Halve your heating costs

BritBrat

If it's stored water you should have it above 60C.

For the reasons dc stated @ http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=5046156&postcount=2

If its not stored then it should be OK at a lower temp, dont forget although your tank temp may be 55C at some point along the pipes it may be just the right temp to bread bacteria. So the hoter the tank the less colder spots will be in the pipes.

moonrakerz

jack_pott wrote: »

The point that people always ignore when they crow about changing to compact fluorescents is that they only save money when they're switched on.

That is rather a false argument. The only way to compare the costs of Tungsten and CF is to compare running costs, if they're not switched on you aren't using electricity that you could save on !

That's like saying my car does more miles to the gallon that yours because I don't use it !

There does come a point, admittedly, if your useage is VERY, VERY low, where the capital cost of CF lamps may make a deliberate change over not cost efficient. However once a tungsten lamp fails it is false economy not to replace it with a CF.

thescouselander

moonrakerz wrote: »

I really don't see how you spend £16 a year on light, unless you get to bed at dusk and get up at dawn.
Just two 100W lights for 4 hrs a day = 5.6kW/week = 291 kW/yr @ 10p = £29 !

Same two lights as energy savers. £2 (max !) to buy them, consumption = 58kW = £5.80 !

I assure you, it can be done if you just turn off lights when you arent using them. The lights that are on most of the time in our house are the ones in the living room which only total 80w. The higher wattage lights in other rooms are only on for short periods. Then of course you have to take into account the summer months when you dont need the lights on as much so worked out over the year it comes to approx £16.


Obviously this approach doesn't work if there are a lot of people living in the house as several rooms might be occupied at once.

I have to say I agree with Jack_pott on this one. Big savings can only be achived when making a comparison against a light that is regularly left on for a long time. The savings quoted are often on the optomistic side.

Also, energy saving bulbs are not as environmentally friendly as people would have you belive. They contain toxic substences such as mercury vapor and are more difficult to dispose of properly.

RAS

penrhyn wrote: »

How much does this bloke charge for his workshops then, sounds like he has a masters degree in wrist action?:rotfl:

Hi

He does not charge. Campaigner for reduced energy use.

[Deleted User]

moonrakerz wrote: »

That is rather a false argument. The only way to compare the costs of Tungsten and CF is to compare running costs, if they're not switched on you aren't using electricity that you could save on !

That's like saying my car does more miles to the gallon that yours because I don't use it !

There does come a point, admittedly, if your useage is VERY, VERY low, where the capital cost of CF lamps may make a deliberate change over not cost efficient. However once a tungsten lamp fails it is false economy not to replace it with a CF.

No, the only way is to compare the running costs and the capital outlay and the interest on capital (and possibly the cost of throwing away a working bulb).
You would need to run a 49p bulb for over 4 hours a year just to cover the interest. I doubt the bulbs in my loft, cupboard under the stairs, spare bedroom, or coalshed do anything like that time. Then there's the damn nuisance of a bulb that takes 2 min to warm up when it only takes 10 seconds to find what I want under the stairs.