Energy thread

Pross

On the plus side I won on spin the wheel when I submitted my Octopus meter reading today and am having £1 knocked off my bill. I’m going to have those heaters on full blast now even if I have to open the windows to stay comfortable

Stevo_666

Stevo_666

This look encouraging on gas prices:
https://msn.com/en-gb/money/news/european-gas-prices-likely-to-fall-sharply-this-winter-says-goldman-sachs/ar-AA11Ma9O?rc=1&ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=d976309c836a4228f876942afaffe70a

wallace_and_gromit

I think it's next winter that is potentially the issue as there may be no alternative source of supply to refill continental gas stores over the summer. But I read elsewhere that Germany is working on LNG terminals which may be in play by then.

The pessimistic view is that if Europe weans itself off Putin's gas then he'll be much more likely to nuke the area. But I'm not convinced about this. Putin seems to enjoy being the Big Man, and you can only do that if you haven't been nuked yourself in retaliation. He doesn't seem like the type of person to view personal nuclear obliteration as an acceptable price to pay for any "grand plan".

rick_chasey

The historical precedent is no Russian leader survives losing a war. I can't imagine the other leaders and supporters who prop him up would be especially comfortable with nuclear war.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

The historical precedent is no Russian leader survives losing a war. I can't imagine the other leaders and supporters who prop him up would be especially comfortable with nuclear war.

how large a sample size is that?

blazing_saddles

rick_chasey said:

The historical precedent is no Russian leader survives losing a war. I can't imagine the other leaders and supporters who prop him up would be especially comfortable with nuclear war.

Me neither.
If he tried I think he's more likely to be the next to take a header out of a high window.

Sounds like rather good news on that global shortage front you were worried about.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

The historical precedent is no Russian leader survives losing a war. I can't imagine the other leaders and supporters who prop him up would be especially comfortable with nuclear war.

He says it is not a war. Perhaps for a reason.

rick_chasey

He can call it what he likes it’s a war

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

The historical precedent is no Russian leader survives losing a war. I can't imagine the other leaders and supporters who prop him up would be especially comfortable with nuclear war.

how large a sample size is that?

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

The historical precedent is no Russian leader survives losing a war. I can't imagine the other leaders and supporters who prop him up would be especially comfortable with nuclear war.

how large a sample size is that?

Honestly, I don't know, it's just one of the nuggets you pick up doing soviet history.

Going backwards, you have Breznev (arguable), Nicholas II, Nicholas 1, Anna of Russia, Peter III of Russia (arguable), Alexis of Russia (a rebellion but he lost, ultiamtely), and that's as far as I can be bothered to count.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

The historical precedent is no Russian leader survives losing a war. I can't imagine the other leaders and supporters who prop him up would be especially comfortable with nuclear war.

how large a sample size is that?

Honestly, I don't know, it's just one of the nuggets you pick up doing soviet history.

Going backwards, you have Breznev (arguable), Nicholas II, Nicholas 1, Anna of Russia, Peter III of Russia (arguable), Alexis of Russia (a rebellion but he lost, ultiamtely), and that's as far as I can be bothered to count.

I was wondering whether that was one of the things that must be true becuase it gets said so ofter.

Breznev died of natural causes

as did nicholas 1 "On the eve of his death, the Russian Empire reached its geographical zenith"

that takes us back 160 years which kind of makes my point

rick_chasey

Nicholas I was badly losing the Crimea war and refused treatment rather than live through defeat. Was a pretty big humiliation. (One line nicked from wiki doesn't cut it ;-) although kudos for not sticking it in a tweet, as you'd have had a pile-on then)

briantrumpet

rick_chasey said:

Nicholas I was badly losing the Crimea war and refused treatment rather than live through defeat. Was a pretty big humiliation. (One line nicked from wiki doesn't cut it ;-) although kudos for not sticking it in a tweet, as you'd have had a pile-on then)

Is it just becaiuse they've been in a lot of wars and lost some of them? Isn't it possible that co-incidence has been mistaken as being significant?

rick_chasey

Dollar on an absolute tear this morning.

rick_chasey

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

Nicholas I was badly losing the Crimea war and refused treatment rather than live through defeat. Was a pretty big humiliation. (One line nicked from wiki doesn't cut it ;-) although kudos for not sticking it in a tweet, as you'd have had a pile-on then)

Is it just becaiuse they've been in a lot of wars and lost some of them? Isn't it possible that co-incidence has been mistaken as being significant?

I mean, there are 2 ways to answer this.

The first is: did he survive the war Russia lost? No.

The second is: AFAIK, it was written at the time and in subsequent history that his refusal of a treatable flu which eventually killed him was due to his shame in the incoming defeat. So, of course it's possible; but you can only rely on the evidence available, right? A scientific experiment it is not.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

Nicholas I was badly losing the Crimea war and refused treatment rather than live through defeat. Was a pretty big humiliation. (One line nicked from wiki doesn't cut it ;-) although kudos for not sticking it in a tweet, as you'd have had a pile-on then)

Is it just becaiuse they've been in a lot of wars and lost some of them? Isn't it possible that co-incidence has been mistaken as being significant?

I mean, there are 2 ways to answer this.

The first is: did he survive the war Russia lost? No.

The second is: AFAIK, it was written at the time and in subsequent history that his refusal of a treatable flu which eventually killed him was due to his shame in the incoming defeat. So, of course it's possible; but you can only rely on the evidence available, right? A scientific experiment it is not.

why don't we look at wars Russian has lost and see if it resulted in a change of leadership.

Afghanistan
Chechnya
Cold
WW1
Japan

Not sure there is much point in going back past then.

Maybe you are confusing cause and effect with the reality being that leaders on the way out are more likely to embark on ill-considered wars.

rick_chasey

It's a slightly tongue in cheek saying, I don't think it's cast-iron.

It's been mildly diverting but I'm not going to die in the trench for it.

Japan loss caused the 1905 revolution which basically killed off the monarchy, WW1precipitated the Russian Revolution, Cold War obviously ditched Gorbachov, and the other two are debatable.

surrey_commuter

Anyway as this is the energy thread let me share a tip. As mentioned since WFH I have seen a massive fall in gas consumption so I have looked for other explanations other than the obvious.

After scrutiny of the gass bills I reckon I save 1,000 units a year by amending the factory hot water settings from 2 hours three times a day to 30 mins twice a day.

Stevo_666

surrey_commuter said:

Anyway as this is the energy thread let me share a tip. As mentioned since WFH I have seen a massive fall in gas consumption so I have looked for other explanations other than the obvious.

After scrutiny of the gass bills I reckon I save 1,000 units a year by amending the factory hot water settings from 2 hours three times a day to 30 mins twice a day.

Last owners of our place had the hot water on twice a day for 3 hours. Only needs 45 minutes max twice a day to give us enough. (We're oil fired but same principle).

Also glad that we've replaced all the low voltage spotlights with LEDs just after we bought our place. There were dozens of them. Ditto seucurity lights, while not many of those, they were 500w bulbs FFS.

pblakeney

surrey_commuter said:

Anyway as this is the energy thread let me share a tip. As mentioned since WFH I have seen a massive fall in gas consumption so I have looked for other explanations other than the obvious.

After scrutiny of the gass bills I reckon I save 1,000 units a year by amending the factory hot water settings from 2 hours three times a day to 30 mins twice a day.

Add on a supplement if anyone fancies a soak in the bath and that is our strategy.

kingstongraham

My Nest insists on 2 hours hot water every two days to prevent the build up of legionella bacteria. I think.thats probably over the top - but worth giving it some beans for a while at least every week.

Out of preference, I'd only have the hot water on for 30 mins every morning, then boost as required if we need any more.

shirley_basso

40 mins in the evening for me, just prior to bathing the kids. A boost once or twice a week when the wife wants a bath. We also have an immersion which was previously on all the time (WTF?) but promptly now switched off.

Our timer is digital and will allow 3 hot water / heating cycles per day, so when we eventually capitulate and put the heating on, I will try and run them concurrently.

My long term plan is to solar the roof, use it to run the house and immersion and eventually get an electric boiler.

rick_chasey

I wonder how a combi boiler compares.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

I wonder how a combi boiler compares.

logically it should be more efficient as it is heating on demand. The problem is when there is too much demand

orraloon

Solar PVs and a combi boiler don't work, no tank, so need to add in batteries.

I have inherited a well insulated pressurised system tank, Megaflo type but different brand, logo missing; that holds the heat for a good 48 hours after running the boiler, i.e. can still shower in ok water temp 2 days later. Which is good.

briantrumpet

orraloon said:

Solar PVs and a combi boiler don't work, no tank, so need to add in batteries.

I have inherited a well insulated pressurised system tank, Megaflo type but different brand, logo missing; that holds the heat for a good 48 hours after running the boiler, i.e. can still shower in ok water temp 2 days later. Which is good.

I've got a multipoint which is fantastic, but it is well overdue to be serviced, and I suspect from something a plumber said that a proper gasperson would say it's placement doesn't meet current regs and would refuse to service it. I think if I needed to replace it I'd get a pressurised system tank, if it would fit in the space available in the kitchen, as the one I've got in France is like yours, and I can turn it off a couple of days before I leave, and doesn't seem to cost a fortune to run (though I know French 'lectric is cheaper). I probably ought to put a timer on it and just run it once a day, though not sure if that would save a fortune.

orraloon

Here, as I'm just about to do, I'll put the gas boiler on for water heating for a couple of hours, I'll enjoy a soak in a hot bath (sooth those post digging joints and muscles), the tank will continue to hold enough heat over next 48 hours that e.g. wash some dishes in sink, hot water supply still there. 'Tis a good system that I'm learning to use. I'll have to adapt once the CH goes on.

Meanwhile down the street / slope someone fired up their coal fire earlier, it's mid September! Wind from the north unusually meant I was going what's that smell?

rjsterry

orraloon said:

Solar PVs and a combi boiler don't work, no tank, so need to add in batteries.

I have inherited a well insulated pressurised system tank, Megaflo type but different brand, logo missing; that holds the heat for a good 48 hours after running the boiler, i.e. can still shower in ok water temp 2 days later. Which is good.

PV is photovoltaic. I think you mean solar thermal. Yes you do need a cylinder to store the collected heat from the latter but you could have PVs for all your other electrical needs and a combi boiler for hot water and heating.

orraloon

One of the std pitches from solar PV providers is to use energy from the roof panels to heat water, i.e. replace immersion heater. Early question in my recent chat with energy provider about poss installation was 'do you have a combi boiler?' No I have a hot water tank.

With removal of 'generous' feed in tariff rates few years back, thanks #toryscum government, the payback calcs need some form of energy storage.