We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Is it more economical to leave heating on?
Comments
-
You can say that until you are blue in the face( as several of us do) but every few months you will get someone(as above) - who will tell you that is just theoretical rubbish and they have 'proved' that constant heat 24/7 is cheaper than timed. e.g.
I wonder how much they believe you can turn your temperature up before it is no longer true. Why not a constant 24, 26, 30, 40...... degrees. What's the magic number where it's no longer true?0 -
Why assume it varies with temperature?psychoceramicist wrote: »I wonder how much they believe you can turn your temperature up before it is no longer true. Why not a constant 24, 26, 30, 40...... degrees. What's the magic number where it's no longer true?0 -
On the assumption that this isn't a wind-up, because the higher you set your thermostat, the more it costs you.You lose heat at a faster rate, because the temperature difference between inside and outside is greater. And heat loss is what you are really paying for once your home has been heated up for the first time.Quote:
Originally Posted by psychoceramicist
I wonder how much they believe you can turn your temperature up before it is no longer true. Why not a constant 24, 26, 30, 40...... degrees. What's the magic number where it's no longer true?
Why assume it varies with temperature?
Equate it to electricity: the higher the voltage(temperature difference), the greater the current(heat flow) given the resistance(heat insulation) remains the same.
Or water in a river. The steeper the river bed, the faster the water flows.0 -
Buy a thermal vest. youll only buy it once and its cheaper than throwing fuel away to heat the pigeons on the roof.
The era of cheap fuel is over. Put some clothes on.0 -
Oldskoo1 wants to believe that having the heating on constantly allows a lower peak temperature by 2 degrees at the same comfort level and thus doesn't cost any more (or maybe less) than having the central heating on a timer. This is hard to refute. It'll depend how much heat a house stores compared to its heat loss. Or in practice, how much the house cools down over the length of time in which the heating is timed to be off.psychoceramicist wrote: »On the assumption that this isn't a wind-up, because the higher you set your thermostat, the more it costs you.You lose heat at a faster rate, because the temperature difference between inside and outside is greater. And heat loss is what you are really paying for once your home has been heated up for the first time.
Equate it to electricity: the higher the voltage(temperature difference), the greater the current(heat flow) given the resistance(heat insulation) remains the same.
Or water in a river. The steeper the river bed, the faster the water flows.
Would the relative costs go up equally much if we compared 18 vs 20 degrees timed to 20 vs 22 degrees timed? I'd say it probably would.
Plus, a compromise scenario might be to have the heating on constantly with a night setback, in which a programmable thermostat is set to turn the heating down to 17 at night and to 19 in the day (on the basis that heating the fabric of the house up by 2 degrees would be possible relatively quickly). This way you retain most of the savings of turning the heating off (as the rate of cooling tails off massively after a couple of degrees anyway), but you also don't let the house get too cold (fewer cold down-draughts pouring off the cooled walls etc) so you still don't need to have the heating up as high as if it were off at night altogether.
I suppose the differences in cost are difficult to measure as long as the house has some basic insulation and draughtproofing, so ultimately it depends what you feel happier doing.0 -
I think I have explained previously on here, this question cannot have a single answer.
We all know that heat escapes and tries to equal that of outside temp.
However there is definitely a case for leaving heating on at different temps throughout the day rather than wack it on full every evening.
I have tried both methods and over a week noticed little difference in useage, if I was to leave the temp at 15 degrees overnight, 16 degrees during the day and 18 in the evening I was using approx 7-8 units per day during cold periods and the property was always warm, that chill taken off the air.
However if I switched the heating off overnight and during the day it may fall to 10 degrees, when I get home from work at 5 the house is freezing so I turn the room stat to 18 degrees and it takes until 9 o clock until it reaches 18, having used 7 units doing this, the heating then goes off at 10.
I have only had 1 hour of temp at 18 degrees all night, the heating off overnight and the property is back to 14 degrees in the morning and the cycle begins again.
Worst case keeping the heating on round the clock I may use an extra 2000kWh per annum, but I think its worth that to keep the house comfortable during the night,day and evening.0 -
savers_united wrote: »I think I have explained previously on here, this question cannot have a single answer.
We all know that heat escapes and tries to equal that of outside temp.
However there is definitely a case for leaving heating on at different temps throughout the day rather than wack it on full every evening.
I have tried both methods and over a week noticed little difference in useage, if I was to leave the temp at 15 degrees overnight, 16 degrees during the day and 18 in the evening I was using approx 7-8 units per day during cold periods and the property was always warm, that chill taken off the air.
However if I switched the heating off overnight and during the day it may fall to 10 degrees, when I get home from work at 5 the house is freezing so I turn the room stat to 18 degrees and it takes until 9 o clock until it reaches 18, having used 7 units doing this, the heating then goes off at 10.
I have only had 1 hour of temp at 18 degrees all night, the heating off overnight and the property is back to 14 degrees in the morning and the cycle begins again.
Worst case keeping the heating on round the clock I may use an extra 2000kWh per annum, but I think its worth that to keep the house comfortable during the night,day and evening.
You are absolutely correct in saying that you think it is worth the extra money to have the heating running constantly, many people will think the same. However the relevant point is that it will cost more.
Turning down the thermometer for periods is essentially the same as have it off for timed periods.
I suggest that there is something wrong with your heating system and/or house insulation if your house can drop to 10C and take 4 hours(and use over 80kWh) to bring it back up to temperature.0 -
Buy a thermal vest. youll only buy it once and its cheaper than throwing fuel away to heat the pigeons on the roof.
The era of cheap fuel is over. Put some clothes on.
Had to do that last night. The boiler was playing up and we were without gas from yesterday afternoon until this morning. Brrr, chilly!
Of course, some would say this was more expensive than if I'd had heating on overnight.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards