arrived to "hot water tank"

GDB2222

grumbler said:

GDB2222 said:

spurdog1 said:

fenwick, doozer thinks electricity is more expensive. apologies for confusion. tank is 6yo, cylinder with immersion heater
the tank was used 2.5 hours a day= 17.5 hours a week, now using 4 hours pw.

saving 30p per day =2.10 pw............£25 per quarter (old rates)??? poss £70 PQ at todays announcement

The immersion isn't using electricity all the time it's on. It has a thermostat, so it only stays on long enough to heat the water, then it switches off again. It uses a similar amount of electricity whether you leave it on 24/7 or just 4 hours a week.

I disagree. This would be correct only if the heat loss is close to zero. Otherwise it's very similar to heating a house.

Essentially, you are saying turn the water temperature down. Except, instead of an even temperature, you are suggesting a saw tooth pattern. That could make sense if the OP were proposing to heat the water just before taking a shower, but he isn't saying that. 

grumbler

GDB2222 said:

grumbler said:

GDB2222 said:

spurdog1 said:

fenwick, doozer thinks electricity is more expensive. apologies for confusion. tank is 6yo, cylinder with immersion heater
the tank was used 2.5 hours a day= 17.5 hours a week, now using 4 hours pw.

saving 30p per day =2.10 pw............£25 per quarter (old rates)??? poss £70 PQ at todays announcement

The immersion isn't using electricity all the time it's on. It has a thermostat, so it only stays on long enough to heat the water, then it switches off again. It uses a similar amount of electricity whether you leave it on 24/7 or just 4 hours a week.

I disagree. This would be correct only if the heat loss is close to zero. Otherwise it's very similar to heating a house.

  instead of an even temperature, you are suggesting a saw tooth pattern.

Sort of.

That could make sense if the OP were proposing to heat the water just before taking a shower, but he isn't saying that.

Absolutely. I assume that he was proposing exactly this because otherwise this makes no sense whatsoever.

GDB2222

grumbler said:

GDB2222 said:

grumbler said:

GDB2222 said:

spurdog1 said:

fenwick, doozer thinks electricity is more expensive. apologies for confusion. tank is 6yo, cylinder with immersion heater
the tank was used 2.5 hours a day= 17.5 hours a week, now using 4 hours pw.

saving 30p per day =2.10 pw............£25 per quarter (old rates)??? poss £70 PQ at todays announcement

The immersion isn't using electricity all the time it's on. It has a thermostat, so it only stays on long enough to heat the water, then it switches off again. It uses a similar amount of electricity whether you leave it on 24/7 or just 4 hours a week.

I disagree. This would be correct only if the heat loss is close to zero. Otherwise it's very similar to heating a house.

  instead of an even temperature, you are suggesting a saw tooth pattern.

Sort of.

That could make sense if the OP were proposing to heat the water just before taking a shower, but he isn't saying that.

Absolutely. I assume that he was proposing exactly this because otherwise this makes no sense whatsoever.

He said "1.5 hours twice a week, plus another hour", which maybe is when he showers. 

macman

OP, any heat lost from the immersion in winter is not really lost, as it serves to heat the rest of the property. A well-lagged cylinder has very little loss anyway. Reducing the hours on a thermostatic immersion is only going to make a marginal saving.
Frankly, you've wasted far more money switching from gas to an electric hob, as this costs at least 3 times as much to run.

spurdog1

macman said:

OP, any heat lost from the immersion in winter is not really lost, as it serves to heat the rest of the property. A well-lagged cylinder has very little loss anyway. Reducing the hours on a thermostatic immersion is only going to make a marginal saving.
Frankly, you've wasted far more money switching from gas to an electric hob, as this costs at least 3 times as much to run.

It was done for ease of cleaning