Is it worth buying a fast boil kettle?

Unity

When our fast boil kettle blew recently we found that the repair shops we asked didn't repair them, so we just bought a basic cheapy - but it takes ages to boil.

My question is: is it worth buying a new fast boil kettle in terms of being economical with electricity - or doesn't it make a difference?

Does it take the same amount of electricity to boil something faster or is it much the same?

Thanks,
Unity :beer:

Devon_Hippo

Got to use the same power, I'm sure.

The thing to do is get one that works with a minimal amount of water (1 cup say) AND put only the required amount in. That will be the most economical kettle as you don't boil extra water each time.

They don't seem to last like they used to, do they! last one we got was from John Lewis - cost a couple of quid extra but got a 3 year warranty

Unity

Devon_Hippo wrote: »

Got to use the same power, I'm sure.

The thing to do is get one that works with a minimal amount of water (1 cup say) AND put only the required amount in. That will be the most economical kettle as you don't boil extra water each time.

They don't seem to last like they used to, do they! last one we got was from John Lewis - cost a couple of quid extra but got a 3 year warranty

They certainly don't last as long as they used to:rolleyes:, although I have used kettles with measures on the side for as long as they've been out and only ever boil the water we need.

My reason for asking is that I checked the Argos catalogue and saw a Kenwood Energysense 3kw kettle (£39.99) advertised as being up to 35% energy saving. I wondered how this works, if it really does and how long it would take to recoup the difference compared to buying say a Clockworks at £14.99. Actually I've just noticed that this one is also a fast boil.

Most of the kettles on offer are 3kw although the cheapest few are 2.2kw and not fast boil, so that's another consideration perhaps?

Is a concealed element really better than one that isn't? I mean can you still get replacement elements and there again if the cheapest kettle in the catalogue is £4.92, is it worth it?

I'll apologise straight away that this is tedious , but having started really trying to economise on energy usage - it's one of the things that puzzles me.

Ta,
Unity

27col

A fixed amount of water takes a fixed amount of energy to boil it. All a fast boil
is doing, is using a larger wattage element. This inputs the required amount of energy at a faster rate. The answer is to only boil the amount of water that you require at the time

Unity

27col wrote: »

A fixed amount of water takes a fixed amount of energy to boil it. All a fast boil
is doing, is using a larger wattage element. This inputs the required amount of energy at a faster rate. The answer is to only boil the amount of water that you require at the time

Thanks for clearing that up. So the 35% energy saving claim is a bit of a myth then. I wonder how they justify that? Typical.

Thanks,
Unity

skylight

The claim is for the Tefal One Cup I think??? Here, you "save" the energy as you only boil the water you use at the time.

In a conventional kettle, most people put more water in the kettle when you use it - after you pour what you want there is water in the bottom of the kettle (varying amounts) and when you want another cuppa, you usually re-fill the kettle, so that the water that had already been boiled and left over is now being boiled again, using more energy. And again, and again etc.

Does that help a bit??

Garry2

A kettle could be considered more economical going by the amount of heat that is allowed to escape from the water during the boiling process, but the savings would be minimal. If you're being really obsessive you could also stray away from kettles with fancy LED backlights, but once again the money saved per year would be measures in pennies.

webwalker

Yes all of the above.

It takes a set ammount of energy to raise 1 litre of water 1 degree, the faster you boil it means less energy is lost through heat dissapation.

I only boil as much as I need, I use a water filter which stands on the workbench so the process of heating it is less than using water straight from the tap, also no limescale build up the element still looks brand new.

Kettle: a fiver from woolies originaly but they are £6 now.

Unity

skylight wrote: »

The claim is for the Tefal One Cup I think??? Here, you "save" the energy as you only boil the water you use at the time.

In a conventional kettle, most people put more water in the kettle when you use it - after you pour what you want there is water in the bottom of the kettle (varying amounts) and when you want another cuppa, you usually re-fill the kettle, so that the water that had already been boiled and left over is now being boiled again, using more energy. And again, and again etc.

Does that help a bit??

I'm looking at the newish Autumn/Winter Argos catalogue on page 653 where there are six models in a separate section, on a green background with a little 'eco home' symbol on. The Tefal Quick Cup is first at £59.94; the Philips One Cup is on at £19.99 (also in stainless steel at £29.99). The Breville compact at £14.99 (that's also in stainless steel at £19.99 - but the Kenwood Energysense at £39.99 is the only one that specifically says 'Up to 35% energy saving.' I wondered if this was possible and how - since although I can wire a plug etc. - other than that, electricity might as well be magic:eek:. You know - you switch it on and hey presto it works!

Garry2 wrote: »

A kettle could be considered more economical going by the amount of heat that is allowed to escape from the water during the boiling process, but the savings would be minimal. If you're being really obsessive you could also stray away from kettles with fancy LED backlights, but once again the money saved per year would be measures in pennies.

Well from the picture, the only thing that might be different here is the size of the actual spout - the Kenwood seems to have a smaller one - but it also has the power indicator - so that might cut down on what I'd save anyway.

webwalker wrote: »

Yes all of the above.

It takes a set ammount of energy to raise 1 litre of water 1 degree, the faster you boil it means less energy is lost through heat dissapation.

I only boil as much as I need, I use a water filter which stands on the workbench so the process of heating it is less than using water straight from the tap, also no limescale build up the element still looks brand new.

Kettle: a fiver from woolies originaly but they are £6 now.

I think I get it now - the longer it takes to boil, the more heat is lost in the process - but either way it's not going to make a great deal of difference as far as savings are concerned.

My OH put a water filtration system in when they first became available, in fact we have had two as the first company went out of business so we couldn't get the filters. We find it makes a big difference to the taste of the water and we also notice we don't get as much limescale.

Thanks to you all for taking the time out to explain it :T:T:T

OddjobKIA

you could boil water with one tea light candle but its much easier with 1000.

all fast boil and power showers etc etc do is use more energy quicker..

IE

running out of fuel do you put your foot down and get there quicker or slow down use less petrol but tkae longer...

as others have said use less water or only the water you need

moonrakerz

Unity wrote: »

Thanks for clearing that up. So the 35% energy saving claim is a bit of a myth then. I wonder how they justify that? Typical.

Thanks,
Unity

No it's not - it is complete B*****t !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!