Energy Prices (Strictly NO referrals!)

[bigmike20vt]

I'd assume the boiling removes whatever risk there is from using a hot water tap.

I mean he has done it for years and is fine so you must be right but even so I don't fancy it

 

[squerble]

is that really cheaper ? even with current prices I am shocked if using a fraction of a kwh of electricity to boil a kettle would be more expensive than a camping gas cannister

I have a mate who fills his kettle from the hot water tap . I don't fancy that myself. am sure tap hot water is not meant to be drinkable (unless it's one of those quooker jobs or what ever they are called

If it's a combi boiler, it's fed from mains water so perfectly safe to drink from the hot tap.

Say nothing about your mate filling the kettle from the hot tap and then running the electricity to bring it up to the boil. You'll likely not get more energy efficient than using the kettle the boil only the amount you need. Our kettle has three little red flags inside to show 1/2/3 cups worth of water so we fill to those for our morning brews. It doesn't half boil fast when you only have the water you need in there!

 

[Uther]

is that really cheaper ? even with current prices I am shocked if using a fraction of a kwh of electricity to boil a kettle would be more expensive than a camping gas cannister

I have a mate who fills his kettle from the hot water tap . I don't fancy that myself. am sure tap hot water is not meant to be drinkable (unless it's one of those quooker jobs or what ever they are called

If I had to do it, which I don't luckily, it would be from the standpoint of already having loads of them in the shed for when I go camping. So they are already sat there waiting to be used.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Filling a kettle from hot water tap if your on a combi would be fine quality wise, but probably only efficient if this tap is very close to the combi

I wouldn't do it personally from a system tank, although as said the boiling would likely kill anything in it the cost benefit seems marginal at best and if you got it wrong (such as triggering the water to heat in tank) it would certainly not be cost effective

 

[MCFC_ANDY]

Those things aren't cheap to run, we bought one when our eldest was 6 months old going into winter for the first time and leaving it on in his room overnight added almost 50% to hour energy bills.

indeed, but its cheaper than gas central heating for a short time

 

[b0rn2sk8]

Yup using the boiler for small amounts of water is not efficient at all.

You are paying to heat up the heat exchanger, and all the water in the pipes before you get anything out of it.

Just boil what you need.

 

[Uther]

I mean he has done it for years and is fine so you must be right but even so I don't fancy it

I know people who drink out of puddles and stagnant water using a water filter bottle.

 

[SPG]

That sounds sensible. So If you mean anyone in government. Probably not !

Not much i would imagine, half the small business are very clever with Tax and never make a profit....

 

[mid_gen]

I use the kettle to boil water before it goes in a pan on the gas hob when I need to boil something. I know the gas is cheaper, but the kettle is so much more efficient.

 

[Oyeee]

So the cap has gone up again.... Sigh

I use the kettle to boil water before it goes in a pan on the gas hob when I need to boil something. I know the gas is cheaper, but the kettle is so much more efficient.

Are you a desi auntie by any chance

 

[Simon]

Octopus Go 40p peak looks cheap now even ignoring the 4hours overnight at only 7.5p.

Gas at 15p is gonna mean a cold house for me

 

[413x]

No its doesn't cost 8-10k it costs anywhere from say £5k to £lol.
Its system dependent with a lot of variables. (size, layout, quality, warranties, location (Scotland vs South coast is very different), usage, etc etc)
They are deffo going up to install however, suggest its supply & demand but also of course lower pound (mainly made in China so $ priced) and of course inflation effect on the install companies.

But take mine, my cautious installer has suggested I will generate just under 4000 kw. The other was closer to 5000, but lets go with 4000.
Thats at £13k, but lets ignore the batteries and solar diverter (my excess in summer months will likely heat my water for "free")

The majority of the 4000 I will be able to use, but lets say 3500, its of course variable since it depends what days generate what.
The 500 will export of course.

3500 x £0.29 (old price cap) = £1015, so simple 13 year pay back. Yep your about right in your maths.
Thats ignoring any effect on battery when its not using my solar. (ie cheap fill)

Now at £0.52 its £1800 a year its 7.2 years.
At Jan predicted £0.9 its £3150 a year, that payback plummets for whatever period the £0.9 is in effect. Although if its just Jan-Mar then solar isn't going to save much, but the batteries should (tariff dependant)

I haven't included the solar diverter in this since its only using another few hundred units a year but that will add up.

I'm not going further into the maths, as you need a realistic model for your situation. Which is where it gets complicated, more panels vs more batteries or no batteries or no panels, and then types of panels and types of batteries and others such as solar diverter etc
Simply however my install at £0.29 should ROI (proper ROI including cost of capital) around year 11.
So when prices go up 80% the return drops by a factor of 1.8 times.

As I said my chosen installer is being very cautious.

The other benefit of batteries without solar is based on being able to charge cheaply (eco 7, Ev tariff etc), its difficult to predict as it relies on the margin between the two rates and thats not fixed.
Like most of the situation is not fixed and you need to run a few scenarios when you model, YOUR usage, and YOUR predictions for costs etc etc

As others have said the batteries are very easy to take with you, and reinstall costs will be low.
(the costs for a battery install on its own are low where as solar is high)

Hell even the government support is unpredictable and will affect the payback.
£400 a year back to people with solar creates a different scenario if thats in cash, or affecting the unit rate.

TLDR Its simply impossible to throw out simple numbers about payback, its situationally dependent and a load of the variables are impossible to predict accurately and come down to feels.

Whats actually interesting and will become a future consideration when buying a house is if it has solar.
A lot of the items are easy to take. Batteries as mentioned, but also inverter being a large cost small item.
You wouldn't want to take panels IMO, too much agro but can see some would, just leaving the frame in place.
Deffo will be interesting

So roughly (at 52p) it is about right.

Its close with 10 years
But not for 5.

Agree about specific circumstances.
-unit rate could go up or down over that time
-House roof suitability
-geography in the uk


Of course. The huge spanner in the world comes if the government cap prices at 2k.

That's really going to make payback a long time. Your over 10 in that case.


I feel no battery isn't great for most people. Seems essential.

 

[SixTwoSix]

I mean he has done it for years and is fine so you must be right but even so I don't fancy it

As I say, just an assumption, could be way off the mark

I did it on occasion when I had a kettle and warm water was already available from the tap.

 

[413x]

I've bought an airfryer to help!


Now I can cook the gf. Cut costs and save on food!

 

[Uther]

Of course. The huge spanner in the world comes if the government cap prices at 2k.

That's really going to make payback a long time. Your over 10 in that case.

Capping prices at such a rate would probably be the best course of action, but I'll be very surprised if a Tory PM would countenance such a thing.

 

[Haggisman]

indeed, but its cheaper than gas central heating for a short time

That would depend completely on what you class as "a short time" and how your heating is set up.

If you have smart TRVs and can heat just the single room then

Running cost for 2kw heating via electricity: £1.04
Running cost for 2kw heating via gas: £0.50 (assuming 90% efficient boiler)

Even if your boiler is only 50% efficient, the gas cost is £0.9

The only way it would be cheaper, is if that "short time" is a few minutes, in which case you've got the losses from heating the boiler itself and pipes - the radiator will barely get hot. But then even the oil filled rad isn't going to make much of a difference if you're only turning it on for that long.

 

[413x]

Capping prices at such a rate would probably be the best course of action, but I'll be very surprised if a Tory PM would countenance such a thing.

Agree on both counts.

I wonder if they'll cap it at 2500 or something.

They can say "it's lower than the current cap"
I think 2000 will be a bit of a stretch for tories.


If they do cap it at 2000 and prices are 6k in 2023... It will be at 2k for the long term.
No more fixed price deals. Would customers ever switch again?

Would be a fundamental change in way we deal with energy.

 

[Trifid]

Those things aren't cheap to run, we bought one when our eldest was 6 months old going into winter for the first time and leaving it on in his room overnight added almost 50% to hour energy bills.

I'm going to experiment between keeping the heating on a low temperature and spot heating the occupied room as required compared to heating the whole house. Either way, I'm glad I don't have a big house to heat.

 

[jonneymendoza]

I've bought an airfryer to help!


Now I can cook the gf. Cut costs and save on food!

Doesn't that use up electricity? Lol

 

[Simon]

That would depend completely on what you class as "a short time" and how your heating is set up.

If you have smart TRVs and can heat just the single room then

Running cost for 2kw heating via electricity: £1.04
Running cost for 2kw heating via gas: £0.50 (assuming 90% efficient boiler)

Even if your boiler is only 50% efficient, the gas cost is £0.9

The only way it would be cheaper, is if that "short time" is a few minutes, in which case you've got the losses from heating the boiler itself and pipes - the radiator will barely get hot. But then even the oil filled rad isn't going to make much of a difference if you're only turning it on for that long.

One is heating the whole house. The other just the room you are in