Octopus Tracker

tlcgrantham

Sorry December 22

pfpf

Slinky said:

northernstar007 said:

i even know how many kw it uses per wash (sad) 800w lol

but then I do fill it with spare gas heated hot water from the hot tank, via a watering can.

this thread comes up with some belters. 

Telegraph_Sam

I get the impression that 20p is some kind of a milestone. the holy grail.

masonic

Qyburn said:

masonic said:

Telegraph_Sam said:

My Meaco 20 L eco dehumidifier (type??) appears to show up well in the comparisons. The environmental room emperature is in the mid teens. These are currently retailing @ c. £250. Probably as good a solution as I'm going to get, but possibly not excluding some other if it was a matter of making a new outlay. Esp if compared with a new tumble drier.

It's a compressor type, and stated power consumption is up to 255 W "/h" (presumably typical usage in laundry mode, no data for standard operation, but expect this will be below 200 W). It gives extraction data for 30C @ 80%RH: 20 L/day and at 27C @ 60%RH: 12 L/day.

Meaco give performance data for a range of temperatures and humidities. For example 10C/60% gives 2.52l and 163W. Their equivalent dessicant model 3.9l at 351W (low speed) up to 7.5l at 663W 
https://www.meaco.com/products/meaco-20l-low-energy-dehumidifier-and-air-purifier
https://www.meaco.com/products/meaco-dd8l-zambezi-dehumidifier

I don't know how I missed that tab on their website, thanks! 

So based on that data the Meaco compressor unit has the edge over their desiccant model, with IEF of 0.64 vs 0.47 L/kWh respectively. 

However, I'm a bit surprised at the desiccant figures, as I've been running my Inventor Rise since early this morning and generated 2 L in just over 8 hours on normal mode @ 0.33 kW. That works out at about 0.75 L/kWh. Temperature was a little higher than 10C, it was between 13-15C throughout and RH started off at 60% and was hovering around 40% for the last couple of hours, so maybe these effects would cancel each other out. Also, it did shut off for half an hour towards the end as it was set to 40%, but I haven't accounted for that (didn't have it plugged in to an energy meter).

Nevertheless, I'm impressed that a compressor dehumidifier is able to perform that well at low temperatures. The last time I owned one, I could run it continuously for days at lower temperatures and not get the humidity down or generate much condensate in the tank.

Spoonie_Turtle

Tarquinius said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

Tarquinius said:

If this is the case, then it should not be possible to win (or lose) over time by choosing either the tracker or price cap, as it all would average out in the end.

I'd be grateful for any comments as to whether my reasoning is correct - or if not why ?

Thank you in advance !

I don't know why that is, though.  Your theory sounds to me, as a layman, like it should be correct, but so far it's not holding up unless the December increase would have wiped out a person's savings.

Maybe someone else knows, I'm just grateful it's been cheaper than the SVT for the vast majority of the time.

Thank you @Spoonie_Turtle - that is useful advice and good to know.   Given your experience I'll stick with the Tracker through the winter and see what happens !

Grateful if anyone does know the answer as to why Tracker appears cheaper than the price cap in the long run,   and how Octopus are able to supply energy, on average, at a cheaper rate than the price cap in the long term.   It sort of suggests to me that energy cos who charge the price cap (ie pretty much all of them) must be making quite a decent profit out of it,  if Octopus can afford to supply for less over the long term.

I really must remember to caveat when I really about savings - we are annoyingly high electricity users (and since having the smart meter I now know for certain I can't blame it all on the heat pump or not having gas!) so most people's savings will likely be lower than ours.  But then of course their bills will be lower in the first place, so they're still winners.

The SVT rates include a small allowance for profit, either 1.9% or possibly 2.8% now if that's been implemented?  So no, on the SVT no supplier is making mega profits.  The differing markets seem to be the major factor, if I've understood the gist of QrizB's explanation correctly.

Telegraph_Sam

Could be that this is an Agile rather than a true Tracker issue. By the time I up the heating in order to benefit from the relative dehumid efficiencies and before taking account of the solars .. Come back AI all is forgiven

masonic

Spoonie_Turtle said:
The SVT rates include a small allowance for profit, either 1.9% or possibly 2.8% now if that's been implemented?  So no, on the SVT no supplier is making mega profits.  The differing markets seem to be the major factor, if I've understood the gist of QrizB's explanation correctly.

The difference in the way energy is purchased will be having the bigger impact currently, just due to the situation we find ourselves in, but I believe there are all sorts of uncertainties and margins for error built into the calculations, so the actual profitability is probably understated most of the time. We have also come out of a period where the cap was set at an unprofitable level, and I'm not sure whether or not there was a fudge-factor built in to subsequent caps to allow suppliers to claw back that prior loss.

The days when there were plenty of tariff choices coming in comfortably under SVT, even under the early price cap regime, seem like a distant memory.

MultiFuelBurner

masonic said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:
The SVT rates include a small allowance for profit, either 1.9% or possibly 2.8% now if that's been implemented?  So no, on the SVT no supplier is making mega profits.  The differing markets seem to be the major factor, if I've understood the gist of QrizB's explanation correctly.

The difference in the way energy is purchased will be having the bigger impact currently, just due to the situation we find ourselves in, but I believe there are all sorts of uncertainties and margins for error built into the calculations, so the actual profitability is probably understated most of the time. We have also come out of a period where the cap was set at an unprofitable level, and I'm not sure whether or not there was a fudge-factor built in to subsequent caps to allow suppliers to claw back that prior loss.

The days when there were plenty of tariff choices coming in comfortably under SVT, even under the early price cap regime, seem like a distant memory.

The figure of "fudge" escapes me but it used to be 1.9% profit but that has been increased I think.

But yes when I looked at the breakdown of costs and the fact Kraken and it's bots must reduce customer service costs they us some fudge to be had from my understanding for SVT.

AeroJ

MultiFuelBurner said:

Slinky said:

northernstar007 said:

i even know how many kw it uses per wash (sad) 800w lol

Blimey!  Mine uses 0.13kwh on a 30 degree 63minute wash, but then I do fill it with spare gas heated hot water from the hot tank, via a watering can.  We have spare hot water because Nest will only allow us to programme the hot water cycle for an hour or a half hour. We really need 40 minutes. I did used to juggle between an hour one day and half hour the next but OH said that was taking things too far when the shower ran tepid.

So what's the price of the hot water you pour in.

You may also be damaging your washing machine doing that.

Been filling my washing machine with hot water for the past 10yrs and never had a problem.

I calculate this saves me about £100 a year.

An engineer told me this has probably prolonged the life of the machine as it shortens the wash cycle which puts less strain on the motor, bearings and heating element.

Telegraph_Sam

AeroJ said:

MultiFuelBurner said:

Been filling my washing machine with hot water for the past 10yrs

!!!!! Hate to think what your water bill has come to by now ...