Using an Inverter to economise on electricity consumption in the home.

[mart]

How feasible is the idea of using an inverter for the purpose of basically getting cheaper electricity at home? For example cold winter months, and the idea of using electric fires.

I am thinking that it cannot be a “real” idea as other people would be doing it. Also, didn’t someone say from a physics perspective that you cannot get more energy out of something than you put in? The ones I’ve seen on eBay require 24v in, and “allegedly” provide constant 2kw out. Anyone on here ever had the idea of using them?

 

[mfletch]

Its because they use lots of amps so the battery doesn't last long

Then it costs you money to charge the battery

 

[lshigham]

It would cost you more as inverters are far from 100% efficient (more like 50% at light loading). The kind of inverter you are talking about converts 12 or 24v DC into 230v AC output. It doesn't ''make'' anything.

Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, just changed from one form to another - you don't get anything for ''free''.

 

[the snooper]

If you have wind or solar power to charge the batteries then what ever you get out of it will be free power once you offset the outlay against power generated, depending on the set up you could use it for lighting at the very least giving you a zero lighting bill

 

[mart]

Yes, I thought as much.

I seem to recall years ago that water wheels were used to drive the large mills etc, but there would be considerable force from a fast flowing river in those situations I guess.

 

[BrokenBiker]

it doesn't matter what the input voltage is, a kilowatt is a kilowatt no matter how you look at it. 1kW/h through your electric meter will cost the same regardless of what fancy toys you use to try and make things cheaper.

the easiest way to save electricity cost on heating it put a jumper on

 

[Henrik]

With electricity being so cheap, a wind turbine or similar to run the lights would take years and years just to break even.

 

[FranV8]

This could work. Rig up an inverter to power the thingsin your house from a 12v battery.

In the morning, simply take the battery to work with and charge it there.

Amazing, electricity bill gone!

 

[brightspark]

the cost of the batteries and there lifespan takes up

This could work. Rig up an inverter to power the thingsin your house from a 12v battery.

In the morning, simply take the battery to work with and charge it there.

Amazing, electricity bill gone!

save yourself the bother and fiddle the meter any tarrif u like

 

[Maker]

With electricity being so cheap, a wind turbine or similar to run the lights would take years and years just to break even.

The excess energy produced by solar panels and wind turbines is sold back to the energy companies so even when your not using any power it's paying for itself.

 

[Justme]

We live off the grid so all our power comes via an inverter that is charged via a solar array and or a genny.

The first big issue is the cost of the bats.

Over their life you will pay 8p per kWh used just in battery replacement costs.

Our current battery bank would cost about £3k new.

A decent inverter charger would cost about £2k & budget on changing it every 3 to 5 years.

Before we were off grid I looked at doing this by charging bats at night on cheap rate Economy 7 power.
With bat replacement costs & E7 cost per kWh it was a non starter.

 

[ajlelectronics]

It would cost you more as inverters are far from 100% efficient (more like 50% at light loading). The kind of inverter you are talking about converts 12 or 24v DC into 230v AC output. It doesn't ''make'' anything.

Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, just changed from one form to another - you don't get anything for ''free''.

Plus (or less) the conversion losses as you say.

 

[Justme]

Oh I forgot to mention the losses.

Not only do you have the inversion losses (mine is about 90% efficient as long as its not at a low output) converting DC to AC you then have the losses when charging from AC to DC. On top of that the battery its self is far from efficient & will need about 120% of the energy used to recharge it. As was mentioned above thing roughly 50-60% overall & your not far out.

 

[julianf]

Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, just changed from one form to another

Of course, 100% true, until... you start breaking apart atoms. Then you are creating energy from matter (energy != matter).

Not that this matters unless you have a reactor, bomb, or sun in your pocket ; )


...or your last name is "Hahn"

 

[daleyd]

Of course, 100% true, until... you start breaking apart atoms. Then you are creating energy from matter (energy != matter).

Not that this matters unless you have a reactor, bomb, or sun in your pocket ; )


...or your last name is "Hahn"

It's still true even then. It's a common misconception that nuclear energy comes from conversion of mass to energy- some of it does (as does some energy created by other chemical reactions eg burning fuel, conversion if hydrogen and oxygen to form water) but the majority is from releasing the nuclear binding energy when the atom is split.

 

[Bill Edwards]

It's still true even then. It's a common misconception that nuclear energy comes from conversion of mass to energy- some of it does (as does some energy created by other chemical reactions eg burning fuel, conversion if hydrogen and oxygen to form water) but the majority is from releasing the nuclear binding energy when the atom is split.

I know nothing about nuclear tech... but presumably when you split the atom you lose an atom. OK, I know there are a lot of atoms in existence, but surely this type of energy production couldn't go on for ever...?

 

[Wendelspanswick]

I know nothing about nuclear tech... but presumably when you split the atom you lose an atom. OK, I know there are a lot of atoms in existence, but surely this type of energy production couldn't go on for ever...?

Don't atoms have rights too?

 

[Wendelspanswick]

The excess energy produced by solar panels and wind turbines is sold back to the energy companies so even when your not using any power it's paying for itself.

And if you have an old style mechanical electricity meter the solar panels wind it backwards when your producing more than your using!

 

[Bill Edwards]

Don't atoms have rights too?

I'm sure some tree huggers somewhere keep mentioning stuff about not liking nuclear energy - never paid them too much attention but maybe it is atom rights they're on about?

Either way I'm not going to start standing outside nuclear power stations with a placard saying to free the atom or whatever. If atoms aren't happy with the arrangement then it's up to them to deal with it. Preferably by making enough heat to keep the microwave running to make dinner!

 

[daleyd]

I know nothing about nuclear tech... but presumably when you split the atom you lose an atom. OK, I know there are a lot of atoms in existence, but surely this type of energy production couldn't go on for ever...?

No, you split it into 2 separate ones. (Effectively you knock off a bit of the atom which then goes on to knock off a bit off another, and so on ie a chain reaction).

It only works on atoms that are very dense and unstable, ie uranium ( in reactors, plutonium or uranium in bombs).