Induction hob kettle V electric kettle

andyproc

I've just got an induction hob and am amazed at how fast it boils water. Has anyone worked out which will be cheaper-boiling in a kettle on an induction hob or in a normal electric kettle?

xyz123

andyproc wrote: »

I've just got an induction hob and am amazed at how fast it boils water. Has anyone worked out which will be cheaper-boiling in a kettle on an induction hob or in a normal electric kettle?

IMHO
The difference is very miniscule, but for every 1kwh of energy use, with the electric kettle, 100% goes to heating up water while with induction there will be some losses in magnetic circuit (don't know for sure but induction his are about 90% efficient)...

Risteard

Not necessarily, because with the induction hob on power boost the water might boil quicker which would mean that less heat was lost from the water during the boiling process.

A zip tap might be the absolute most efficient way!

xyz123

Risteard wrote: »

Not necessarily, because with the induction hob on power boost the water might boil quicker which would mean that less heat was lost from the water during the boiling process.

A zip tap might be the absolute most efficient way!

But with boost function induction will consume more energy as well. To heat water from say 25 deg to 100deg I. E. Boil the water, the energy required is constant whether u use kettle or hob. With kettle 100% of electricity is converted to heat energy while with induction it's not.

Owain_Moneysaver

Risteard wrote: »

Not necessarily, because with the induction hob on power boost the water might boil quicker which would mean that less heat was lost from the water during the boiling process.

However with a plastic kettle (which is less thermally conductive) there will be less heat lost from the water than there will be from a metal kettle.

Risteard

xyz123 wrote: »

But with boost function induction will consume more energy as well.

But for a shorter duration, which also means less heat loss over that period (and hence increased efficiency).

xyz123

Risteard wrote: »

But for a shorter duration, which also means less heat loss over that period (and hence increased efficiency).

Electricity cost is in kWh. Not kW. Back to basics. Efficiency is defined as effectiveness of converting input to output. With kettle 100% input is converted to output which is heat energy, with induction it's not 100%.

Risteard

xyz123 wrote: »

Electricity cost is in kWh. Not kW. Back to basics. Efficiency is defined as effectiveness of converting input to output. With kettle 100% input is converted to output which is heat energy, with induction it's not 100%.

You are completely missing the point.

The longer it takes you to boil the water, the more heat will be lost from the water over that period which will cause it to take longer to boil (and therefore increased energy consumption).

The water does not retain all the heat transferred to it. It loses heat over time. Therefore the more rapid the boiling, the less heat lost and the more efficient (in this sense) that the method is.

lee111s

I still reckon a kettle is better and is also far less hassle!

xyz123

Risteard wrote: »

You are completely missing the point.

The longer it takes you to boil the water, the more heat will be lost from the water over that period which will cause it to take longer to boil (and therefore increased energy consumption).

The water does not retain all the heat transferred to it. It loses heat over time. Therefore the more rapid the boiling, the less heat lost and the more efficient (in this sense) that the method is.

ok, having been electrical engineering lecturer at university i standby what what i said and i am sure u have similar reasoning for ur knowledge. i am sure the world will still survive with u and me disagreeing on miniscule amount of heat loss from water in insulated kettle during few seconds it takes to boil.....