Is it more economical to leave heating on?

asandwhen

I wanted to know the best way to heat my house and not cost a fortune.

We currently have the temporature set at 18 and have it on for 2 hours in the morning then 4 hours in the evening.

Obviously at the moment by the time it goes back on in the evening it is freezing so seems to take ages to warm up. Someone has told me that it is more economical to turn the heating down to say 16 but leave it on for longer periods. Is this true?

HappyMJ

NO Not true

Cardew

This subject comes up several times each year.

There is absolutely no doubt that having it timed is cheaper than constant, when you are using the same temperature.

However the question as you posed it(6 hours at 18C or longer at 16C) cannot be answered as it depends on the insulation of your house etc and how much longer.

16C, if your thermostat is accurate, is not a temperature many people could tolerate; it is the statutory minimum allowed in offices.

If your house is still 'freezing' in the evening, then set the heating to come on earlier.

At the end of the day it is just a compromise.

covcandy

hi i leave mine on all the time it cost me 13 pound a wk , just turn it a bit down when i go to bed . so if the tem drop it kicks in hope that helps im on a meter

Totality

£13 a week to leave it on constantly? What temperate is it set at and how big is the house?

covcandy

hi i have a two bedroom house . its on at 18 right now but at night i have it on at 20 then turn it down to about 16 ope that helps

oldskoo1

Well we have just had our quarter bill for the last 3 freezing winter months.

It was easily colder on avg than last year so expect higher gas bills if you have gch.


Last year we had our heating on 18-20dC for 1hr in the mornings and 4-5hrs in the evenings, water heating too.

This year, as mentioned, easily colder, we have had our central heating running 24/7 at 18dC and its only consumed an extra 45units, thats nothings.

It is much colder than this time last year and the extra gas used is probably down to that. The upside is our house is constantly warm. Last year it was freezing in the morning and freezing for at least an hour when we got in from work.

This year it was -11 outside and you wouldn't even know it. Many a time we stepped out and was shocked.


We have made some improvements over last year, new front door, draft excluder's, more loft insulation and a tank jacket.


ALWAYS read the meter to check this idea works for you first. I'd hate to recommend it and someone end up with a massive bill.

selgann

HI, I thought it would be cheaper too, especially if the house is quite efficient. I recently posted a thread asking the same question and got replies saying it WAS cheaper to do this. And yet obviously here there are some saying it's not.

I think it really depends on your home's ability to insulate, and the temperature from which you're heating in the morning and afternoon. E.g. if it drops massively overnight and takes a good 3 hours to get going again at full power, it probably isn't better to put it on timer. It just really depends I guess, and you're right, no way to tell until you've tested usage via the meter yourself (like for like conditions in terms of outside temp.)

Cardew

selgann wrote: »

I think it really depends on your home's ability to insulate, and the temperature from which you're heating in the morning and afternoon. E.g. if it drops massively overnight and takes a good 3 hours to get going again at full power, it probably isn't better to put it on timer. It just really depends I guess, and you're right, no way to tell until you've tested usage via the meter yourself (like for like conditions in terms of outside temp.)

With respect, regarding cost, it does not depend on your home's ability to insulate - it is always cheaper to have it on timed.

This is a quote from the Energy Saving Trust.

Quote:
Question:

Is it more economical to leave my heating on 24hrs in the winter?

Answer:Answer

No. It is a common misconception that it is cheaper to leave your hot water and heating on all the time. Boilers use more power initially to heat water from cold, however the cost of this is greatly exceeded by the cost of keeping the boiler running all of the time.

Having a well insulated house will mean the additional cost for constant heating over timed heating will be smaller than than the additional cost in a less well insulated house; but there will be a difference!

Like everything else it is a compromise between cost and comfort; and people may well believe that the additional cost is worth paying.

selgann

Perhaps it begs the question, what does constantly on mean then? Of course, if the boiler is on full wack all day long it is totally inefficient. If you are on thermostat control, and it only kicks in periodically once up to temperature that is different surely?

The reason why I am suggesting it (also trying to find an answer myself) is because when I had the underfloor heating installed the company advised that for that particular system it was much more efficient to keep it on thermostat control (they have done their own research and have NO incentive to tell me otherwise). I was very sceptical but thinking more about it, and having tried it for a couple of days now it makes a lot of sense for my particular situation (flat specs, and working from home). Reason being (for MY system): it's either going at full power say 2 hours morning and 2 hours early evening to get to temp OR you get it up to temp for a couple of hours ONCE, and then, because my house is well insulated, it tends not to lose heat as easily as older homes, and I see that the boiler only comes on ever so slightly thereafter during the day and night, by my estimation probably saving at least 2-3 hours of full powered boiler activity PER DAY!...that's up to a 75% (optimistic) usage reduction.

I'll keep reiterating though that it is dependent on each home and circumstance.

always_comping

i read in one of martins money saving emails that it was cheaper to have your thermostat on 21