Approximate cost of boiling a kettle??

Bruthal

jayteecork wrote: »

Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask.

Just wondering how much.

I gave up tea for a while and my ESB bill reduced drastically.

Now I'm off the demon drink and am back drinking at least 10 cups a day.

I have a fancy high speed boiling kettle and I fear it's driving my bills through the roof.

My bill went from 80e to 160e this cycle.

If it cost say 10c to boil a kettle for one mug of tea, and I did this on average 10 times a day. That's a euro a day and 60 euro extra for the 2 month billing cycle.

Are these figures anyway right?

Would changing my kettle to a regular one help?

Thanks.

About 1 cent per minute is a good enough estimate for a 3kw kettle.
About 1 cent per minute and 40 seconds for a 2kw one roughly.

Both will cost the same to heat the same amount of water.

nudger

Fill an empty 2 litre bottle with fresh water each morning and put it on top of a radiator, should bring it up to 25 degrees.

If you don't have any rads stick it down the back of your trousers.:)

MadsL

Switch to iced tea \o/

Qualitymark

jayteecork wrote: »

I have a fancy high speed boiling kettle and I fear it's driving my bills through the roof.

My bill went from 80e to 160e this cycle.

This sounds insane.

If you have a friend with an ordinary kettle, borrow it, then turn everything in the house off and read the meter. Boil your fancy kettle and check the reading. Boil the ordinary kettle and check the reading again. That should tell you.

If it's this one

http://www.superkettles.co.uk/html/technical.html

the problem may lie in this:

Function. SuperKettles are designed to be filled and left on continuously, so near-boiling water is available any time for hot drinks, 'instant' foods, filling flasks, speeding pasta or vegetable cooking, etc. They do not need to be emptied, just topped up with cold water at 'quiet' times when hot water is not needed for the short period of heat-up.

If it's keeping the water hot all the time, of course it'll gobble up energy.

Incidentally, do not think of using hot water from the immersion to make your tea. For a start, it'll taste nasty; also, you risk verdigris poisoning.

Bruthal

Qualitymark wrote: »

This sounds insane.

If you have a friend with an ordinary kettle, borrow it, then turn everything in the house off and read the meter. Boil your fancy kettle and check the reading. Boil the ordinary kettle and check the reading again. That should tell you.

If it's this one

http://www.superkettles.co.uk/html/technical.html

the problem may lie in this:



If it's keeping the water hot all the time, of course it'll gobble up energy.

The fact the op says its a quick boil one, suggests it is not a continuous on type one. (You never know though)

If its a high speed boiling kettle, it is possibly a 1 cup one, and so will be cheaper than the standard kettle, boiling only the amount required.

If it is just a standard type kettle with a higher powered element, it will still cost the same as boiling the same amount of water as a lower powered element one. Not filling the kettle to capacity for one cup of tea, will help.

No need for meter reading comparisons of two kettles.

Incidentally, do not think of using hot water from the immersion to make your tea. For a start, it'll taste nasty; also, you risk verdigris poisoning.

I doubt many would do that.

Qualitymark

robbie7730 wrote: »

I doubt many would do that.

Don't doubt it. Someone I knew was using water from the hot tap to mix her baby's food until the doctor quizzed her after yet another tummy upset and told her to stop.

By the way, this

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Philips-HD4644-Energy-Efficient-Kettle/dp/B001EHF3OG/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1351153550&sr=8-3

claims 66% less energy use.

Bruthal

Qualitymark wrote: »

Don't doubt it. Someone I knew was using water from the hot tap to mix her baby's food until the doctor quizzed her after yet another tummy upset and told her to stop.

Yea it wouldnt susprise me that.

But a person drinking something themselves from the hot tap water wouldnt do it for long. As you say yourself, I wouldnt think the tea would be too nice from it, even when boiled in the kettle.

Bruthal

Qualitymark wrote: »

By the way, this

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Philips-HD4644-Energy-Efficient-Kettle/dp/B001EHF3OG/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1351153550&sr=8-3

claims 66% less energy use.

Likely due to the fact it has a 1 cup of water level indicator, and so you can just boil the amount being used.

Rasmus

The electric Ireland app is amazing, but alarming.

BrensBenz

My Leader of the Opposition regularly heats / reheats a teacup of water in the microwave and then adds the tea bag. This is too close to cookery for my taste but the arithmetic might be interesting, i.e. 800 to 1000Watt microwave for 20 seconds vs. a 2000+Watt kettle for 2 minutes.

Qualitymark

Another solution might be to get a big teapot and use real tea instead of teabags, and put a tea-cosy on the teapot, so you get lots of hot cups of proper tea that tastes of tea, not of bag-paper. Delicious tea (I like Barry's Gold Blend), and you don't have to keep boiling kettles for each cup.

nudger

Just thought I'd throw using gas into the equation.
http://suite101.com/article/gas-or-electric-kettle-which-is-greener-to-use-a184664

When cooking/boiling veg, pasta etc, boil the electric kettle to fill the pot, don't boil cold water on the gas.

mood

jayteecork wrote: »

.

My bill went from 80e to 160e this cycle.

Chances are that the bill increase is not only due to boiling water for tea. It is now winter and everyone know bills are higher in winter due to more light being used etc.

Qualitymark

mood wrote: »

Chances are that the bill increase is not only due to boiling water for tea. It is now winter and everyone know bills are higher in winter due to more light being used etc.

All depends, though - if OP is boiling a separate kettle for every cup, that could add up.

(But yes, you're right - it could be a huge bill because of an earlier estimated reading, for instance.)

mood

Qualitymark wrote: »

All depends, though - if OP is boiling a separate kettle for every cup, that could add up.

(But yes, you're right - it could be a huge bill because of an earlier estimated reading, for instance.)

Yes. OP assuming you are living in the same house/apt, with the same amount of people, with the same electrical appliances/gadgets (and same usage) why not take out the bill form the last few years and compare them for this time of year (taking into account and rate increases)?

Did you try the Electric Ireland app yet?

langdang

BrensBenz wrote: »

My Leader of the Opposition regularly heats / reheats a teacup of water in the microwave and then adds the tea bag. This is too close to cookery for my taste but the arithmetic might be interesting, i.e. 800 to 1000Watt microwave for 20 seconds vs. a 2000+Watt kettle for 2 minutes.

I doubt it would be more efficient than boiling just what you need in a kettle.
The losses would be higher in the microwave would be my gut feeling!

Bruthal

BrensBenz wrote: »

My Leader of the Opposition regularly heats / reheats a teacup of water in the microwave and then adds the tea bag. This is too close to cookery for my taste but the arithmetic might be interesting, i.e. 800 to 1000Watt microwave for 20 seconds vs. a 2000+Watt kettle for 2 minutes.

An 800 watt microwave wont boil a cup of room temperature water in 20 seconds, or anything remotely as quick as that. Anyone that tries it now will see a time closer to 2 minutes.

It will also take about 1300 to 1400 watts to output 800 watts.

The 3000watt kettle will put must of that into the water, so one cup in a kettle v one cup in a microwave, the kettle is better. The kettles where the element can be seen in the bottom of it, so its surrounded by water, are slightly more efficient than the flat bottom ones.

Bruthal

langdang wrote: »

I doubt it would be more efficient than boiling just what you need in a kettle.
The losses would be higher in the microwave would be my gut feeling!

Your gut feeling is correct. My 800 watt one takes 1350 watts from the electrical supply. 60% efficient. The kettle would be in the 90`s id say.

Bruthal

nudger wrote: »

Just thought I'd throw using gas into the equation.
http://suite101.com/article/gas-or-electric-kettle-which-is-greener-to-use-a184664

When cooking/boiling veg, pasta etc, boil the electric kettle to fill the pot, don't boil cold water on the gas.

They seem to assume the electricity to boil the kettle just exists in the house. Since the site asks which is greener to use, the electricity generation should be taken into account.

nudger

Far to much time on my hands.

My 3k kettle v my 800w microwave, mug of water in each one.

Kettle 55 seconds to boil, Micro stopped at first bubble in mug 170 seconds.

Stuck a thermometer in both roughly the same 90c.

Micro works out best but if you are right about the micro pulling 1300w to output 800w then the kettle is best, and quicker anyway.

Bruthal

nudger wrote: »

Micro works out best but if you are right about the micro pulling 1300w to output 800w then the kettle is best, and quicker anyway.

Yea there is no doubt about the microwave taking just over 1300w. I tested it.

langdang

Should be written on the back anyway, shouldn't it?
The back will give the max electrical power consumption, the front will tell you the max microwave energy power output.

I have an electric hob (I'd prefer gas but that's a separate matter) - If I want to boil water for a saucepan, I boil the kettle and fill the saucepan from that. That's the most efficient way to do it as far as I can see (without filling a flask from the burko at work or something haha)

If anyone hasn't realised this yet - a 1kW kettle and a 3kW will take practically the same power to boil the same amount of water. The only difference is time.

If I was to guess, I'd suggest that the 3kW rapid boil kettle might be slightly more efficient - less time for heat to be lost to the outside world??? Maybe??

BrensBenz

nudger wrote: »

Far to much time on my hands.

My 3k kettle v my 800w microwave, mug of water in each one.

Kettle 55 seconds to boil, Micro stopped at first bubble in mug 170 seconds.

Stuck a thermometer in both roughly the same 90c.

Micro works out best but if you are right about the micro pulling 1300w to output 800w then the kettle is best, and quicker anyway.

Many thanks for conducting this empirical research. I'll forward your findings to the President of Tea-making but I expect to be told that HER microwave is unique and superior to that used in the experiment. Perhaps we should all conduct similar comparison tests with our own equipment.
Have to say, though, I think that after 170 seconds in her microwave, at full blast, the water would be hotter than that in Chernobyl's cooling system.

Bruthal

langdang wrote: »

Should be written on the back anyway, shouldn't it?
The back will give the max electrical power consumption, the front will tell you the max microwave energy power output.

It says 1200w on the back, and 800w output. Its actual consumption is slightly higher, helped a little by the voltage being higher than the 230v, the voltage at which the micro is rated at 1200w

If anyone hasn't realised this yet - a 1kW kettle and a 3kW will take practically the same power to boil the same amount of water. The only difference is time.

Here

If I was to guess, I'd suggest that the 3kW rapid boil kettle might be slightly more efficient - less time for heat to be lost to the outside world??? Maybe??

It will be more or less the same. If I was to say in exact terms, id say its slightly more efficient if it takes longer. There is metal to be heated up around the base where the element is in flat bottomed kettles, metal in contact with air rather than water. If that metal is at room temp, it will absorb more heat from the element at first since metal has a high specific heat capacity. Once its well heated, it wont lose this heat to the air very quickly, so wont take as much from the element as when cold.

The metal will heat quicker with the higher power element though, so overall, its probably still the same efficiency. Definitely the kettles with the element visibly sticking into the water will be a little more efficient.

mood

BrensBenz wrote: »

Many thanks for conducting this empirical research. I'll forward your findings to the President of Tea-making but I expect to be told that HER microwave is unique and superior to that used in the experiment. Perhaps we should all conduct similar comparison tests with our own equipment.
Have to say, though, I think that after 170 seconds in her microwave, at full blast, the water would be hotter than that in Chernobyl's cooling system.

Maybe you should start making the tea yourself :rolleyes:

I've noticed that if I heat a cup of milk in the microwave the cup is extremely hot, a lot hotter than the milk. The milk cools a lot quicker than if I heat the milk in a saucepan on the cooker. I use a saucepan on the cooker anymore.

langdang

robbie7730 wrote: »

Here

Yes , was just repeating your point for those that might have skipped right over it. I really think physics should be compulsory at secondary school, it's amazing the amount of voodoo/superstition that many people apply to daily life when there's fairly simple concepts that will give you the CORRECT answer to many situations.

As for which is more efficient (1kW v 3kW) , I reckon the difference is not really worth worrying about in average use

Bruthal

BrensBenz wrote: »

Many thanks for conducting this empirical research. I'll forward your findings to the President of Tea-making but I expect to be told that HER microwave is unique and superior to that used in the experiment. Perhaps we should all conduct similar comparison tests with our own equipment.
Have to say, though, I think that after 170 seconds in her microwave, at full blast, the water would be hotter than that in Chernobyl's cooling system.

You might be needing a uranium powered microwave to boil the cup of water in 20 seconds.

Bruthal

langdang wrote: »

As for which is more efficient (1kW v 3kW) , I reckon the difference is not really worth worrying about in average use

Yea overall the 3kw probably is, as if 50 watts were used, the kettle would never boil, even though it would if there were no heat losses from it.

But between 1kw and 3kw would be negligible differences in terms of noticing a difference to bills etc.

nudger

mood wrote: »

Maybe you should start making the tea yourself :rolleyes:

I've noticed that if I heat a cup of milk in the microwave the cup is extremely hot, a lot hotter than the milk. The milk cools a lot quicker than if I heat the milk in a saucepan on the cooker. I use a saucepan on the cooker anymore.

Some cups, bowls become very hot and are not micro proof.

nudger

robbie7730 wrote: »

You might be needing a uranium powered microwave to boil the cup of water in 20 seconds.

Might be using a quick boil microwave.:rolleyes: