Nuke or Oven

grahamc2003

[

t0rt0ise wrote: »

The microwave is cheaper. But to work it out properly you'd need to the wattage of each appliance.

I always wondered why we don't heat water for domestic use by microwave. There must be a reason but I haven't looked to see what it is yet.

The efficiency of a kettle is pretty well 100%, while a microwave is around 60%. An 800w rated microwave actually consumes about 1400w to generate the 800w of microwave power.

So if you have a litre of water to boil, a kettle is Much better (quicker while at the same time much more efficient). Small quantites bring out the drawbacks in a kettle which just aren't there in a microwave - like the kettle having a minimum to cover the elements, and misestimating meaning you almost always heat more water than needed.

I'd guess that the breakeven where the drawbacks of each are about equal would be a mugfull, so I'd say it makes no odds energywise for a mugfull of water, more than that use the kettle, less use the microwave imo.

reeac

samtheman1k wrote: »

Of course, the problem with kettles is that you nearly always heat more water than required, whereas in a microwave , you'll only heat what you require.

That's the essential difference between microwave and conventional cooking.. "you only heat what you require". In the microwave oven the energy is all absorbed in the food or drink plus it's container, not in the surrounding oven. In the conventional oven the whole oven interior gets hot as well.