-
often wondered what the energy savings would be if people brewed their tea at, say 92 or 95c instead of a rolling boil
There are two parts; just heating water from 92 to 100 costs about 9Wh per litre. Vaporising it is energetically costly, but not much is vaporised. Losing 0.01l as steam (that's a lot) would cost another 6Wh. Out of the 100Wh/l you're using to make tea either way, it's a material number but not earth shattering.
Thanks. I was thinking that scaled to a population level, it would probably add up to a good amount of energy saved for a relatively minor cost if people brewed tea at =<99deg instead of boiling.
Shit tea though,
Most fast food tea isn’t great anyway, and I’d be surprised if even the most carefully reared Golf Club palate can feel the difference between 96 and 99deg builders tea.
You are reading a single comment by @Eseman and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Eseman
There are two parts; just heating water from 92 to 100 costs about 9Wh per litre. Vaporising it is energetically costly, but not much is vaporised. Losing 0.01l as steam (that's a lot) would cost another 6Wh. Out of the 100Wh/l you're using to make tea either way, it's a material number but not earth shattering. All this assumes 100% efficiency, so the absolute number will be higher but the proportion is largely unchanged.
The importance of this depends entirely on what the rest of the building is up to - if it's being heated, all of the input into the kettle ends up as reduction in required heating input so it doesn't matter