investment in the two types.  I see no obvious reason why sea turbines cannot be improved and/or increased in number to change the " very, very small" contribution of sea turbines that you refer to.  Also, sea motion is guaranteed at all times.  Wind?  Maybe, if you are lucky and if you are in the right place.

And now to the Physics.  Are you really telling me, if we could move significant quantities of energy from the sea (taking advantage of its kinetic energy), that the sea temperature would be unaffected and that we would simply end up with a World of calm oceans all at the same temperature as now.  I don't think so ... we have winds which would continually create turbulence in the oceans.  The kinetic energy of the sea is renewable ... ironically partly via the winds that we would no longer need to harness.  And these winds are generated as sea temperature changes.

I accept that we are behind where we should be in terms of sea turbine development.  The concepts and the prototypes have been around for many years, but it seems to me to be a sensible strategy irrespective of cost. 

How much is the Earth worth?