Standby Saver System???

Cardew

Fred_Bear wrote: »

Apparently, from the report, people sometimes wash one garment at a time.

I wonder if these people have metered water supply?

Certainly for washing machines, the cost of metered water greatly exceeds the cost of electricity.

My washing machine uses 0.4kWh or 0.6kWh(on occasion 0.9kWh) on most cycles - so 4p, 6p, or 9p.

According to the handbook it uses between 59 litres and 80 litres for a full load. I am in one of the cheaper water supply areas so 'only' pay £2.55 for a cubic metre(1000 litres) - so water costs are 15p to 20p a cycle.

Obviously with a part load there will be less water used, but the costs are still way more than electricity.

Older machines can use well over 100 litres a wash and with water costs of over £5 a cubic metre, some unfortunate people in the South West can be paying over 50p a cycle for water.

zeupater

Fred_Bear wrote: »

... The EST figures are not estimates but actual results from monitoring users homes. Surely the only explanation is that people must be using part loads. Apparently, from the report, people sometimes wash one garment at a time.

Hi

The more you read the report the more questions are raised, including what is classified as 'actual' data ... perhaps, considering previous discussions on these boards, the EST should stand aside and members here could conduct such a survey ....

One issue which immediately comes to mind is a comparison to previous years' usage profiles and whether the survey year reflects a continuation of energy reduction if one is apparent.

Regarding tumble dryers in particular ... doesn't anyone use a washing line any more ? - we certainly do when weather permits and I would have thought that a considerable proportion of the population do too, especially those interested in 'moneysaving', therefore where do the differing number of 'average' cycles come from ... they're either figures plucked from the air and recycled within subsequent analysis or skewed figures to suit various reports ....

Consider the following .... if an assumed 50% of households (also conveniently plucked from the air) mainly/always dry their washing on a washing line then the average tumble dryer usage for the remaining 50% jumps to an average of 6 cycles/week - therefore if the loading is anywhere near 6kg that would be 36kg of drying/week ... :rotfl::rotfl: .... to place in context, taking the average as being a pair of jeans and a shirt (which is a relatively pretty heavy selection to be 'average') and making an allowance for two loads of bedding/towels each week, that's still in excess of 24 complete clothes changes/week, which or in other terms suggests an 'average' household comprising 3 people who 'on average' never wear the same clothing twice ....

I'm quietly anticipating the release of a second part of the survey - the before has been published, so what will the 'after' look like .... before & after, I wonder where I've seen that used apart from what seems to make up 25% of the TV programming schedule ... DIY this, Renovate that, and a similar recent TV series on energy saving (before/after) .... ;)

HTH
Z

grahamc2003

Fred_Bear wrote: »

The EST figures are not estimates but actual results from monitoring users homes. Surely the only explanation is that people must be using part loads. Apparently, from the report, people sometimes wash one garment at a time.

They may be 'actual results', but they appear to be based on logs written by the participants.

It appears to me that while total electricity usage was monitored (much of the time by a spot power reading at ten minute intervals - which isn't to the accuracy of minute by minute as claimed) the individual item usage was logged in a diary by the user. Now call me cynical, but how accurate would such a log be, considering it looks like most people have 40 or more bits of equipment to log?. I expect, at least after a couple of weeks, the log was probably/possibly filled in at the end of the day from memory. (which, if so, I'd expect to lead to large inaccuracies in the source data from which everything else is derived).

In general, as well as agreeing with other concerns mentioned, I found the report style very odd indeed, and certainly not a serious piece of academic-like research. The report certainly bigs itself up in several places ('groundbreaking research' and the like), and has quite an emotional content (things like 'those with babies don't need to worry as a bottle warmer only costs £3 pa' and 'we then walk down the hallway to the living room' etc etc). Quite perversely imv, the report I think simply took out of the data any electrical heating (the biggest electricity consumer in all-electric houses), and yet emphasised (and to my mind redefined) 'standby' usage.

All in all, a lot of reservations on the value of the 'groundbreaking' study.

Cardew

Totally agree with the post above, some of the results are unbelievable.

Take Table 8.

A household with a single pensioner uses 22.6% more electricity for a washing machine and dryer than a multi pensioner household. i.e 144/344kWh for Washing machine/dryer against 111/287kWh.

A single non-pensioner uses 505kWh(173/332kWh) where a household with children only uses 512kWh - i.e 7kWh more.

Thus a household with children only spends about £50 for both Washing machine and Dryer - way, way below any other estimates I have seen - including organisations like WHICH and Sust-it.

Similarly a single pensioner household uses more on lighting than any other household in the survey - including the family with children.

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

Totally agree with the post above, some of the results are unbelievable.

Take Table 8.

A household with a single pensioner uses 22.6% more electricity for a washing machine and dryer than a multi pensioner household. i.e 144/344kWh for Washing machine/dryer against 111/287kWh.

A single non-pensioner uses 505kWh(173/332kWh) where a household with children only uses 512kWh - i.e 7kWh more.

Thus a household with children only spends about £50 for both Washing machine and Dryer - way, way below any other estimates I have seen - including organisations like WHICH and Sust-it.

Similarly a single pensioner household uses more on lighting than any other household in the survey - including the family with children.

Hi

This is probably the result of the report author not really understanding what the analysis and pre-report discussions with the data analysts meant ... it would make sense if the single pensioner used 22.6% more than each person in a multi pensioner household and it's my guess that's what the data shows - if not the whole project along with it's conclusions must be seriously flawed. This really places a very big questionmark over the rest of the analysis in the document .... doesn't anyone apply simple common-sense logic to this kind of research anymore ??

I wonder how much this report has actually cost us all and whether the EST, as they contribute to these boards (infrequently, but when it suits them ... ) , would care to comment ?? .... probably not then ... :rotfl:

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

Zeup.

Regarding the washing section I'll be honest (or should I say 'come clean') and admit that I gave up reading the report at that stage first time round.

The wording suggests consumption per household, but the numbers suggest consumption per person per household.

Tried it again tonight, but something seems to have been lost in translation. Either that or I'm just too tired to work it out!

Mart.

zeupater

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Zeup.

Regarding the washing section I'll be honest (or should I say 'come clean') and admit that I gave up reading the report at that stage first time round.

The wording suggests consumption per household, but the numbers suggest consumption per person per household.

Tried it again tonight, but something seems to have been lost in translation. Either that or I'm just too tired to work it out!

Mart.

Hi

Too right, as a document it is pretty awful to read .... I really hate documents where, in order to read the text, you have to zoom to a level where you then need to scroll up/down/left & right in order to read the various columns just because the pdf has been created in facing page mode .... can't these people simply produce their output in a scrollable page-by-page format ?? ... I suppose that, like many public sector departments, there's a tick list - tick the box which says 'publish' & consider the job done (receive bonus and pat yourself on the back ... ) ....

Cynical or what !! :cool:
Z