That massive spike of 50c/kWh at the left looks tiny compared to today even though that’s already insanely expensive

  • lntl@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    i keep a pile of coal in the cellar for the extra cold days

    • neo@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      So you’re BigDickEnergy in a granny cottage, heating the place with your wood to get off grid. Nice!

    • AreaKode@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Heat pumps aren’t designed to function in this low of temperature. The problem is they need a real heater instead of a heat exchanger.

      • Critical_Insight@feddit.ukOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        This is such an outdated information. Modern heatpumps work just fine even in temperatures of -20C and below. Ofcourse the efficiency gets worse the colder it is but even at worst it’s still 100% efficient. On a typical year there’s only a handful of really cold days. It doesn’t make sense not to get a heatpump just because it’s inefficient for few days. It’s not like it stops heating or something. It just effectively turns into electric radiator which is what my house was heated with before I got the heatpump anyways.

        • The_v@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          Not quite, in my experience on really cold days my heat pump struggles to keep up. This is expecially true when the outside unit is frosting up. The unit has to reverse and pump heat out of the house.

          That’s one of the reasons i run my wood pellet stove on those days. The secondary source of heat takes the load off the heat pump.

          • dan@upvote.au
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            In an area that gets very cold, a geothermal heat pump (which uses the ground rather than the air for heat exchange) would work better than an air-source heat pump. More expensive to install though, and you need a good amount of land

            • Sibbo@sopuli.xyz@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 months ago

              It’s basically what modern homes should have built below them. Then it doesn’t need extra space. Wonder if it’s already enough to put some pipes a meter below the basement?

    • june@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      I’ve got a small 1200w heater that kicks on in the morning to bring the living room space up to 69. I live in a 40 year old house that’s insulated fairly well (I just had the attic redone last year to r-49) and it’s 45f outside right now. That little heater has used 6kWh since kicking on this morning getting the house up from 63f to the near 69 it is now.

      On a day below freezing that heater will got for a lot longer through the day to keep temps up.

      • chitak166@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Space heaters are the way to go.

        It’s the difference between paying $70 and $5 more per month.

        • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          You don’t exactly understand heat pumps, do you?

          A space heater has an efficiency of close to 100%, heat pumps have at worst 100% and at best somewhere between 300 and 500%. Granted, in -35C environments, it’s probably very close to 100%, but that’s the absolute worst case, and an anomaly even in Finland.

    • schnokobaer@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      That’s a perfectly normal number for any home that isn’t very new and perfectly insulated.

      My 37sqm appartment needs approximately 5000 kWh in natural gas per year, 876 kWh last December, so 28 kWh per day on average. The building is admittedly old and not perfectly insulated but it’s also not a log cabin out in the open in Finland, but instead a flat enclosed within 3 other flats in the middle of cosy, never below -8C Germany.

      21 kWh in a log cabin in Finnland actually seemed pretty low to me. It’s sort of obvious OP is using a heat pump and the cabin must really be absolutely tiny.

      • Nollij@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        Why are you measuring natural gas in kWh? How do you even measure that as such?

        • SoleInvictus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          It’s an easy conversion - 1 kWh is equal to 3412 Btus. In Germany, both electricity and natural gas are charged in kWh. I know a fair bit about energy measurement if you have any questions.

          • Nollij@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            This is fascinating to me. How does it factor efficiency, since gas needs to be burned?

            • bw1faeh0@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 months ago

              It does not factor efficiency at all.

              The bill does not care about efficiency.

  • Max_Power@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    I honestly don’t understand. Isn’t Finland one of the countries who should have figured out how to heat a home efficiently a long time ago?

    • gigachad@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      I’m don’t know how energy contracts work in Finland, but in Germany you usually have a fixed price per kw/h. That price may change frequently, but it has to be announced and you have the right to cancel the contract each time.

      The graph OP showed looks like the price development on the spot market, that’s where energy providers buy energy short-term, apart from their long-term contracts. Spot-market-energy is naturally more expensive than the long-term one. That price may also be very unstable, as for example an unexpectedly cood winter week among several regions/contries can let it hike up pretty drastically.

      AFAIK, this short-term price is an option for the private consumer as well. It has the advantage of being much cheaper most of the time when demand is low/normal but the disavantage OP shows here.

  • Critical_Insight@feddit.ukOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    Tomorrow is back to normal. Even the 37c/kWh spike hardly registers on the graph compared to today even though that’s still pretty expensive.

    • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      40c/kWh is a pretty normal price here in Germany…

      Ironically, prices are high, because of too much extremely cheap renewables.