Energy Saving BS

malc_b

Hi All,

With the drive to save energy I see the papers etc. are coming out with the same old BS about standby.  Let me quote the EU page

https://ec.europa.eu/info/energy-climate-change-environment/standards-tools-and-labels/products-labelling-rules-and-requirements/energy-label-and-ecodesign/energy-efficient-products/mode-standby-and-networked-standby_en

"A wide range of equipment – computers, TVs, audio and video equipment, microwave ovens and electric toys – can have standby and off modes."

"Since 2009 these devices are required to switch into a low power mode (such as standby) after a reasonable amount of time"

"Since 2013, they must not consume more than 0.5 Watts in standby or in off mode"

So unless you have a TV more than 9 yrs old then when "off" it consumes 0.5W or less, that means it takes 2000hrs to consume 1 unit of electric.  There are 8766 hrs in a yr of 365.25 days so that is 4.4 units per year or around £1.50 per year, ~0.5p/day, ~12.5p/mth.  In other words a couch potato probably spends more on the food needed for the effort of getting off the couch to walk to the TV wall switch than he/she saves in electric :-).

ariarnia

this has been discussed on here before. if i remember right there are some tvs that should be left on standby as they refresh there pixels while turned 'off' and its bad for the tv if they can't do this. theres also tvs that consume more than that on standby as the bit you quote is about things not connected to the internet. so smart tvs (which more and more are) dont have to drop there consumption to that level unless there on the standby mode which also cuts there connection (so not alexa voice control or smart functions). then theres also the things connected to the tv like games consoles which might use a lot (relatively) of energy while on standby if they have a 'quick wake' mode. i.e. check what your tv does when on standby as not all standbys are equally asleep. 

malc_b

Good point.  Yes anything that stays active in some way will use more power.  Although, most papers etc. seem to say TVs use 60W in standby and even smart TVs don't do that.  The 60W would be the CRT TV of years ago.  The same web page says 3-12W for networked products (since 2017).  RTM for each product I guess.

badger09

It’s Smart OLED tvs which need to be in standby for Pixel Refresh. If this automatic process is interrupted, or not carried out, it can cause ‘ghost images’ to appear. I think it can also invalidate warranty. So IMO, it’s a no go area. 

However, my initial energy monitoring on Sky Q box suggests it’s costing around £21 a year to run. Not very much, but we have 3 of them, all permanently on or in standby. 

In total, we probably only need one to be ‘on’ for 4-5 hours a day max. I’m gearing up to telling my husband that 2 are going to be switched off when not actually in use so I can calculate potential savings. He’s the main viewer, but I’m the one who has to set them up again. Wish me luck!

PS we don’t need the potential savings but I’m on a mission to cut unnecessary consumption. And I want to justify buying the new Tapo P110s😊 

EssexHebridean

badger09 said:

It’s Smart OLED tvs which need to be in standby for Pixel Refresh. If this automatic process is interrupted, or not carried out, it can cause ‘ghost images’ to appear. I think it can also invalidate warranty. So IMO, it’s a no go area. 

However, my initial energy monitoring on Sky Q box suggests it’s costing around £21 a year to run. Not very much, but we have 3 of them, all permanently on or in standby. 

In total, we probably only need one to be ‘on’ for 4-5 hours a day max. I’m gearing up to telling my husband that 2 are going to be switched off when not actually in use so I can calculate potential savings. He’s the main viewer, but I’m the one who has to set them up again. Wish me luck!

PS we don’t need the potential savings but I’m on a mission to cut unnecessary consumption. And I want to justify buying the new Tapo P110s😊 

Yep - there has been discussion on here previously about the "extra" Sky boxes being fine to turn off.  And look at it this way - if they ARE costing £20 or more a year to have sitting there waiting for instructions, that's two P110's paid for in the first year! 

badger09

wittynamegoeshere said:

I bet the Sky subscription itself costs a lot more than £21 a year.  A bit pointless worrying about the power consumption of something that's going to cost loads anyway.

Oh I’m very well aware of that. However, sport mad (& I mean mad) husband pays the bulk of the Sky subscription. I caved in & agreed to mini boxes last year after we moved house & I was no longer able to watch recorded stuff while he was watching endless hours of sport. 

I’m not ‘worrying about the power consumption’ but if they can be turned off with no detrimental effect, then they will be. As will anything else.  

poppellerant

I think another one of the BS things going round is how air fryers are going to save people money.  Okay, so Joe Bloggs buys an average £100 air fryer and uses it for say 30 minutes every day.  How long will it take for the air fryer to pay for itself?

I'm all for economising where possible, but not when it literally takes years to recoup the money invested in the purchase.

EssexHebridean

I think that in some cases where an airfryer is dramatically reducing use of an electric oven - particularly when that oven is large and perhaps being used several times a day by a multi-person household, they definitely can save money. There are plenty of folk here who've paid far less than £100 for one they've been delighted with - the three figure sum is more representative of a basic multi-cooker rather than just an air fryer. 

For us - as a household who do most of our cooking with gas, if we do eventually go down the line of purchasing either an airfryer or a multi-cooker - it will be as a "nice to have" gadget and an item that might save us time - it certainly won't give us any saving in energy cost! 

ariarnia

air fryers are great if you want a sneaky sausage sarnie or two or are cooking only one thing and i agree that if you would have put the oven on just for that then you will save a lot more than if you are someone who normally fills your oven to the brim and then eat leftovers for the next few days. everyone else will probably be somewhere int he middle. 

[Deleted User]

poppellerant said:

I think another one of the BS things going round is how air fryers are going to save people money.  Okay, so Joe Bloggs buys an average £100 air fryer and uses it for say 30 minutes every day.  How long will it take for the air fryer to pay for itself?

I'm all for economising where possible, but not when it literally takes years to recoup the money invested in the purchase.

OK, taking your question literally, here's a starting point to scale the costs:

Assumptions:

1. 30 minutes per day (as per your question)

2. Air fryer is rated at 1500W (I've had a look and seems fairly typical)

3. Air fryer runs continually for the 30 minutes

4. Air fryer uses half the energy as the oven (this is just a guess but seems resonable or possibly conservative - has anyone measure this?)

5. Electricity costs 33p/kWh (that's current price for single rate tariff in East Midlands & may well go up when the EPG ends)

Cost per day:

Airfryer 30/60 * 1.5 * 33 = 24.75p

Electric oven = 24.75 * 2 = 49.5p

Saving per day: 24.75p

So if the air fryer costs £100, it would take 404 days (just over a year) to pay for itself

If the air fryer costs £60 (and there are basic models at that price), it would take 242 days (about 8 months) to pay for itself

Happy to be challenged on any of the figures, but the bottom line is that if you do indeed use an air fryer every day instead of the oven it seems likely to pay for itself fairly quickly (a year or so) which in my view makes it a very worthwhile money saving investment. And that's at the EPG prices which may well be significantly higher next year.

EssexHebridean

Above and beyond @[Deleted User] - nice one!