Energy thread

wallace_and_gromit

bonk_king said:

For those burning wood I suspect the vast majority haven't actually paid for it. I get as much free wood from work as I want, and others, as mentioned may have a supply of logs or whatever.

That's great for us, but have you seen the price of small bags of wood in the likes of B&Q, and even buying kiln dried logs in bulk isn't cheap.

All the suppliers, whatever fuel they are selling, are getting in on the act that's for sure.

I guess we're not there yet, but there may come a point where it's cheaper to hire a tree surgeon to set about trees in your garden than it is to buy logs commercially.

Munsford0

We've got a big silver birch close to the boundary which really could do with felling and turning into logs. Bought it as a sapling in a 5L pot 33 years ago; a bargain at £1.68. Even with the cost of tree surgery I think it will be a decent return on investment.
It's only still there cos I know it annoys our inconsiderate, petty, d1ckhead neighbours.
I'll need to construct an industrial scale log store to accommodate / condition the resulting logs though. That, or fill the garage to the ceiling and move the bikes indoors. No points for guessing which option wifey will veto.

surrey_commuter

bonk_king said:

For those burning wood I suspect the vast majority haven't actually paid for it. I get as much free wood from work as I want, and others, as mentioned may have a supply of logs or whatever.

That's great for us, but have you seen the price of small bags of wood in the likes of B&Q, and even buying kiln dried logs in bulk isn't cheap.

All the suppliers, whatever fuel they are selling, are getting in on the act that's for sure.

I price up the logs in the most poncey garden centre I can find to maximise my saving in processing my own logs. At close to £1 per log it is very easy to justify the faffing around.

bonk_king

Usually trees benefit the building and furniture industries primarily. Who'd have thought that a tree could be worth more as plain old firewood!!

I hope to Christ the mad government of Brazil don't get wind of this!

bonk_king

I've never burnt logs on my woodburner. I get literally hundreds of those blocks from broken pallets. Dried out they're hard to beat as free fuel.

Typically, for those who've burnt both pallet wood and logs, what is the burning rate like? I know that logs will generally last longer than plain old pallet wood but I was wondering if my blocks for example would be on a par with logs.

Munsford0

Your pallet blocks will at best be softwood, though some I've come across appear to be compressed chipboard type stuff. Seasoned / kiln dried hardwood logs burn for about twice as long and seems to chuck out a bit more heat in my experience.

surrey_commuter

bonk_king said:

Usually trees benefit the building and furniture industries primarily. Who'd have thought that a tree could be worth more as plain old firewood!!

I hope to Christ the mad government of Brazil don't get wind of this!

a burglar would be better off stealing my logs than my TV

bonk_king

surrey_commuter said:

bonk_king said:

Usually trees benefit the building and furniture industries primarily. Who'd have thought that a tree could be worth more as plain old firewood!!

I hope to Christ the mad government of Brazil don't get wind of this!

a burglar would be better off stealing my logs than my TV

With the price of electric you're probably right!

bonk_king

Munsford0 said:

Your pallet blocks will at best be softwood, though some I've come across appear to be compressed chipboard type stuff. Seasoned / kiln dried hardwood logs burn for about twice as long and seems to chuck out a bit more heat in my experience.

I do actually come across a lot of those "compressed" type blocks but I tend not to collect them. I may be wrong but does the compression process not involve some form of glue to keep all the chips together and give the block its strength?

If glue is involved then burning them is a big no no, correct??

rjsterry

Some compressed products use glue and some don't. I would guess the blocks you see in pallets are not glued. The main issue with the compressed pallet blocks as fuel is the low density.

Hardwood pallets do exist, especially where things are imported from somewhere that doesn't grow much softwood, but they are certainly less common.

masjer

bonk_king said:

Munsford0 said:

Your pallet blocks will at best be softwood, though some I've come across appear to be compressed chipboard type stuff. Seasoned / kiln dried hardwood logs burn for about twice as long and seems to chuck out a bit more heat in my experience.

If glue is involved then burning them is a big no no, correct??

choke_king.

Munsford0

bonk_king said:

If glue is involved then burning them is a big no no, correct??

I get quite a good supply of offcuts at work but I try to fish out the plywood & MDF or anything painted / varnished. Less out of concern for the environment, more a desire to avoid gumming up the flue...

briantrumpet

A bit of a nippy 15C in the house this morning, so the heater will go on the timer from today for an hour or so in the morning and longer in the evening.

On the plus side, last night was the coolest night forecast for the next week.

briantrumpet

Still only averaging about £2 per day for November (highest daily is £2.63), including a few days when the 'lectric radiator and blanket have been in use.

masjer

Good going Brian.

Stevo_666

masjer said:

Good going Brian.

Here's a more modern version...

briantrumpet

masjer said:

Good going Brian.

Where did you get that photo of me?

Stevo_666 said:

masjer said:

Good going Brian.

Here's a more modern version...

Where are you getting all my profile photos from?

rick_chasey

Belgium is seldom seen as a paragon of good governance; for a while a decade ago it had no national government at all. But last month it agreed on a thoughtful way to tackle the energy crisis. In normal times, landlords are allowed to raise rent in multi-year tenancies in line with inflation. As energy prices have soared, this could have been a double-whammy for tenants, clobbered by high gas bills and the secondary inflation these have caused. So Belgium will allow landlords to jack up the rent only for properties that meet energy-efficiency standards. In the short term this protects tenants. Looking further out it is a nudge for landlords to invest in greenery. France does something superficially similar, but as part of a plan to ban the rental of poorly insulated homes, which could push the worst housing into the black market.

https://www.economist.com/europe/2022/11/24/european-politicians-should-steal-more-of-their-neighbours-best-ideas

Pross

Certainly sounds like a good idea on paper. The main problem is that if you force landlords to spend more money and / or reduce their income they tend to cut their losses and sell up as they have apparently started to do recently due to other legislation. The reason kids are dying in housing that fails to meet the very minimum health requirements is that there isn't anywhere else to house them.

There needs to be a huge investment in high quality social rental property (either Government, Local Authority or not-for-profit company operated). The new stuff I've worked on in the past is generally better quality and more energy efficient than the open-market stuff on the same sites, there just isn't enough of it being built.

abishek_l

I've got a smart meter so it's easy to track the costs. It's costing almost half to keep the thermostat at a constant temperature - between 18 and 19C - instead of putting the heating on and off once or twice a day. I didn't think the difference would be as much as it is showing.

I've also put insulation tape on all the windows and doors and that's made a huge difference to how much more comfortable it now feels inside, and all at a cost of less than a tenner.

rick_chasey

Pross said:

Certainly sounds like a good idea on paper. The main problem is that if you force landlords to spend more money and / or reduce their income they tend to cut their losses and sell up as they have apparently started to do recently due to other legislation. The reason kids are dying in housing that fails to meet the very minimum health requirements is that there isn't anywhere else to house them.

There needs to be a huge investment in high quality social rental property (either Government, Local Authority or not-for-profit company operated). The new stuff I've worked on in the past is generally better quality and more energy efficient than the open-market stuff on the same sites, there just isn't enough of it being built.

This is so tragic.

pangolin

abishek_l said:

I've got a smart meter so it's easy to track the costs. It's costing almost half to keep the thermostat at a constant temperature - between 18 and 19C - instead of putting the heating on and off once or twice a day. I didn't think the difference would be as much as it is showing.

I've also put insulation tape on all the windows and doors and that's made a huge difference to how much more comfortable it now feels inside, and all at a cost of less than a tenner.

How do you know how much of the cost difference is due to the insulation changes, and how much is due to the change in thermostat programming?

pblakeney

pangolin said:

abishek_l said:

I've got a smart meter so it's easy to track the costs. It's costing almost half to keep the thermostat at a constant temperature - between 18 and 19C - instead of putting the heating on and off once or twice a day. I didn't think the difference would be as much as it is showing.

I've also put insulation tape on all the windows and doors and that's made a huge difference to how much more comfortable it now feels inside, and all at a cost of less than a tenner.

How do you know how much of the cost difference is due to the insulation changes, and how much is due to the change in thermostat programming?

Also affected by the outside weather. You'd have to check with equal temperatures and winds. A worthwhile test if done properly though.

surrey_commuter

abishek_l said:

I've got a smart meter so it's easy to track the costs. It's costing almost half to keep the thermostat at a constant temperature - between 18 and 19C - instead of putting the heating on and off once or twice a day. I didn't think the difference would be as much as it is showing.

I've also put insulation tape on all the windows and doors and that's made a huge difference to how much more comfortable it now feels inside, and all at a cost of less than a tenner.

Intuitively that feels wrong that it uses less energy to heat the house all day rather than half the time. Can you give more details on how you calculated this.

Pross

Presumably working less to maintain a heat than to bring it up from a lower temperature?

pblakeney

Pross said:

Presumably working less to maintain a heat than to bring it up from a lower temperature?

I'm guessing it depends on external temperatures and is more efficient as the temperature drops. I had heating on 24/7 in Canada but I don't think it is necessary here.

abishek_l

I'm happy to provide more detail but my intuition is that Pross is right on this.
The old routine was water on at 6am-7am and so does the heating with it set to 20C from 8am-10am. The heating was set to come on again in the evening from 8pm-midnight. Temperature, according to the Tado App, between the heating coming on, was averaging between 16-17.5C. Boiler would then kick in at the set times and would be at full pelt. I could see that it was averaging £6 of usage from midnight to when I first checked around 8am and then another £6 by midnight. I was following this routine most of winter last year and for the last fortnight.
For the last 3 days, and post insulation, I've let the App control the thermostat at 18C
and the cost, between midnight and 8 am, is showing around £4 and this creeps up another £2-£3 by midnight. All of us feel the heat to be uncomfortable when it gets around 20 so I've found 18C to be just fine with a fleece on when indoors, and that's quite comfortable. It doesn't seem chilly indoors and I must say that the insulation has really made a big difference but I thought the costs showing on the smart meter were quite interesting.

rjsterry

Pross said:

Presumably working less to maintain a heat than to bring it up from a lower temperature?

A good explanation here.

https://www.heatgeek.com/should-your-heating-be-left-on-all-the-time-or-not/

wallace_and_gromit

IIRC, keeping the heating on is more efficient in terms of energy used per hour of keeping temperature at target level than if you go for the "heat up, keep at temperature whilst needed then allow to cool" cycle, but you still use less energy going through this cycle if you only need (for example) 2 hours in the morning and 4 hours in the evening compared to leaving the heating on all day.

So you might use [60]% of the energy required to heat the house all day, to keep it at target temperature for 50% of the day. Less energy used in total. More energy used per hour.

[60]% is made up. It's some number over 50% and hopefully less than 100%.

surrey_commuter

wallace_and_gromit said:

IIRC, keeping the heating on is more efficient in terms of energy used per hour of keeping temperature at target level than if you go for the "heat up, keep at temperature whilst needed then allow to cool" cycle, but you still use less energy going through this cycle if you only need (for example) 2 hours in the morning and 4 hours in the evening compared to leaving the heating on all day.

So you might use [60]% of the energy required to heat the house all day, to keep it at target temperature for 50% of the day. Less energy used in total. More energy used per hour.

[60]% is made up. It's some number over 50% and hopefully less than 100%.

as per RJST's article does it not "depend"

so if you are well insulated and your heating system is more efficient ticking over and your time in the house is optimal then it would be cheaper to leave it running (but knocked back) plus in a tight run thing it would be more pleasant.