There are several services which claim to be able to detect just how lean, green, and clean your website is. But, in my opinion, they're all a bit inadequate.

WebsiteCarbon

The WebsiteCarbon.com service gives me this very pleasing report

But what does that actually mean? There's an almost content-free description of their rating system. It boils down to how large your web pages are and whether your data centre runs on green energy.

I specifically chose Krystal as my host because of their green energy credentials. So it got that right.

WebsiteCarbon seems to just be an advertising pitch for their paid-for auditing services:

You can get a comprehensive view of a website’s emissions and potential improvements by carrying out a Website Carbon Audit.

Let's try another service.

EcoGrader

EcoGrader gives me a lower score but provides a lot more detail about why.

They also give tips on how I can improve things.

Do you notice anything about those tips? They're basically the same as Core Web Vitals! A set of useful, if generic, tips to optimise your website.

Others

There are several other services which claim to measure your site's eco-credentials. But, as far as I can tell, they're all doing the same thing; reskinning Core Web Vitals or similar products.

Some, like, Blacklight are promoted on the claim that excessive tracking scripts are an environmental disaster. In the end, the message is the same - clean up your website to make it faster more efficient.

What Does This Mean?

The energy efficiency of modern codecs is often asymmetric. It might be energy intensive to encode a movie - but that's paid back a thousand-fold by having to store and stream less data and by the efficiency of the decode process at the user's end.

If you operating at planetary scale then, yes, a small saving affecting a billion users will have a huge impact. If you're optimising a single hero image on your recipe blog, probably not so much.

Much like the discredited idea that by switching off your "standby" devices you can save £££, most of these website changes are marginal at best.

Yes, we should strive for svelte and performant websites - as much for usability as for environmentalism. It makes ecological sense to choose a hosting provider who is at least somewhat responsible in their energy usage - as much for cost as for anything else.

If these websites help convince your boss that you can remove horrific amounts of JS, upgrade images to WebP, and set sensible caching policies - great! Sell them the shiny accreditation badge while you go about making the site better.

Finally, a word of caution to anyone implicitly trusting these services - there's no way to know what's going on in the background of a website. An ultra efficient looking website served from a green data-centre, might be spinning up a dozen LLMs just to churn out the page content. A slow website might be solar powered. All those ultra-compressed images might be adverts for fossil fuels.

And every time you leave a comment on my blog, I shoot a panda.

Burning gas to heat water to pump around a home is… daft. It's noisy, expensive, requires a yearly service, and is difficult to control on a per-room basis. It is a fossil fuel with a tendency to explode. Yuck!

Heat pumps are marginally better. But they require a huge box installed and, possibly, bigger radiators. They still rely on pumping fluids around. Eugh!

So I decided to experiment with Far Infrared Heating. The science is simple - a thin flat panel which pumps out infrared radiation - and nothing else. No light, no whirring fans, no stored oil - just heat.

Before replacing every single radiator in the house, I decided to get the cheapest panel I could find which included WiFi (hey, what else did you expect from this blog?!). This is it:

Boring, innit? And it only cost £100 delivered.

It's the Maclean 360W WiFi heater. As far as I can tell, it's a rebadged OEM heater. It uses the near-ubiquitous Tuya platform, which means there's a basic app and it can be controlled by Alexa.

There's also some on-panel buttons for controlling it, if you don't trust IoT devices.

The controls are physically on the panel. The panel gets painfully hot to the touch so, sensibly, the area around the buttons has no heat. That said, it's easy to misjudge where your finger is going and feel a slight pain. There's an infrared remote control which feels plasticy and clicky and is just grim to use.

It's pretty thin, only 35mm, which includes the power box - but closer to 40mm if you use the included mounting brackets. And it is light - only a couple of kilos. These things are designed to be mounted on ceilings or walls. Mine also came with little feet to make it free-standing.

Thermal Imaging

Using my cheap Thermal Camera, I took a couple of photos of the device in use.

Here's the general heat distribution:

The top of the panel is quite a bit warmer than the bottom. This is also observable through touching the panel briefly. What's more interesting is the right hand side of the panel - where the controls are:

Despite the controls only being in the top corner, the entire column is considerably cooler. Effectively, this is a 50cm panel with a 10cm control space.

What I like about the system

The heating is instant. With a gas-powered radiator, I have to wait for the water to heat up and get pumped to the room. With this, I flick a switch and it is on. You start feeling the heat straight away.

The heat is directional - the back of the panel doesn't get very warm. Unlike a normal radiator which quite often needs a "reflector" to make the best use of the heat.

The aim of FIR is to build up "thermal mass". Rather than heating the air - which can be swept away in an instant - it heats objects which then continue to radiate warmth.

Because each panel is wired in individually, I'm not wasting energy by heating rooms I'm not in. I know I could dial down the radiator valves - or even get smart ones - but this just targets the rooms I'm in. And, when I leave - the heat can be instantly switched off.

Completely silent - no whooshing of gas or gurgling of water. Well, OK, there is a small speaker which beeps whenever it receives a command. And, as with anything, there can be the occasional creak due to thermal expansion. But it's a lot quieter than my existing heating system.

The Tuya app is a little basic, but it works. I can schedule rooms to be on or off, control them directly, or use the built-in thermostat. Or set the heating to come on when the local weather is a certain temperature,

Drawbacks

FIR has a few issues which are worth knowing about.

FIR heats objects and people, not the air. It is a different type of heat to convection radiators. Think of being out in bright sunshine on a cold spring day.

The heat travels in a straight line. So a panel around a corner will only heat things in its line of sight.

Thermostats generally measure the air temperature - so traditional ones won't work. There is a thermostat built in to this panel but it is only really measuring the ambient temperature around the panel.

The heat cuts off instantly. With a gas-powered radiator, the rad stays warm even once the gas has been turned off. With this, you get a few minutes of residual heat before it cools down.

Product specific issues

I deliberately chose the cheapest panel available. Longer term, I think I'd use someone like Warm4Less who offer a much better service.

Anyway, problems with this unit:

• Long shipping times from Poland.
• No wall mounting template - although they did provide screws & rawlplugs.
• Euro-style plug rather than BS 1363.
• No long-term guarantee - although these sorts of panels typically have a 100,000 hour life.
• The LED control panel will dim after a period of inactivity, but never switches off. When the unit is off, the power LED flashes. So you won't want it in your eyeline.
• The panel is pretty shiny, so reflects LEDs from your other gadgets. A matt finish would have been better.
• Only a 2m power cord. That's not really long enough for ceiling or wall mounting without extension leads.
• The Tuya app *sigh*

Tuya App

Tuya are near-ubiquitous when it comes to IoT and Home Automation. The Tuya Smart Life is pretty basic - and really could do with some UI and UX attention to detail. But, it works. Here are the sum total of the controls.

OK, once you're in the belly of the app, you can set actions to happen based on timers, weather, geographic location, and voice commands.

The app also has an Alexa skill which - despite my best efforts - I couldn't get working. I followed the Tuya Alexa Guide but the Echo just couldn't detect the Espressif-powered device. Annoyingly, there are two different official Tuya skills. I tried both of them, but no dice!

Security

The panel only has one TCP port open - 6668 - which is normal for these sort of devices.

As with any IoT device, unless you're prepared to spend ages configuring subnets, you have to take the risk that your devices could get compromised. YOLO!

Alternatives

I deliberately bought the cheapest panel I could find which was free-standing, so I could move it between rooms. There are panels available in all different shapes and sizes. Long, thin panels are great for hanging from a hallway ceiling, for example. There are picture panels if you want to use them as decoration, and mirror panels for bathrooms.

But all of them work in the same way.

Conclusion

Depending on the size and shape of your home, Far Infrared could be a good source of heat. The panels are passive and don't require any maintenance. If/when they break - you won't need a plumber or electrician to replace them. They're a lot simpler to install than a heat pump - and they're thin enough that you can place them in front of your old radiators if you want.

The 360W panel is enough for me to heat my home office. I have it set fairly close to me and it feels lovely. For larger rooms, you'll need much more powerful panels.

True, the cost effectiveness is highly dependent on the relatively price of gas and electricity. But the use of gas is being phased out across the UK and investment in this technology is likely to make it cheaper.

Overall, I'm happy with this experiment. When I'm the only one WFH, I can just heat my office and it will get warm pretty quickly. Most of my electricity comes from our solar panels, which is a much greener and cheaper source than gas.

I think, by next winter, I'll have these panels in every room and the gas heater will only be used for showers and baths.

Further Reading

I found these resources useful:

• ACC Haus "Far Infrared Heating. It’s heating, Jim, but not as we know it! (but you may need more power, Scotty) "
• Why infrared heating wouldn’t work for you…
• Far infrared radiation (FIR): its biological effects and medical applications

Energy Saving Trust

@EnergySvgTrust

A quick way to #saveenergy at home is to turn off tablets, laptops and consoles as soon as you stop using them, and ideally unplug them.

This is a big potential #energy saver and could save you up to £30 a year.

Find out more here:
ensvgtr.uk/pS1ut

#EnergyEfficiency pic.x.com/q2CWdlkaBH

---

This is known as "Vampire Energy" and, amusingly, is a bit of a Zombie statistic. Being the party-pooper that I am, I emailed the Energy Saving Trust to ask how they calculated the stat. They replied quickly with:

The calculation for £35 savings from turning off stand-by devices per year per household comes from average 201KWh for stand-by power times GB average standard electricity price 16.471 £p/KWh, then rounded to nearest £5.

201KWh comes from “Further Analysis of the Household Electricity Survey Early Findings: Demand side management”.

Please note that the term “stand-by” used in this situation also include device on idle mode.

Please refer to the report in more detail about the assumptions used in the analysis. Here is the link for this report: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/275483/early_findings_revised.pdf

OK, let's take a look at the 2013 report.

First up, what disclaimers do they have?

Straight away they say that it's hard to measure low power devices - so they've been rounded up. But at least they're honest about their methodology.

So, what devices did they monitor?

I'm not sure how many people were still using VCRs back in 2013 - Dixons stopped selling them in 2004. I'd bet hardly anyone uses them now. If you still use one - please switch it off at the wall when not in use!

Set top boxes still exist - but most TVs now have digital decoders built into them. When the TV is on standby, the "STB" is also on standby. Drawing a tiny amount of electricity. But, OK, not everyone has a new TV.

What about things like Sky boxes? Well, the report mentions two issues:

Yes, you can switch these boxes off at the wall - but then they won't record the programmes that you want.

As the report was being published, Sky updated their boxes so they'd be eco-friendly. I'm told that this mode is now the default - but it may be worth checking to see if your devices have an "eco" setting. That will do more good than unplugging things.

It's not just AV equipment contributing to this "vampire" power. Computer equipment is also included:

Again, the report acknowledges that things like modems and routers don't really count as "standby" because they can be in constant use. If you want to check your TikTok in bed, you don't want to have turned off the WiFi.

Laptops have a high average "standby" because they use the first few hours charging their batteries. So, again, legitimate use rather than "vampire" use.

The report also looks at things like microwave oven clocks, tumble-dryers, dishwashers. Some of these do use a considerable amount of standby power. Although resetting the clock on the microwave every morning may not be the best start to your day.

That all feeds in to the 201kWh per year figure.

There's also some discussion about the idle power for things like doorbells, smoke alarms, burglar alarms. They have a significant power draw - but I don't think anyone would suggest that it is sensible to switch off your alarms overnight.

Remember that original Tweet?

Energy Saving Trust

@EnergySvgTrust

A quick way to #saveenergy at home is to turn off tablets, laptops and consoles as soon as you stop using them, and ideally unplug them.

This is a big potential #energy saver and could save you up to £30 a year.

Find out more here:
ensvgtr.uk/pS1ut

#EnergyEfficiency pic.x.com/q2CWdlkaBH

---

It suggests turning off tablets - which are not included in this report. Go buy a cheap Watt-meter and see how much "vampire" energy it is using. Once the battery is fully charged, it will use very little.

Similarly, laptops - even older ones - won't draw too much electricity once they've gone to sleep.

Consoles? Sony publishes stats for the PlayStation. Some of the older ones will use up to 4W in "rest" mode. That allows the device to check for updates and to power on quickly. If you switch it to low-power mode, it'll use less than a Watt.

This "advice" is bunkum.

Should you switch your devices to "eco" mode? Absolutely! Will it save you £30? Not even close.

Update - 27th April 2022

This zombie stat is doing the rounds again today. Here's a Twitter thread where I go into a bit more detail about it.

Terence Eden is on Mastodon

@edent

I looked into these claims when they were made last year.

It is mostly nonsense.

Here's what I found shkspr.mobi/blog/2021/10/n…

Sadly, the BBC don't link to the original British Gas research.
Pushing responsibility onto the consumer is, ironically, gaslighting.None

BBC News (UK)

@BBCNews

‘Vampire devices’ cost UK households £147 a year bbc.in/3xX0yOY

---

---

Last night I attended a local hustings for the General Election.

The two candidates I was most interested to hear from were Andrew Smith (Labour) and Ann Duncan (Green). The Tory candidate pulled out due to a family emergency, and UKIP didn't bother to show up. The LibDem candidate also was a no show and instead sent a rather inarticulate student in his place.

We also were treated to candidates from both The Socialist Party of Great Britain and the Trade Unionist & Socialist Coalition - proving once again that the far left would rather be ideologically pure than wield any degree of power. Bloody splitters!

In the end, the only two speakers who actually offered coherent policy suggestions were the Greens and Labour. The others were extremely confused ("MAGNA CARTER!!!!!"), delusional ("Once we abolish money..."), or Liberal Democrats ("TTIP is great and will exclude the NHS.")

One of the questions posed to the candidates was around the introduction of biometric IDs in Oxford schools. This isn't an area I know much about - but the candidates were passionately against it. Andrew Smith gave a tub-thumpingly good answer on why it was a dangerous idea and how systems like this were renowned for failing safeguards and mission-creep.

This, I thought, was curious. It was Andrew Smith who tried to introduce Biometric ID cards for all British Citizens.

I asked him directly why he voted for ID cards if he thought they were such a bad idea. He replied (and I'm paraphrasing) "I am against biometric ID cards, and my voting record reflects that."

I pointed out that I was looking at his voting record on ID cards - and it clearly showed that he voted for every single measure. He said the situation was "more subtle than that" - and we moved onto the next question.

Now, I have a lot of respect for Mr Smith. He's always answered my letters, he's against Trident, and has a good voting record on most of the issues I care about. But this was a bare faced lie.

If he'd have said "I was for them, but after looking at all the evidence and listening to my constituents, I've come to the conclusion that I was wrong" - I would have happily accepted that. If he'd said he was still in favour of them in certain circumstances, I would have respected his integrity. But such a blatant rewriting of history is unacceptable.

Here he is, speaking in the House of Commons in 2003 :

Here is a letter to the Oxford Mail complaining about his stance.

At every stage, he voted for Biometric ID cards.

I went into the debates eager to hear from the Green party, but looking forward to voting in a Labour MP for the first time in my life. Instead, I was left with the impression that after 30 years of the same MP, it's time for Oxford East to choose a new representative.

This chart from Wikipedia shows how Oxford East voted last time.

It doesn't look hopeful for the Greens. But I'm not convinced that it's an impossible task. UKIP and the Tories will split the right-wing vote. The students who voted LibDem last time will (hopefully) abandon them following the tuition fee betrayal. If a substantial chunk of them go for a Green alternative rather than the Tory-lite Labour party, and the Labour vote collapses like in did in 2005, it's possible for the the Greens to win here.

Unlikely, sure. But I'd rather vote for a World Bank Economist who believes in social justice, than an MP content to throw his voting record down the memory hole.

Do I agree with 100% of the Green Manifesto? No. But I've had enough of being lied to by Labour politicians. It's time for a change - it's time for a Green alternative.

Vote for Ann Duncan on May 7th.

We based our estimations on the Europa Solar Calculator which estimated that they would generate around 2,700 kWh per year.

Annoyingly, we haven't been able to hook the panels up to the Internet, so I can't get daily readings. So, every three months we have to manually look at the meter. Last month, after a year of operation, it stood at...

03172.42 kWh

That totally busted through our estimations!

The last three months saw them generate a whopping 489 kWh.

Now, I'm not sure if the weather this year has been particularly favourable, and I've no idea if next year will be as sunny, nor do I know whether the panels effectiveness will degrade over time.

But, still, that's pretty damn impressive!

Money Money Money

The current Feed-In-Tariff set by the Government (and guaranteed for 25 year to rise with inflation) is around £0.454 per kWh generated, plus £0.03 per kWh exported to the grid. It's assumed that 50% of what you generate is exported.

That means, over a year, our solar panels have earned us, roughly £1,500! (The price has recently gone up, so it's not a straight calculation.)

That's comfortably ahead of our expectations of £1,200 per year. It also doesn't take into account energy savings - we don't live there - so with the recent energy price rises, that's a decent saving for the tenants.

I'm really looking forward to seeing how they perform over the next twelve months.

If you'd like solar panels installed, I can highly recommend Sunny Future Solar.