New Kitchen Advice

Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
98
Having seen enough of these type of thing break. I'll stick with boiling the kettle. Seems like a waste of energy keeping water that hot just in case you want to make a drink. And with indication hobs. It takes not time to boil water in a pan.
It's cheaper and more efficient than boiling a kettle. The thermos is ultra efficient and there is no waste as you only use the water you need. Additionally you can add boiling water to cold when washing up a couple of things so you don't need to wait for the hot water to come through
 

Pants

Challenge Tour Pro
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
901
It's cheaper and more efficient than boiling a kettle.
Really?? It might, and I repeat might, use fractionally less energy compared to (say) using a kettle, BUT with the upfront cost, ongoing maintenance, filters, etc my fag packet shows that you probably would need 20 - 40 years to show a profit - and that is only based on the unit lasting that long.

Latest must have, look what I've got, gizmo imho. And I still wouldn't let SWMBO anywhere near one.
 

Bunkermagnet

Journeyman Pro
Joined
May 14, 2014
Messages
5,746
Location
Kent
Really?? It might, and I repeat might, use fractionally less energy compared to (say) using a kettle, BUT with the upfront cost, ongoing maintenance, filters, etc my fag packet shows that you probably would need 20 - 40 years to show a profit - and that is only based on the unit lasting that long.

Latest must have, look what I've got, gizmo imho. And I still wouldn't let SWMBO anywhere near one.
The yearly service costs are quite eye watering.
 
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
98
Really?? It might, and I repeat might, use fractionally less energy compared to (say) using a kettle, BUT with the upfront cost, ongoing maintenance, filters, etc my fag packet shows that you probably would need 20 - 40 years to show a profit - and that is only based on the unit lasting that long.

Latest must have, look what I've got, gizmo imho. And I still wouldn't let SWMBO anywhere near one.
Like most gadgets, it's not about the cost it's about the convenience. Why do people buy microwaves when they already have an oven? If you wouldn't let SWMBO near a Quooker, I hope you don't let her use a kettle!
 

Pants

Challenge Tour Pro
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
901
We had a new kitchen 2 years ago and the fitter/supplier mentioned this as an option, but didn't push it. We weighed up the up front cost, on going costs, convenience, and decided that it definitely wasn't worth it on several fronts. Our choice.

One assumes that you have bought into it. Your choice.

Each to their own.
 

Pants

Challenge Tour Pro
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
901
From Which.co.uk (My underlining)

There's a filter built into the hot water tank, which can last up to five years. If you live in a hard water area you can also add a limescale-control unit for £245. Replacement filters for the limescale unit cost £90 and will need to be replaced every 24 months.
As for the filter in the tank itself, you could either get a Quooker engineer to service the tap and replace the filter for £150 or do it yourself with a kit for £30.
Quooker also sell a cold-water filter to make drinking water taste better. It's available on the Flex and Fusion taps and needs to replaced every six months.


So that's a real bargain then.:eek: We'll stick with an energy efficient (and cost effective) kettle.
 
Top