Domestic fuel bills rocket, how will we cope?

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Francesca R

That probably means that in the future it will be 2.5x as expensive for EU grandkids

No, there are many factors that affect energy prices:

• how much is imported - this means tariffs and dependence on rogue countries like Russia
• type of energy - fossil fuels versus renewables (the latter is more expensive for now)
• energy efficiency of buildings - a lot of older housing stock is poorly insulated.
• government regulatory policy - to windfall tax or to not?

Here in Finland everybody is patting themselves on the back for finally completing the Olkiluoto 3, the second EPR* -type power plant to be completed in the world; its electrical output is 1,600 MW. It was commissioned way back in 2005 but only completed testing in Dec 2021 and will be fully switched on in Dec 2022. Yay, just in time, to help make up for the embargo on Russian energy. Hurrah! It is expected to supply 15% of Finland's total electricity production.

The first in the world to be completed was in China. There is one being built in Hinckley, United Kingdom, due for completion in 2027, so not that long to wait, your grandchildren will be glad to know! Bear in mind it is the crisis of the Ukraine War that has largely escalated the cost of living issue.

Another new form of energy source being tested is geothermal power, which entails digging up to six kilometres to the earth's crust to enable nuclear powered rods to quickly heat and pressurize water, in addition to the form of geothermal energy (=heat + water) already in use by over 70 countries.

Of course, nuclear power is not popular with environmental activist groups but this is for a different reason than CO² emissions, the more immediate climate change issue, and more to do with the inevitable nuclear waste involved, plus risk of radioactivity leak.

Then of course there is government economic policy, will it uphold its commitment to fossil fuel alternatives, can it cap prices, as has France, or can it apply a windfall tax on the huge profits of the energy companies, such as Shell? The argument is that by taxing profits, there is less incentive to invest and develop, however, companies can already evade tax by lumping stuff into 'long term Research & Design' projects.

*For those of a scientific bent:

"The European Pressurized Water Reactor ( EPR for short) is a third generation nuclear reactor type based on a pressurized water reactor or PWR ( English Pressurized Water Reactor ). It was designed and developed mainly by the Commissariat à l'Énergie Atomique in France and the Karlsruhe Research Center in Germany .

<snip>

Due to the power taken from the power plant, EPR's reactor core is huge. It contains 89 control rods and 241 nuclear fuel assemblies with an active length of 4.2 meters.

<snip>

The nuclear fuel used in EPR is in fuel bundles, each of which contains 17 x 17 fuel rods made of zirconium alloy M5.

<snip>

The EPR is basically designed to be able to use mixed oxide fuel, i.e. MOX fuel. MOX differs from ordinary uranium fuel in that part of its fissile material is plutonium isotope 239 Pu instead of uranium isotope." - wikipedia

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Aren't those two prices the same? The international wholesale price is presumably the market price, and charging what you can get is also presumably the market price.

No. In short, there is a low tariff and a high tariff. Because UK regulations allow companies to charge the higher price this means you don't necessarily get the benefit of the domestic tariff and are in effect contributing towards the higher imported tariff.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by The Don

As expected, on average the richest people will benefit most from government support when it comes to the energy crisis:



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-62882964

Obviously there are poorer people with high fuel bills, but typically rich people have bigger houses and bigger bills.

So the main beneficiaries of the UK Government's schemes are the energy companies and the rich - how's that for levelling up ?

I wonder if Prime Minister Liz Truss still has chums working at Shell? I know her sister works there and it is where Truss did her chartered accountancy qualification.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by The Don

I bet Brian will do very well out of the UK Government's scheme, those palaces look big and draughty to me

Ha! Isn't it we, the UK taxpayer, who will have to foot the bill? Notice the sigh of relief in King Charles' voice when he said he would give up his Duchy stuff in order to be funded from the State purse 'for this heavy burden placed upon me'.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by The Don

I bet Brian will do very well out of the UK Government's scheme, those palaces look big and draughty to me

Don't worry, old Brenda was allowed to have her own hydro turbines - just like everyone else who lives on a river can (I live on a river - I cannot have a turbine).

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

Right now I'm choosing to leave my payments where they are, because my faith in British Gas's ability to calculate the correct amount is pretty minimal - and they don't show their work anywhere. My gut feeling is that this figure is wrong, but it probably won't be far out once we get into next year.

So the saga of my electricity bill continues. I mentioned that I was going to ignore their suggestion of increasing my monthly payment to £368. But then last week they messaged me to say that they had unilaterally increased it to £419 a month, once again giving no calculation as to how they arrived at this figure.

A few days later I got a bill from them, which shows their estimate of how much electricity they think I will use over the next year. It says they estimate my yearly usage at £1595.94. They don't explain how they get that figure, but I'll go with it. What I don't understand is how they get from that to over £400 a month - that makes no sense to me.

So I get in touch and have a text conversation with Sutikhna, the customer services operative. I ask her how they came up with the figure of £419 a month. Her response:

"The amount is based on the balance on the account, tariff unit rates and the future estimated usage. It is to ensure, the end of plan balance does not end in debit and is close to zero."

Yes, I understand that, I explain (and decide not to criticise her punctuation, perhaps English is not her first language), but how did you come up with the monthly figure? Basically, I want to know what is the calculation that ends with "... = £419.04"? She explains:

"The amount is not calculated manually, the system takes in to account the debit balance on the account, past usage and future consumption. The predicted amount can be higher or lower from the exact usage on the property. However, your account is manageable in terms of Direct Debit amount increase or decrease."

Which tells me nothing. I pressed for a better explanation. She provided one:

"We forecast your usage for a year and the amount is divided into 11 installments for you. After 6 months we will issue the bill and review the account according to your usage during the previous period and forecast the future usage again, during this any credit amount is also included on the payment plan and again the installments are set accordingly. At the end of the second review which is the periodic review, we will issue the bill and any credit amount above £75 is refunded automatically, And a correct DD amount is set according to your usage."

I reiterate that the estimate I am going by is the one THEY have provided, £1595. And £1595 divided by 11 is £145 not £419. She responds:

"As you are the best person to know the usage on your property, so if you think the prediction is incorrect, you can help me with your preferred amount to re-calculate the amount."

It went on, but you get the picture. I don't understand how they are calculating their monthly payment amounts, and they don't seem to understand either.

The whole system seems bonkers to me, quite apart from the fact that the price of electricity is crazy. I've decided to pay £160 a month and see where I end up.

[The Don]

If I had to guess how they obtained that figure I would say that they took your peak usage from last year's winter months, applied the forecast price cap of 52p a unit, and some wriggle room to it and voila !

£419 a month works out to be roughly 26 kwh per day, or say 20 kwh per day +15%

If we have the hot tub up and running we can easily use that much, without it we're in the 10-15kwh per day range.

[Matthew Best]

I wish they'd just explain how they arrived at ANY of their estimated figures.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by The Don

If I had to guess how they obtained that figure I would say that they took your peak usage from last year's winter months, applied the forecast price cap of 52p a unit, and some wriggle room to it and voila !

£419 a month works out to be roughly 26 kwh per day, or say 20 kwh per day +15%

If we have the hot tub up and running we can easily use that much, without it we're in the 10-15kwh per day range.

But the annual figure he was given is over 3x the monthly figure scaled up to a year. It makes no sense.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Darat

Don't worry, old Brenda was allowed to have her own hydro turbines - just like everyone else who lives on a river can (I live on a river - I cannot have a turbine).

That is because <fx gestures> she is up there, and you are down here.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by GlennB

But the annual figure he was given is over 3x the monthly figure scaled up to a year. It makes no sense.

It may do when viewed through the lens of the energy company wanting to ensure that there's never a risk that the customer account will fall into debt.

To do that they need to:

• Assume that the highest level of usage will apply all year, not just for that period
• Assume that prices will increase beyond the 52p/kwh projected a week or so ago, possibly towards £1/kwh
• Ensure that any negative balance on the account is paid off immediately

They did something similar in Don Towers before the summer and, unsurprisingly, we soon ended up over £1000 in credit.

OTOH, the £1,600 figure is a reasonable figure if Matthew Best lives in a typical 3-bed house whose annual consumption should be around 3,000 kwh

[Vixen]

The problem with these customer service assistants is that they work to a set script. This Sukithna person probably gives the exact same spiel to everybody. I used to get this at work a lot with Bank of Scotland. Their default assumption was 'user error' no matter what was wrong. Now, I always ask to speak to a manager.

I had cause to query a card provider who recently refunded me a small amount. I queried this saying, surely I closed this account three years ago. Where is the statutory 8% p.a. interest on it? I spoke to a manager, as a matter of principle, and said I would contact the FCA. I was immediately given a sum of £50.

I discovered later, they hate to be threatened with the FCA (financial ombudsman) because they are automatically charged a pretty penny [£500...?] every time anyone issues a complaint against them.

So my advice is to take it to the FCA and if enough people complain, they will have to take action, regarding the apparent misuse of bank Direct Debits causing distress and anxiety to people. (It might not be in their remit, though.)

[bluesjnr]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

So the saga of my electricity bill continues. I mentioned that I was going to ignore their suggestion of increasing my monthly payment to £368. But then last week they messaged me to say that they had unilaterally increased it to £419 a month, once again giving no calculation as to how they arrived at this figure.

A few days later I got a bill from them, which shows their estimate of how much electricity they think I will use over the next year. It says they estimate my yearly usage at £1595.94. They don't explain how they get that figure, but I'll go with it. What I don't understand is how they get from that to over £400 a month - that makes no sense to me.

So I get in touch and have a text conversation with Sutikhna, the customer services operative. I ask her how they came up with the figure of £419 a month. Her response:

"The amount is based on the balance on the account, tariff unit rates and the future estimated usage. It is to ensure, the end of plan balance does not end in debit and is close to zero."

Yes, I understand that, I explain (and decide not to criticise her punctuation, perhaps English is not her first language), but how did you come up with the monthly figure? Basically, I want to know what is the calculation that ends with "... = £419.04"? She explains:

"The amount is not calculated manually, the system takes in to account the debit balance on the account, past usage and future consumption. The predicted amount can be higher or lower from the exact usage on the property. However, your account is manageable in terms of Direct Debit amount increase or decrease."

Which tells me nothing. I pressed for a better explanation. She provided one:

"We forecast your usage for a year and the amount is divided into 11 installments for you. After 6 months we will issue the bill and review the account according to your usage during the previous period and forecast the future usage again, during this any credit amount is also included on the payment plan and again the installments are set accordingly. At the end of the second review which is the periodic review, we will issue the bill and any credit amount above £75 is refunded automatically, And a correct DD amount is set according to your usage."

I reiterate that the estimate I am going by is the one THEY have provided, £1595. And £1595 divided by 11 is £145 not £419. She responds:

"As you are the best person to know the usage on your property, so if you think the prediction is incorrect, you can help me with your preferred amount to re-calculate the amount."

It went on, but you get the picture. I don't understand how they are calculating their monthly payment amounts, and they don't seem to understand either.

The whole system seems bonkers to me, quite apart from the fact that the price of electricity is crazy. I've decided to pay £160 a month and see where I end up.

This is almost word for word the conversations I've had, annually, over the last 10 years with various suppliers. The only difference is the stated amounts.

[The Don]

Jacob Rees-Mogg has announced support for people like Mrs Don and I who rely on oil for our heating and hot water.

Quote:

Ministers said off-grid energy consumers would receive an extra payment of £100 as they announced support for businesses on Wednesday.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62989499

I've been looking back at our oil purchases and back in 2019 we were paying a little under 30p per litre - or around £500 per year.

The current price is around 90p per litre - or around £1,500 a year

Quote:

Business Secretary Jacob Rees-Mogg said there was "equivalence" in the level of support offered because the price of heating oil had not risen as much as the price of gas.

It's still tripled Jason

Personally I'm conflicted. On one hand I'm reluctant to hand my hard-earned cash to fund the super-profits of the energy companies. On the other, this rise in prices has forced Mrs Don and I to make some decisions which should make a small, but significant difference to our energy usage.

We're aiming to take 10% off both our oil and electricity usage which would mean 1,700 litres or less of fuel oil in the next 12 months and under 5,000 kwh of electricity.

The latter we can achieve by not running the hot tub and being more careful with unnecessary appliances (although we'll likely have an additional 500-900 kwh charging Mrs Don's car), the former by turning the thermostat down another degree, running the heating for an hour or two less each day and focusing more on heating small spaces and/or people rather than the house as a whole.

[Vixen]

I 've discovered why my heating bills are so low (after three years). I did vaguely know it was a water system. Having now looked it up on wikipedia, it is a 'district heating system', which consists of hot water pipes coming in from a centralised provider - often based on green and renewable energies - one pipe incoming and the other outgoing. In deepest winter, the temperature of the incoming pipe is as high as 115°C (don't ask). Some 2.7m homes in Finland have this system (pop. 5.6m) and virtually all of the new-builds, such as my own. In the UK there are some 2,000 centralised heat systems. Out of a pop of 66.7m, that is miniscule.

Quote:

What are heat networks?
A heat network – sometimes called district heating – is a distribution system of insulated pipes that takes heat from a central source and delivers it to a number of domestic or non-domestic buildings. The heat source might be a facility that provides a dedicated supply to the heat network, such as a combined heat and power plant; or heat recovered from industry and urban infrastructure, canals and rivers, or energy from waste plants.

Find out more: What is a heat network?

Heat networks form an important part of our plan to reduce carbon and cut heating bills for customers (domestic and commercial). They are one of the most cost-effective ways of reducing carbon emissions from heating, and their efficiency and carbon-saving potential increases as they grow and connect to each other. They provide a unique opportunity to exploit larger scale – and often lower cost – renewable and recovered heat sources that otherwise cannot be used. It is estimated by the CCC that around 18% of UK heat will need to come from heat networks by 2050 if the UK is to meet its carbon targets cost effectively.

UK.gov

Mind you, despite being an owner, I still have service charges (incl water, parking place, gardening, outside cleaning) so I dare say some cost is included in that.

Maybe come 2050, the guys back in old Blighty will have similarly low energy costs.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Maybe come 2050, the guys back in old Blighty will have similarly low energy costs.

I doubt it given the way that the energy markets seem to be configured to deliver the maximum benefit to the energy companies.

Some properties locally are on an biomass-fuelled district heat system but this is a government-subsidised boondoggle that does nothing to reduce CO₂ emissions given that the fuel is brought in by lorry.

[wobs]

Originally Posted by The Don

Some properties locally are on an biomass-fuelled district heat system but this is a government-subsidised boondoggle that does nothing to reduce CO₂ emissions given that the fuel is brought in by lorry.

Transport for biomass is a small part of the carbon footprint. Biomass has a mixed performance in terms of carbon reduction.

Quote:

....analysis shows that the fossil energy used in the supply chain is generally a small fraction of the energy content of the bioenergy product, even for woody biomass transported over long distance, e.g. between North America and Europe.
The important issues in terms of climate impacts relate to how the forest carbon cycle is affected by management changes to provide biomass for bioenergy in addition to other forest products. With respect to the forest, the key issue is the net assimilation of carbon (carbon sink strength) and associated changes in carbon stock in forest soils and vegetation and/or harvested wood products, and carbon losses through natural disturbances such as fires or insect attacks.

https://www.ieabioenergy.com/iea-pub...on-neutrality/

Drax has a bad name in this respect of course.

[Nessie]

Have done some number crunching, comparing last years gas and electricity usage to this year to see what difference the various measures we have taken to reduce consumption have made.

We got old, warped, draughty double glazing replaced in June of this year. The largest window is now triple glazed and a thermometer we have records the temperature of that window as the same as the wall. The other windows are 1-3 degrees cooler than the wall.

We have done the recommended switch the boiler to economy mode so it is not constantly preheating water ready for us to turn the hot tap on. We have turned the thermostat down two degrees on what we would normally have it at. The central heating now comes on at about 6pm and goes off at 11pm, it has yet to go on in the morning, so that is a reduction of a good 2-3 hours compared to last year. We are still putting washing out to dry when we can. Shower times have been reduced by a minute. We are more careful to switch things off and not leave them on standby.

The results are so far positive. The reductions of this year to the same month last year are,

July gas down 29%, electricity down 12%
Aug gas down 36%, electricity down 12%
Sept gas down 20%, electricity down 32%

The overall average reduction is 23.5%

We do not feel as if we are suffering. The main difference is we are wearing more clothes indoors and it does feel a bit colder, but not excessively so. The result is that our energy supplier have reduced our monthly bill again and the cost will be easily afforded.

[The Don]

Well done Nessie. Even if it wasn't for coat purposes, if everyone was able to reduce their energy requirements by a similar amount, it's good for the planet.

I've just ordered 500 litres of heating oil to make 1600 litres for the year. In previous years AGA usage, less good insulation ( our extension is very well insulated and delivers significant solar gains) and less mild winters had our consumption well over 2000.

We likely have used less than 1500 because our tank will be fuller than the same time last year.

[wobs]

Just fitted an acrylic sheet to our 2nd born's bedroom window. A single glazed draughtproofed sash window, it wasn't as bad as many would think, but with acrylic fixed with magnetic tape, it should cost less to heat the room. Also already has decent curtains.

We've also had smart radiator valves fitted this year, but too early to say how effective it is. It feels cooler though, so that suggests its saving us money. In times of mild weather, with the heating on, the house could get very warm in previous years.

[Vixen]

Instead of heating the sauna up twice a week for up to four hours, it'll now be once a week for about three hours. Washing machine: perhaps stagger laundry one day later each time instead of the same day/s every week; dishwasher, perhaps use the same cup or glass twice, thus needing it less frequently.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Instead of heating the sauna up twice a week for up to four hours, it'll now be once a week for about three hours...

How about not using the sauna at all? Nobody actually needs a sauna (unless there's some medical condition that calls for a sauna).

[Nessie]

It matters less what people were using to consume energy, such as a sauna, than we all reduce consumption. If every house and business reduces consumption by 25%, that is a massive step to reducing the need for fossil fuels.

We would not need to reduce consumption at all, if all our power came from renewables generating electricity. We are also electrifying our house and the only gas we use is for the hot water boiler, which powers central heating and the shower. When that fails, it is 13 years old now, but working fine, it will be replaced with an electric one that will get some power from solar panels.

[wobs]

Originally Posted by Nessie

It matters less what people were using to consume energy, such as a sauna, than we all reduce consumption. If every house and business reduces consumption by 25%, that is a massive step to reducing the need for fossil fuels.

Jevons Paradox says otherwise. If we reduce our energy consumption, we have more money to spend (or put in the bank). This is good for the economy, which increases CO2 emissions.

Quote:

We would not need to reduce consumption at all, if all our power came from renewables generating electricity. We are also electrifying our house and the only gas we use is for the hot water boiler, which powers central heating and the shower. When that fails, it is 13 years old now, but working fine, it will be replaced with an electric one that will get some power from solar panels.

Decarbonising our energy is a key way of cutting CO2, indeed. Most households in the UK will still be on gas heating for the foreseebale, and will probably have a degree of hydrogen in there long term.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by wobs

Jevons Paradox says otherwise. If we reduce our energy consumption, we have more money to spend (or put in the bank). This is good for the economy, which increases CO2 emissions.


Decarbonising our energy is a key way of cutting CO2, indeed. Most households in the UK will still be on gas heating for the foreseebale, and will probably have a degree of hydrogen in there long term.

In the short term, the rocketing fuel prices is forcing us to do what we should have been doing for a long time, reduce consumption until the switch is made to renewables.

If we had been switching to renewables for decades, we would have had to cut back on consumption.

I am talking about energy here, not the rest of the economy. We also need to cut down on consumption, such as fast fashion and reduce food waste, which are oter issues.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by GlennB

How about not using the sauna at all? Nobody actually needs a sauna (unless there's some medical condition that calls for a sauna).

It is an inherent part of my culture so it can't be given up. However, perhaps lower time and temperature spent there. It is therapeutic for me, being atopic.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Vixen

It is an inherent part of my culture so it can't be given up.

Ridiculous.

[wobs]

Originally Posted by Nessie

In the short term, the rocketing fuel prices is forcing us to do what we should have been doing for a long time, reduce consumption until the switch is made to renewables.

If we had been switching to renewables for decades, we would have had to cut back on consumption.

I am talking about energy here, not the rest of the economy. We also need to cut down on consumption, such as fast fashion and reduce food waste, which are oter issues.

Energy is linked to the economy. Its not just about consumption/fast fashion/food waste. Its about a economic growth. When you have such growth, you get an increase in CO2 emissions. This is whether people spend it on non-essentioals or put money in the bank.

If you have greater efficiencies, you either spend more on more efficient kit, or have more spare money (you may spend it on something, or put it in the bank). Either way, this is good for the economy.

Carbon taxes can play a part in solving this issue, but it doesn't look like its going to be a worldwide solution anytime soon.

But another problem with efficiencies is that they all have their limits. Where woudl one get a 25% improvement? Motors usually run at greater than 90% efficiency, LEDs are not that far off the theoretical limit of bulbs. Large powerstation make small incremental improvements every few years. We may substitute to other technology or methods, but this is also limited.

Decarbonising through renewables/hydrogen/nuclear/restoring carbon sinks, coupled with a green economy is the only way out of this. But even that is not straight forward. The book Doughnut Economics (recommend!) looks at creating a green sustainable economy, but even that doesn't solve all the problems.

Of course, the economy cannot grow indefinitely, so at some point, we will have to look at how to acheive a steady state economy. No idea how we would do that though.

Another good read is here:
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m

[Myriad]

I'd want to see some hard numbers, such as the actual energy required to operate a sauna for three or four hours as compared to for instance the weekly difference of a one degree change in the thermostat setting of a 150-square-meter single family home, before making an issue of the sauna.

I've been taking all my showers full cold, year 'round, for almost three years. Thus proving no one "needs" hot water for bathing. Do I get to cluck my tongue at everyone who takes hot baths or showers now? Well, not so fast; how much have I been driving? Where's my thermostat been set? What do I do for recreation or vacations?

For a short term regional emergency, maybe you do cut everything to the bone and eliminate everything non essential. But that's not how planning for long-term change works.

[8enotto]

We now wear spring jackets more and close windows at night.
Hot water is a bit shorter in supply for cloud cover blocking our massive fireball in the distance. Solar does have a rather real fault.

I truly do not miss living in a four seasons climate. We have big windows, no central heating or AC required.
In the past I used to have to fill the woodshed starting in spring, as soon as the ground dried up.
Getting heating oil brought in cost a heap more than trimming out the tree lines around the property.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Myriad

I'd want to see some hard numbers, such as the actual energy required to operate a sauna for three or four hours as compared to for instance the weekly difference of a one degree change in the thermostat setting of a 150-square-meter single family home, before making an issue of the sauna.

I've been taking all my showers full cold, year 'round, for almost three years. Thus proving no one "needs" hot water for bathing. Do I get to cluck my tongue at everyone who takes hot baths or showers now? Well, not so fast; how much have I been driving? Where's my thermostat been set? What do I do for recreation or vacations?

For a short term regional emergency, maybe you do cut everything to the bone and eliminate everything non essential. But that's not how planning for long-term change works.

This webpage is useful:

Quote:

The effect of doubling costs will be felt more by users where energy is expensive than where energy is relatively cheap. Electric companies charge per kilowatt-hour (kWh). This price can be very low in places like Idaho that rely primarily on hydroelectric power, and very high in places like Hawaii that rely on imported crude oil. While average consumer prices across the United States range from 9 to 34 cents per kWh, the average is around $0.12 per kWh.

https://portablesauna.com.au/do-saun...%20the%20sauna.

My sauna heater is 6KW.

Was: usage: 1.5 hours to heat up, 2 x sessions giving a total of three to four hours twice a week, let's say 3.5 hours x 2 = 7 hours per week.

Now: 1.5 hours to heat up x one session at two hours once a week = 3 hours per week - let's say, 3.5 hours so that it is half of what it was before.

Quote:

For the traditional sauna, the sauna will run for 75 minutes per day (45 minutes heating the sauna, 30 minutes using it). For a 30-day month, that is a total of 2250 minutes. Dividing 2250 minutes by 60 translates this to 37.5 hours. We multiply this time by the 6kW required by the sauna to get 225kWh used per month. At the average cost of energy, a consumer might expect to pay 0.12 dollars/kWh x 225 kWh = $27.00 per month to spend half an hour a day in the sauna.

So before at (7 x 60) = 420 minutes = (x 52) = 21,840 p.a. = 1,820 minutes per calendar month. This translates to 30.33 hours pcm. x 6kW = 182 kWh (rounded) per month. So using the figures in the example above of 0.12 dollars/kWh x 182 = $21.84 pcm or rounded up $22 pcm for seven hours per week.

Now, it will ipso facto be half of that give or take a dollar or two = $11 pcm

So, that will cut energy costs by half, although if the price doubles over winter, it will be the same.

My charges are obviously not in US$* and is at a basic rate of €12.90 plus €4.50 per cKwh distribution (I am guessing a standing charge) and a whopping value added tax of 24% on top, which, as I recall, will be discounted by the Finnish government over the coming winter season to help with energy bills to meet the Ukraine crisis. Then, there is a further charge by another company who supplies the district electricity. Their bill tells me I have purchased 1,590 kWh for the year. The last quarterly bill, additional to the other, was €21.91 plus VAT €7.17. So, not too bad but with €4.50 pcm as a standing charge, it becomes tricky to calculate it exactly. However, it is €5.64 per c/kWh usage.

*F/x rate today USD1/€1.01

I guess it is good we are actually looking at our bills.

[Nessie]

It will be interesting to see how UK domestic power usage for this winter compares to last year.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by Vixen

This webpage is useful:

https://portablesauna.com.au/do-saun...%20the%20sauna.

My sauna heater is 6KW.

Was: usage: 1.5 hours to heat up, 2 x sessions giving a total of three to four hours twice a week, let's say 3.5 hours x 2 = 7 hours per week.

Now: 1.5 hours to heat up x one session at two hours once a week = 3 hours per week - let's say, 3.5 hours so that it is half of what it was before.



So before at (7 x 60) = 420 minutes = (x 52) = 21,840 p.a. = 1,820 minutes per calendar month. This translates to 30.33 hours pcm. x 6kW = 182 kWh (rounded) per month. So using the figures in the example above of 0.12 dollars/kWh x 182 = $21.84 pcm or rounded up $22 pcm for seven hours per week.

Now, it will ipso facto be half of that give or take a dollar or two = $11 pcm

So, that will cut energy costs by half, although if the price doubles over winter, it will be the same.

My charges are obviously not in US$* and is at a basic rate of €12.90 plus €4.50 per cKwh distribution (I am guessing a standing charge) and a whopping value added tax of 24% on top, which, as I recall, will be discounted by the Finnish government over the coming winter season to help with energy bills to meet the Ukraine crisis. Then, there is a further charge by another company who supplies the district electricity. Their bill tells me I have purchased 1,590 kWh for the year. The last quarterly bill, additional to the other, was €21.91 plus VAT €7.17. So, not too bad but with €4.50 pcm as a standing charge, it becomes tricky to calculate it exactly. However, it is €5.64 per c/kWh usage.

*F/x rate today USD1/€1.01

I guess it is good we are actually looking at our bills.

It's good to practice doing this kind of comparisons and calculations, but sometimes it makes more sense to keep things simple, when there's not really enough information to support greater detail. It's pretty clear that running the sauna once a week will use about half the energy as running it for a similar duration twice a week. But comparing a 3-hour session to a 4-hour session runs into the complication that the heater will use more power (that is, will cycle on more frequently or even remain on constantly) during the period the sauna is heating up to the set temperature than it will maintaining that temperature afterward.

6000 Watts is more than I expected, and given that power level it also surprises me that it takes 90 minutes to heat up, but I'm unfamiliar with private saunas. Might it be warm enough to start using after 45 minutes instead?

Calculating what you can afford is useful, but this conversation is more about the ethics of using less than you can afford in a world threatened by energy shortages and climate change. After all, when we criticize the private jets and huge yachts used by billionaires, it's not because we think the billionaires can't afford them. Obviously, they can. But many of us think they shouldn't, and more generally, that market-based calculations of how to arrange our lifestyles over the past century have failed us badly. People who "invested" in big houses with big lawns may someday soon find themselves unable to heat those spaces, or to travel the distances necessitated by the cumulative effect of all those big lawns.

Regarding the laundry, running larger loads (as long as the machine isn't overloaded) is usually more efficient, so if doing it every 8 days instead of every 7 days means the same number of loads but each load will be a little larger, then that should work as a savings. Line drying instead of running a dryer would be a bigger saving. (I don't do that myself yet, but I'm getting set up to try it. Difficult tin wintertime, of course.) Reusing water glasses is a fine idea. I try to use one a day, but I sometimes have to guard it from my wife who will snatch it up and put it in the dishwasher, to "get it out of the way." (Of course I then have to use a new one, which is then just as "in the way" as before. If I used each glass once and immediately put it away in the dishwasher, the thing would be full in a day instead of about every 4-5 days.)

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Vixen

This webpage is useful:

https://portablesauna.com.au/do-saun...%20the%20sauna.

My sauna heater is 6KW.

Was: usage: 1.5 hours to heat up, 2 x sessions giving a total of three to four hours twice a week, let's say 3.5 hours x 2 = 7 hours per week.

Now: 1.5 hours to heat up x one session at two hours once a week = 3 hours per week - let's say, 3.5 hours so that it is half of what it was before.



So before at (7 x 60) = 420 minutes = (x 52) = 21,840 p.a. = 1,820 minutes per calendar month. This translates to 30.33 hours pcm. x 6kW = 182 kWh (rounded) per month. So using the figures in the example above of 0.12 dollars/kWh x 182 = $21.84 pcm or rounded up $22 pcm for seven hours per week.

Now, it will ipso facto be half of that give or take a dollar or two = $11 pcm

So, that will cut energy costs by half, although if the price doubles over winter, it will be the same.

My charges are obviously not in US$* and is at a basic rate of €12.90 plus €4.50 per cKwh distribution (I am guessing a standing charge) and a whopping value added tax of 24% on top, which, as I recall, will be discounted by the Finnish government over the coming winter season to help with energy bills to meet the Ukraine crisis. Then, there is a further charge by another company who supplies the district electricity. Their bill tells me I have purchased 1,590 kWh for the year. The last quarterly bill, additional to the other, was €21.91 plus VAT €7.17. So, not too bad but with €4.50 pcm as a standing charge, it becomes tricky to calculate it exactly. However, it is €5.64 per c/kWh usage.

*F/x rate today USD1/€1.01

I guess it is good we are actually looking at our bills.

Those are interesting figures regarding the use of the sauna.

Your estimated sauna usage is approximately 60% of Don Towers total energy usage if we include charging Mrs Don's car but exclude use of the hot tub. The hot tub more than doubles our energy use and I think that any future use would be for a couple of weeks when it's comparatively warm rather than leaving it on for months at a time. Most likely it'll never be used again.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Myriad

It's good to practice doing this kind of comparisons and calculations, but sometimes it makes more sense to keep things simple, when there's not really enough information to support greater detail. It's pretty clear that running the sauna once a week will use about half the energy as running it for a similar duration twice a week. But comparing a 3-hour session to a 4-hour session runs into the complication that the heater will use more power (that is, will cycle on more frequently or even remain on constantly) during the period the sauna is heating up to the set temperature than it will maintaining that temperature afterward.

6000 Watts is more than I expected, and given that power level it also surprises me that it takes 90 minutes to heat up, but I'm unfamiliar with private saunas. Might it be warm enough to start using after 45 minutes instead?

Calculating what you can afford is useful, but this conversation is more about the ethics of using less than you can afford in a world threatened by energy shortages and climate change. After all, when we criticize the private jets and huge yachts used by billionaires, it's not because we think the billionaires can't afford them. Obviously, they can. But many of us think they shouldn't, and more generally, that market-based calculations of how to arrange our lifestyles over the past century have failed us badly. People who "invested" in big houses with big lawns may someday soon find themselves unable to heat those spaces, or to travel the distances necessitated by the cumulative effect of all those big lawns.

Regarding the laundry, running larger loads (as long as the machine isn't overloaded) is usually more efficient, so if doing it every 8 days instead of every 7 days means the same number of loads but each load will be a little larger, then that should work as a savings. Line drying instead of running a dryer would be a bigger saving. (I don't do that myself yet, but I'm getting set up to try it. Difficult tin wintertime, of course.) Reusing water glasses is a fine idea. I try to use one a day, but I sometimes have to guard it from my wife who will snatch it up and put it in the dishwasher, to "get it out of the way." (Of course I then have to use a new one, which is then just as "in the way" as before. If I used each glass once and immediately put it away in the dishwasher, the thing would be full in a day instead of about every 4-5 days.)

The sauna has to be hot enough so turning it down doesn't work. The added complication is that there is a thermostat which means when it reaches the required temperature (usually around the 90° - 100° mark) it switches itself off, although it does seem to get ever hotter and hotter, if not switched off manually.

I can afford it even if the price doubles; it is just that I have been brought up not to waste money unneccessarily. As this is an energy crisis, I am willing to do my part. So I am using the air-fryer instead of the oven.

In the UK people think bigger is better and I used to have the mind set of admiring beautiful mansion-style houses. Nowadays I know smaller is better for me. Any spare rooms are just going to end up being used for storage, is my view.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by The Don

Those are interesting figures regarding the use of the sauna.

Your estimated sauna usage is approximately 60% of Don Towers total energy usage if we include charging Mrs Don's car but exclude use of the hot tub. The hot tub more than doubles our energy use and I think that any future use would be for a couple of weeks when it's comparatively warm rather than leaving it on for months at a time. Most likely it'll never be used again.

Isn't that strange? There is also underfloor heating in the bathroom and I have never been able to puzzle out what the purpose of the thermostat for that is as it never seems to change, so I might as well turn it down from 3 to 1, whatever that will achieve. Yet my electricity bills don't seem so bad compared to England (where admittedly, I used gas for cooking but watched more television) given what an expensive country Finland is, having higher wages and pensions, but also a whopping 24% VAT.

The expected introduction of electricity from the nuclear power Olkiluotto III due to start supplying in mid-December has hit a problem so that is now delayed.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Isn't that strange? There is also underfloor heating in the bathroom and I have never been able to puzzle out what the purpose of the thermostat for that is as it never seems to change, so I might as well turn it down from 3 to 1, whatever that will achieve. Yet my electricity bills don't seem so bad compared to England (where admittedly, I used gas for cooking but watched more television) given what an expensive country Finland is, having higher wages and pensions, but also a whopping 24% VAT.

The expected introduction of electricity from the nuclear power Olkiluotto III due to start supplying in mid-December has hit a problem so that is now delayed.

If you're paying around 0.12 euro per kwh then that's less than 1/3 of what we pay in the UK - and that's being subsidised, the true cost would be between 4 and 5 times what you're paying.

While the cost of gas is clearly a major factor, the UK's "broken" energy market is also a significant factor.

In other news, I just bought 500 litres of oil at 85p a litre (including VAT and delivery). This compares to 65p per litre before the invasion and 30p back during the Covid economic downturn.

[Nessie]

The joy that was paying 99.9p a litre for petrol at one point during the pandemic.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by The Don

If you're paying around 0.12 euro per kwh then that's less than 1/3 of what we pay in the UK - and that's being subsidised, the true cost would be between 4 and 5 times what you're paying.

While the cost of gas is clearly a major factor, the UK's "broken" energy market is also a significant factor.

In other news, I just bought 500 litres of oil at 85p a litre (including VAT and delivery). This compares to 65p per litre before the invasion and 30p back during the Covid economic downturn.

It is actually illegal to have gas connected in buildings in Sweden and Finland. I don't know if this was because of the risk of gas explosions. Otherwise, I am a bit puzzled as to why the UK energy prices are so incredibly high, when it only gets about 4% of its product from Russia (remember, the war is the reason given by the politicians) and countries such as Germany up to a half, yet not nearly so expensive. I know its the fact of regulations allowing imported products to drive up average prices.

Another factor is insulation. My home is a constant 21° - 23° all year round. When I first moved here in autumn it felt on the cool side to me as in England it was up to a maximum 26° in winter, simply because there were draughts. A lot of housing is old stock and frankly, poor architecture as from about the 60's when functionality was more important than comfort and space.*

About 2/3rds of households have district heating here and the other third do use oil for heating.

Ecologically wise, it is not completely virtuous. Finland and Estonia are still the world's worst offenders for burning peat, simply because there is so much of it!

*A Scottish guy, called Sim, now living in Sweden has brought out a book called 'Soft City', and combines the elements of the Danish concept of hygge and soft lines within the context of architecture.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Vixen

It is actually illegal to have gas connected in buildings in Sweden and Finland. I don't know if this was because of the risk of gas explosions. Otherwise, I am a bit puzzled as to why the UK energy prices are so incredibly high, when it only gets about 4% of its product from Russia (remember, the war is the reason given by the politicians) and countries such as Germany up to a half, yet not nearly so expensive.

I explained upthread, two "features" of the UK energy market which combine to maximise prices to the individual.

Firstly, even though we provide half of our own domestic gas, gas suppliers sell it at the global wholesale price. Every spike in price relating to a shortage of Russian gas is amplified and then passed on in full to UK consumers. Gas suppliers are making super-profits.

Secondly, the price for electricity is set by the highest marginal price bid by suppliers to meet demand. All suppliers receive this price regardless of their cost of production. So if it costs a renewables generator 10p per kwh to generate electricity, and they bid it in at 12p per kwh and there's a Gas generator costing 40p per kwh, bid in at 50 per kwh, all generators receive 50p per kwh. Generators are very, very good at predicting demand (and supply from other providers) and so they're also very good at maximising their returns.

A recent study concluded that UK electricity prices would be reduced by at least 50% if the gas price (for UK produced gas which cannot be easily exported) was based on the cost of production and if electricity generators were given "cost plus" for the energy they generate.