Jump to content

Sunamp - new label showing only C rated energy efficiency


readiescards
 Share

Recommended Posts

So my new PCM58 has arrived (see for why I have a new one):

 

And the new one has an energy efficiency sticker on it:

 

Show only grade C - which is well below my expectation.  Anyone know why it is given such a poor mark, I thought one of the key selling points was it was a super highly insulated way of storing heat.

 

IMG_20181214_200117.jpg

  • Sad 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that there was a bit of an issue with definition of the type of product that the Sunamp should be classified as when it comes to energy testing, as the Sunamp PV had a poor rating, that didn't tally with reality at all:

image.thumb.jpeg.abaae7669ee00c07fb04cec6fee5e452.jpeg

 

This rating bore no relationship to the heat losses at all, and was spurious, as it resulted from the test method used being unable to deal with the type of product.  IIRC it was treated as an electric water heater, rather than as a heat storage device.

 

The Sunamp PV heat loss was around 0.6 kWh/24 hours, which equates to about 219 kWh/year, so nothing like the figure on that label of 1,423 kWh/year.

 

Similarly, the UniQ eHW 9 has a heat loss of 0.738 kWh/24 hours, so would lose around 269 kWh/year, nothing like the figure on the label.

 

Arguably, these units should be treated as thermal stores, and assessed in terms of their heat loss rate, much like any hot water cylinder would be.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

I believe that there was a bit of an issue with definition of the type of product that the Sunamp should be classified as when it comes to energy testing

 

This maybe? Grabbed this off the web. 

 

Unfortunately, when it comes to direct cylinders, the parameters and guidelines set out by the EU mean that even a perfect electric cylinder, which never lost any heat, could only ever achieve a maximum of a C-Rating.  

This is because the EU has stated that electric heating must reflect the inefficiencies of fossil fuelled power generation and therefore applies a multiplier of 2.5 to the electrical usage in the efficiency calculation.

 

That said they can’t advertise A+ and send something out that says C! 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Dreadnaught said:

The 44dB is quite surprising too. Does the new model have any pumps within?

 

The 44dB rating applies to the old Sunamp PV, which did have a variable speed Grundfos pump internally.  I've no idea where the 42dB figure for the UniQ comes from, as it has no moving parts at all.  I can only assume that it's another artefact of the test process, and may relate to the very slight crackling noise that a newly commissioned UniQ eHW makes on first being powered up from cold.  In reality it never does this again after being commissioned, or at least I know for sure that ours hasn't, because even when we ran out of hot water a couple of weeks ago the unit was still warm enough to not go into cold start mode.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just tracked down the reference to the Sunamp UniQ range energy rating in the manual that was supplied with our unit:

 

image.thumb.png.3757dd215432ad07c9a8293fc09c07c4.png

 

This clearly states that the ErP Rating class, as a hot water storage vessel, is A+, not C as shown on the label on the new unit that @Barney12 has received.  The manual is accessible online, as well as being supplied with the unit, although I can't seem to find it on the Sunamp website, only on the website of one of their distributors: http://www.bublshop.co.uk/sunamp-uniq-e-heat-store-heating-only-model/p2039

 

Given that it seems that a hot water storage vessel cannot actually achieve an A+ rating, but can only ever get an ErP rating of C, it looks as if something is seriously awry here.  Not sure it has any practical consequences, given the much lower heat losses that the whole Sunamp range have , when compared to hot water storage, but nevertheless the product literature should be accurate and not mislead potential customers into thinking they are buying something with a significantly better ErP rating than the unit actually has.

 

Edited to add:

 

This is the claim directly from the front page of their website, as linked to by @newhome above:

 

image.thumb.png.65d850e807f21a93e3f5c6d96f037e36.png

Edited by JSHarris
Edited to add clipped image from website
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes they could be reported to trading standards or worse! They urgently need to get some leadership in that company to prevent issues with administration, literature, marketing etc. The science may be good but the command and control seem lacking! 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, newhome said:

Yes they could be reported to trading standards or worse! They urgently need to get some leadership in that company to prevent issues with literature, marketing etc. The science may be good but the command and control seem lacking! 

 

 

TSOs only really act now based on number of complaints they're that stretched.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

This clearly states that the ErP Rating class, as a hot water storage vessel, is A+, not C as shown on the label on the new unit that @Barney12 has received

 

The OP was actually @readiescards not me BUT I can confirm that the two uniQ eHW 12’s which have just been commissioned also have the same C rating label.E51F9CBB-2CF8-48D9-9A37-32C90195C8AB.thumb.jpeg.50066fb75e8b31155eb85e4a11bcffb2.jpeg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mr Punter said:

OK @Barney12 wins the Top Trump Sunamp tidiest install (I assume pipe insulation omitted for clarity) (sorry @JSHarris, runner up) and not a bulge in sight. Best slam dunk since the cat flap.

 

 

He does but loses one point as that back right compression tee isn’t lined up with the one in front of it like the rest .... compression nuts look about 3mm out of line .... 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...