Electricity Use

[big-all]

i have noticed on my fridge and f/freezer when they are running the sides get warm so would it hold the warm in rather than cold in as the internal foam is perhaps 30-40mm thick

just a thought ??

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

As I said, I think some careful calculations and experiments would be needed. The amount of heat loss (hence 'efficiency') is dependent on, amongst other things, time - and (unless it were unusually well-insulated) the slow cooker would be 'losing heat' (to the environment) for maybe 12+ hours, whereas the oven would only be doing so for perhaps an hour or two.

though.

The hour or two in the oven, does not produce the same effect as 12+ hours of slow cooking.

i double fold a thick terry towel and lay it over the slow cook
you either need to reduce the cooking time by around 15-25% or turn the slow cook level down all by trial and effort

Our slow cookers, we have a large and a small, cook in the utility room. I agree with John they do loose a tremendous amount of heat, so I just wrap multiple towels around them to retain the heat. I have not noticed any need to reduce the cooking time, or reduce the setting as a result.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

i have noticed on my fridge and f/freezer when they are running the sides get warm so would it hold the warm in rather than cold in as the internal foam is perhaps 30-40mm thick

just a thought ??

Good point, some radiate the absorbed heat via the casing, so probably not a good idea for those.

 

[JohnW2]

though. ... The hour or two in the oven, does not produce the same effect as 12+ hours of slow cooking.

I'm not quite sure what "same effect" you are talking about - the effect 'on the food' or in terms of heat loss(if oven were set to same temp as the slow cooker)?

Our slow cookers, we have a large and a small, cook in the utility room. I agree with John they do loose a tremendous amount of heat, so I just wrap multiple towels around them to retain the heat.

Makes sense. As I said, 'as they come' slow cookers are probably not as well insulated as ovens, so (if set to same temp) could well lose a lot more heat in 12+ hours than an oven wouldin 1-2 hours.

I have not noticed any need to reduce the cooking time, or reduce the setting as a result.

It hopefully is thermostatically controlled, so it might not need any intervention from you, but might save some energy when 'lagged' as you describe.

However, as I said, I don't think most people's 'comparisons' are very valid, since most do not turn the oven temp down very low to emulate 'slow cooking' - for most, it's either "fast cooking at high temp" in the over or "slow cooking at low temp" in the slow cooker.

Kind Regards, John

 

[winston1]

It's really all down to relative heat losses (which may not be truly wasted, at least in Winter, since they will heat the house), since the Laws of Physics dictate that any given amount of heat production will always require the same amount of electrical energy.

Kind Regards, John

But that not truly wasted heat is very expensive compared with gas or oil that is used to heat the house.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

I'm not quite sure what "same effect" you are talking about - the effect 'on the food' or in terms of heat loss(if oven were set to same temp as the slow cooker)?

Food cooked low, slow long results in much more tender usually. Tougher cuts of meat can be used, if the meat is done slow.

 

[big-all]

though.

The hour or two in the oven, does not produce the same effect as 12+ hours of slow cooking.



Our slow cookers, we have a large and a small, cook in the utility room. I agree with John they do loose a tremendous amount of heat, so I just wrap multiple towels around them to retain the heat. I have not noticed any need to reduce the cooking time, or reduce the setting as a result.

if its thermostatically,controled you wont as it compensates but iff its a basic model based on a given wattage then it will go to a higher temperature so get there quicker
as you know you cant really overcook with a slow cook but you can get there quicker

 

[JohnW2]

Food cooked low, slow long results in much more tender usually. Tougher cuts of meat can be used, if the meat is done slow.

Sure - but, as I said, I wasn't sure whether you were talking about that or about thermal 'effects'.

However, yet again, that is not really anything to do with the appliance. One can cook 'long and slow' in an oven, just as one can in a 'slow cooker', but people tend not to think of doing that that.

It's easier for us. Most of our cooking is done in a (energy-guzzling!!) Aga, whose 'simmering oven' is just about the right temp for 'slow cooking' - so we are perhaps an exception which proves the above rule!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

But that not truly wasted heat is very expensive compared with gas or oil that is used to heat the house.

Traditionally that has been true, but it at least means that the lost heat is not 'totally wasted' (which is what I said). However, with what is currently happening to gas and oil prices (but less to electricity ones), we may have to re-think some of these traditional comparisons in the future.

 

[ericmark]

i have noticed on my fridge and f/freezer when they are running the sides get warm so would it hold the warm in rather than cold in as the internal foam is perhaps 30-40mm thick

just a thought ??

Cold is a measurement of heat.

However most items have the energy they use written on them.

 

[SpecialK]

I use one of these to monitor every circuit in the house at the db https://www.amazon.co.uk/EMPORIA-ENERGY-Emporia-Electricity-Metering/dp/B07R11H2Q2

Only thing its cut down so far is filling the kettle with less water and running the washing machine on eco mode which is half the price of a normal wash.

 

[JohnW2]

I use one of these to monitor every circuit in the house at the db (link) ... Only thing its cut down so far is filling the kettle with less water and running the washing machine on eco mode which is half the price of a normal wash.

I think that illustrates one of the main weaknesses in all the hype (which the government seem to believe) about how 'smart' meters will result in vast reductions of electricity usage.

The majority of even half-intelligent people already know, without any technological assistance, which appliances/loads use the most electricity, and that they can reduce their electricity consumption by using them less (or for shorter periods) and/or with lower 'settings'/whatever (like less water in your kettle, or a more 'eco' mode with your WM) ... so, for most people, any sort of electricity monitoring, whether with a smart meter or the sort of system you mention, or whatever, will tell them little (and little about how to reduce their electricity consumption) that they do not already kknoe.

Maybe these things might be of some value to people who are less than "half-intelligent"?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

In the main my plug in energy monitors are used to remotely tell me when a process has completed, for example my lead acid battery smart charger just handy being able to see without going down stairs to look, even my beer brewing if the thermostat is turning on/off then cool enough.

The dish washer, washing machine etc, last thing you want to do is to wash things twice, and every one seems to have a different list of options, my tumble drier works far better in this house, mainly as being used in an unheated room with the window left open.

As to boiling one cup of water I have two one cup boilers

both same make, both rated 3 kW the one on the left you can select cup size and switch off mid flow, one on right has set cup size, the one on the right is faster than one on left, I assume setting cup size sets how much boiled water is returned to tank, so it would seem one on right is slightly cheaper to run as it boils faster.

By they cost £40 to £65 each, where auto knock off kettle around £14 so £26 extra to get one cup boiler, that would buy a lot of electricity. I use the one cup boiler as it means I can make a cup of coffee with ease during the adverts, not really to save money.

And this is the point it costs money to get some thing that uses less electric.

 

[JohnW2]

... By they cost £40 to £65 each, where auto knock off kettle around £14 so £26 extra to get one cup boiler, that would buy a lot of electricity. ..

Indeed - and that's a type of calculation which so many people don't even think of doing!

Kind Regards, John

 

[SpecialK]

Octopus are doing a campaign where I have to use 40% less electric between certain hours to get that electric for free. Its pretty difficult as the electric we use is all required - Especially when its around dinner time!

I now have google broadcast when the washing machine and tumble dryer finish and this includes the cost of the cycle. Its made us use the dryer much less now we know how much it costs per go!

Boiling water for one cup a day costs me £4.80 a year. Its amazing how much electric computers etc use - Even my old plasma tv pulls 400w.

I think that illustrates one of the main weaknesses in all the hype (which the government seem to believe) about how 'smart' meters will result in vast reductions of electricity usage.

The majority of even half-intelligent people already know, without any technological assistance, which appliances/loads use the most electricity, and that they can reduce their electricity consumption by using them less (or for shorter periods) and/or with lower 'settings'/whatever (like less water in your kettle, or a more 'eco' mode with your WM) ... so, for most people, any sort of electricity monitoring, whether with a smart meter or the sort of system you mention, or whatever, will tell them little (and little about how to reduce their electricity consumption) that they do not already kknoe.

Maybe these things might be of some value to people who are less than "half-intelligent"?

Kind Regards, John