storage heaters/electric central heating or gas?

espresso · 13 January 2008 at 11:22AM

After being told by the ASA to remove the claim "Running costs from 2p per hour" from future ads unless they held appropriate documentary evidence to support them, they now state in their ads "Heat an average sized room for just 3 pence per hour"

Inactive · 13 January 2008 at 12:49PM

Electrorad wrote: »

At Electrorad U.K. Ltd we market a 'dynamic storage heater' from Germany, trademark Aeroflow. They offer radiant and convection heat, and very low running costs.

Which part of this do you not understand?

Don't post links for personal gain. Except in the referrers section and always declare any interest.

To be found at the top of forum pages.

:spam: :spam: :spam:

Ashie_2 · 13 January 2008 at 4:56PM

Hi all, new here with a quick question.
Our detatched large bungalow in Cornwall has oil fired (combi) central heating, we do not have mains gas. We are refurbishing a one room en-suite annex for my elderly mother. Is it better to put in radiators from our existing boiler or separate electric heating, bearing in mind that she will need heat all day whereas the rest of the house will not? It will be awkward to remember to keep turning off the radiators in the rest of the house.
The hot water to the annex will be taken from our boiler.
Many thanks in advance.

Electrorad · 13 January 2008 at 5:03PM

1. The ASA adjudication was due to them not accepting evidence from Germany, since they have had our UK independent test data we are cleared to advertise as little as 3p per hour running costs. But feel free to contact them for verification of this if you so wish.

2. I have never said that we produce more heat per kw. For example, all 2kw elements produce the same amount of heat.
where products differ is how they distribute the heat. Surface area is very important in radiant heating as all heating engineers will tell you and the ratio of radiant/convection heat produced.

Running costs can be reduced by the element transferring the generated heat to a storage medium. Oil will retain heat longer than water, stone will retain heat longer than oil. If heat is stored and continues to emit heat into the room to maintain the room temperature after the electricity is switched off by the thermostat, then the electricity will not need to switch back on as often or for as long to MAINTAIN a room temperature as with a system without a storage medium. Thus reducing electricity usage.

nick74 · 13 January 2008 at 6:29PM

Electrorad wrote: »

Running costs can be reduced by the element transferring the generated heat to a storage medium. Oil will retain heat longer than water, stone will retain heat longer than oil. If heat is stored and continues to emit heat into the room to maintain the room temperature after the electricity is switched off by the thermostat, then the electricity will not need to switch back on as often or for as long to MAINTAIN a room temperature as with a system without a storage medium. Thus reducing electricity usage.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Do you honestly believe that?!

Cardew · 13 January 2008 at 8:47PM

Electrorad wrote: »

1. The ASA adjudication was due to them not accepting evidence from Germany, since they have had our UK independent test data we are cleared to advertise as little as 3p per hour running costs. But feel free to contact them for verification of this if you so wish.

2. I have never said that we produce more heat per kw. For example, all 2kw elements produce the same amount of heat.
where products differ is how they distribute the heat. Surface area is very important in radiant heating as all heating engineers will tell you and the ratio of radiant/convection heat produced.

Running costs can be reduced by the element transferring the generated heat to a storage medium. Oil will retain heat longer than water, stone will retain heat longer than oil. If heat is stored and continues to emit heat into the room to maintain the room temperature after the electricity is switched off by the thermostat, then the electricity will not need to switch back on as often or for as long to MAINTAIN a room temperature as with a system without a storage medium. Thus reducing electricity usage.

Have you actually read the ASA adjudication?

The cost to run a room, was but a small part of their report. The damning conclusion was that you were untruthful in that:

the claim implied consumers would save energy and money if they used Electrorad's product instead of their current heating method.

and

we considered that we had not seen evidence to show that consumers were likely to save energy and money if they were to switch from their current mode of heating to Electrorad heaters.

Yet on the internet(where the ASA have no jurisdiction - yet) you are still implying exactly what the ASA deemed untruthful.

Anyway to move on to your latest stupid claim:

We finally have an admission that your heaters(costing £thousands for a system?) produce no more heat than any other electrical heater, including Granny’s 1/2/3/ bar fire. Or to use a system similar to yours, the £30 oil filled radiator.

So having established all electrical heaters produce the same amount of heat, you now make the ludicrous claims that by retaining heat your radiators “Running costs can be reduced

Thus reducing electricity usage”

Well you are quite correct that the higher the specific density of a material, the longer it retains heat and thus will continue to release that heat over a longer period. (a good argument for solid iron radiators;) )

Now heat is energy. Therefore as your radiator only gives out the same total energy(heat) as any other heater, but spreads out the period over which it gives out that heat , what is your conclusion?

Could it possibly be that the rate of releasing that energy(heat) would be lower than a system that didn’t retain heat for as long?

Or have you found a way of defying the laws of physics? In that you somehow produce more output of heat than is input?

To heat this room of yours for 24 hours to yy degreesC for xx pence would cost exactly the same as any other electrical heater.

You quite obviously are a salesman with zero technical knowledge - either that or you are simply telling lies. (untruthful, in the sense the ASA use it, is defined in Webster's as "telling lies")

I suggest to get out of the hole you have dug for yourself – you stop digging. Just accept that your bogus claims have been exposed and, as I said at the beginning, go and seek a more gullible audience.

Unfortunately there are plenty of suckers who are taken in by these sort of outrageous claims; the pity is they are normally the people who can least afford to be taken for a ride.

However it keeps you in a job I suppose.

espresso · 14 January 2008 at 12:28PM

Remember to read the small print:

The Seller stipulates that no guarantee is given regarding the performance or running costs of the Goods. Any performance figures quoted in the Seller’s literature are for guidance only and are not specific. The figures are based on average temperatures for an area as determined by the MET. office.

:rolleyes:

samtheman1k · 18 January 2008 at 9:58AM

Electrorad wrote: »

Running costs can be reduced by the element transferring the generated heat to a storage medium. Oil will retain heat longer than water, stone will retain heat longer than oil. If heat is stored and continues to emit heat into the room to maintain the room temperature after the electricity is switched off by the thermostat, then the electricity will not need to switch back on as often or for as long to MAINTAIN a room temperature as with a system without a storage medium. Thus reducing electricity usage.

Yes, but what you fail to understand is that in order to maintain heat for longer, you need to put more heat in in the first place (and this is stored for slow release). Hmm...sounds like a normal storage heater :rolleyes:

Terrylw1 · 24 January 2008 at 12:17AM

Cardew wrote: »

Somebody on here, forget who but they worked for a Utility company, said that all companies must provide E10; however some are reluctant to do so. Might be worth a query with Energywatch to see if that is true.

Rather than pay 5+p for E10, plus a premium for electricity during the other 14 hours, a flat rate of 7+p 24/7 could be an option??? The advantage being that the COP will be higher during the day when it is warmer.

Decisions, Decisions!!

At least after monitoring your consumption for a while you will have some data on which to base your decision on the best tariff.

I can answer that one for you.

ALL Suppliers who have signed up to the Balancing & Settlement Code (BSC), a form of trading licence must have the capability to register any type of metering in Englang, Scotland & wales. So, any Supplier selling elec in those regions is covered under the BSC.

Suppliers are regularily reviewed on their performance against the BSC. The industry has also tightened up on data over the past 3 years in terms of registering meters against properties.

So, all Suppliers can register you on any meter. The problem lies within their own billing engines. They have to create a compatible tariff. In the case of E10 and Heatwise, they also have to be able to support dual MPAN based billing. Thats the problem.

Some Suppliers have made their registration systems compliant, but they haven't created compatible tariffs.

I can tell you Npower have this problem. Some others do to.

So, the problem when you have dual MPAN metering is that you have to shop around for someone who can bill you before even thinking about comparing prices.

The sae problem applies to customers with solar panelled feedback (import/export meters) since they are new and still being thrashed at out industry level. I don't expect the problem to get any better though since the industry auditor (Ofgem's equivalent for the BSC), Elexon don't even check the compatible tariff side.

Nice one Ofgem!

jazzmann · 25 January 2008 at 4:31PM

Cardew wrote: »

You really don't understand do you? Or are you deliberately obfuscating? Attempting to ‘blind us with science’ will simply not work.

If this hypothetical/theoretical/actual room under any combination of conditions can be shown to be heated for 4p an hour by your system – so be it. That is not the issue.

I will say this S L O W L Y!

Firstly, I am stating unequivocally that any form of electrical heating, like a £30 oil filled radiator, will produce exactly the same amount of heat for the money e.g. the 4p an hour.

Secondly, it is your implied message that somehow ELECTRORAD produces more heat than other electrical systems that is distasteful and indeed deceptive . . .

Cardew, whilst I appreciate you are a Chartered Electrical Engineer, have you actually used Electrowarm or Electrorad radiators during the winter months, or is your knowledge just theory?

Also, in your post of 4/12/07 you say that Electrowarm are oil filled. But they're not. So I guess your knowledge and research isn't as thorough as it might be.

What central heating are you currently using?

storage heaters/electric central heating or gas?

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free