You need a Kill a Watt :)

Here is a link that might be useful: Kill a Watt

Electric water pot wins hands down, according to this site:

http://blog.plotwatt.com/2009/08/best-way-to-boil-water.html

And yes, though I'm an engineer, I did just Google this. Any decent engineer is happy to leverage the work of others ;-)

Good grief - is there a product for everything! That Koll A Watt looks neat! ... however, I'm guessing it won't work on the 220V MW...

Vate, checking it out now. Good way to know! What did you search on? I guess best way to boil water would have done it... shoulda known!

Thank you! Can't wait to dive in.

Oh my, the internet really is an amazing place.

You know, this (internet) needs to be harnessed for more than just inciting uprisings ... there has to be away to harness all this intelligence and industry and the medium for figuring stuff out and sharing it: this is political, why can't it be tweaked to permit governance, somehow???? The internet is just astonishing.

Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled programming....

Here is a link that might be useful: Best way to boil water

Geesh .... and now I'm going to regret having bought the MW! I did just fine for nearly 50 years without one.... what was I thinking?

s'OK, I'll just tone down its use a bit, but ... I wonder whether veggies should go back to being steamed on the stove rather than MW'd? Except ... that requires more washing.

These calculations are really troublesome and definitely OCD. Perhaps it's time to get back to work....

for a five minute interval, Delta (consumption) is too small to be significant.

--

20 to 30 years after a new technology is put out to mass market, its benefits are felt because new services/products get built over a number of years. The internet allows anonymity, connectivity and information sharing. Stay tuned.

If you have to ask, you can't afford it :-)

Wondering where the Insta-Hot fits in. Similar to electric water pot?

yes, since the heating element is immersed in the water.

Aliris, not to get you started on something else...but yes. Go back to steaming veggies on the stove instead of the MW. Do you know how food cells are altered in a MW? I know you care about the nutrition and are holistic in your view of food and wellness. Use a steamer basket.

Once the water reaches the boiling temperature, any other heat you add is wasteful, that is why I think an electric kettle that shuts itself off is better.
And that is why it is a good idea to turn the heat somewhat down when boiling an egg after the water is boiling, you want it to continue boiling but it does not need as much heat. HTH

if you want to measure 220v, try this.

Here is a link that might be useful: TED

So, for me, I would need to heat two cups of water in the electric kettle or on the stove. Because you need a cup of boiling water to heat the mug, pour out that water and then pour in another cup into the heated mug for the tea.(or in my case instant coffee, yea yea I know yecchy)
In the microwave I only have to heat 1 cup because it's heating my mug at the same time.
So then, according to that graph on the Best way to boil water, I will be comparing 2 cups on the kettle/stove vs 1 cup for the MW - basically no difference.
Now I'm not a scientist, just a stats nerd and I can make that graph say anything I want.

I always steam or stir-fry my vegetables. Those done in the MW are awful.

Meant to ask - which is more energy efficient - reheating a casserole in the MW for 4 minutes or an oven for 30 minutes.(and having it dry out in the oven)

if it's a clean cup, you can immerse it into the ultra hot water and leave it there for a minute while the temperature comes back up to 212F.

Oh no, really? I've held out for all this time insisting stoves are close-enough fast and more ecologically supportable and all the rest, only to cave now and buy a MW and discover the rest of the world has come around to agreeing with my prejudices?

I thought the microwaving-vegetables thing was supposed to preserve nutrients for the shortness of cooking? I have to say I have been loving it. I bought a fancy microwave cooker from an Asian market. It's an oblong plastic with raised ceramic holey device that supports the food; you put a little water in the bottom for steam. I dump veggies in and 2 minutes later they're crispy-cooked. It's a little easier than fiddling with the stupid steamer that's always tipping and never quite fits underneath the lid. Especially on a camp stove (which is thankfully back in its camping box after a year-hiatus in the hot-spot).

Course, if I spent a little for a better steamer maybe everything would be comparable.

blfenton - I hope you don't think this gross, but when I perform the ritual you relate, I just dump that first cup of clean warming-water right back in the pot. Or sometimes I toss it in dh's coffee maker. It's not turned on so it just sits there for a half-day until next it is. Still, I guess your point is you need to *heat* 2 cups for every one drunk, not the loss of the first cup.

I guess the take-home message is, MW's aren't sensible for heating water or simple liquids like soup. They may be for more complex dishes like a casserole. And they may be comparatively poor nutrient-wise for steaming veggies.

How about for reheating tea? Is it better to use a low-voltage cup-heater and leave it turned on all day or let that cup cool down and zap it when ready? (no other choices available).

"... reheating tea? Is it better to..." Whatever works for you. There comes a point where any discussion of energy usage descends into the micropenny range, and it's more and more futile like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Focus on the bigger things first and the pennies will take care of themselves. I think an example of a big thing would be to take a train instead of a plane. In a kitchen, the use of halogen / xenon / incandescent-oldfashioned lights is a big thing compared to LED or fluorescent lighting, because the first category are big heaters that generate some light, and the second category are the opposite in terms of light/heat output. The disadvantage of getting your light from a heater is that you have to pay extra for the air conditioning to remove the heat from your house. In Alaska it's not as big a problem; they heat their house for more months than not.

MW's aren't sensible for heating water or simple liquids like soup.

The cost difference is 1/2 of a cent for boiling a cup of water, at my local $0.11/kwh rate, which is immaterial. I'd be more swayed by convenience - for anything other than plain water, the microwave allows you to avoid the extra step of washing out a kettle.

They may be for more complex dishes like a casserole.

Yes, hard to stuff a quiche into the electric kettle.

And they may be comparatively poor nutrient-wise for steaming veggies

I would closely investigate this claim before acting on it. Strikes me as urban myth/pseudo science.

Davidro 1 - My great, great uncle died on the Titanic. I don't know if there is an energy-efficient message in that or not! I think not.

Loved that website, especially the comment that addressed site vs. primary energy (i.e. taking into consideration inefficiencies in burning fuel to produce electricity and then distribute it to your house--rule of thumb is about 3 units of energy at the power plant for each unit of electricity you consume at your house--geeky!)

But it is clear your mileage may vary on this. I generally heat water in a teakettle on my gas stove. However if you want water hot but not boiling (as my 7 yr old does for cocoa or tea) the microwave is probably better. She heats 8 oz for 1 min for the perfect temperature, while I forget about the teakettle until it whistles, which is quite a bit hotter and then has to be cooled down with extra cold water. The other thing about the microwave is that since you heat the water in the mug, you never heat any extra, while I'm no so good at eyeballing it on the stove, and my ex routinely heated up 4 cups of water when he only wanted 1.