Is it more economical to leave heating on?

Cardew

selgann wrote: »

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.

For you to be correct it simply contradicts the laws of thermodynamics.

Heat lost is proportional to the difference between the inside and outside temperatures. i.e. the heat loss is greater when your house is at, say, 20C than when it is at 19C.

When your heating goes off(timed) the temperature in the house will drop - however slightly - and therefore the rate of heat loss will drop.

To give an extreme example.

Should you go away from your house for 1 year, you will concede that it would not be wise to leave your heating on 24/7 during that year?

How about a month? A week? Overnight? It really is exactly the same principle.

Cardew

always_harrased wrote: »

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

Cheaper than 22C but more expensive than 20C!

selgann

I'm sorry but I REALLY don't understand your reasoning...if you are away from your house for a year or week or course you would want to leave your boiler off because you will not benefit from it being on at all.

I also think that you are going by your own principles and not from people's INDIVIDUAL experiences. I am trying to find answers to my particular case. And it seems I have, and it is more efficient and therefore cheaper in MY case. I have looked at other threads and you always seem to ignore people's hard evidence of it being cheaper for them.

With systems and homes constantly changing these days you have to be open minded to other possibilities!! My underfloor heating works better this way I've been told, by people who have spent a lot of money on R&D. It's especially so with my condensing boiler. I think you shouldn't be too quick to dictate such a one-sided opinion when circumstance and systems are so different in every situation. Anyway, what I can tell you all is that for ME, it IS more efficient and no amount of theoretical debating can suggest otherwise or disprove fact.

Cardew

selgann wrote: »

I'm sorry but I REALLY don't understand your reasoning...if you are away from your house for a year or week or course you would want to leave your boiler off because you will not benefit from it being on at all.

I also think that you are going by your own principles and not from people's INDIVIDUAL experiences. I am trying to find answers to my particular case. And it seems I have, and it is more efficient and therefore cheaper in MY case. I have looked at other threads and you always seem to ignore people's hard evidence of it being cheaper for them.

With systems and homes constantly changing these days you have to be open minded to other possibilities!! My underfloor heating works better this way I've been told, by people who have spent a lot of money on R&D. It's especially so with my condensing boiler. I think you shouldn't be too quick to dictate such a one-sided opinion when circumstance and systems are so different in every situation. Anyway, what I can tell you all is that for ME, it IS more efficient and no amount of theoretical debating can suggest otherwise or disprove fact.

It is not my reasoning - every technical independant body will say exactly the same.
It is simply the law of physics!

The going away for a year analogy was to make the point that you switch off the heating so you don't get heat loss from the house that the boiler needs to replace.

Exactly the same thing for a month, a week or a few hours.

Using your 'theory' why not have the water in your kettle constantly at 99C. It takes a huge amount of energy to heat it up from cold, but only little busts of energy every so often to keep it at 99C;) Again this is exactly the same principle as you believe is the most economical for your flat.

Without question if you switch off your heating for a short while, the energy taken to bring it back up to heat will be less than the energy required to keep it at a constant temperature.

selgann

Again, you are choosing to ignore my experience and the experience of others and advice of my heating system provider.

selgann

and by the way you're the one with the 'theory'. Mine is experience and tested reality. I started out on here trying to find answers and then offering others my unique experience. You just seem to be outright trying to deny users on this forum that option. I am not trying to prove a point...I am responding to your accusations that my reality is false. Your answers are not based on hard fact or science as you cannot apply a one rule fits all scenario, which is what you are clearly doing. By doing this you are misleading users on this forum.

Without question the gas consumption needed to keep my system at a constant temperature is far less than that needed to bring it back up each morning and night.

Cardew

selgann wrote: »

Without question the gas consumption needed to keep my system at a constant temperature is far less than that needed to bring it back up each morning and night.

Well congratulations, you have discovered that the laws of physics don't apply to your system.

I suggest you write to the Energy Saving Trust and tell them of your discovery.

I would also patent your invention - you stand to make a fortune.

selgann

You are extremely antagonistic.

I would advise others neither one way or another as each home and each system is different. The only advice I would give is the following (what I did): test in like for like conditions (as near as possible same outside temperature) over the course of at least 3 days your different methods: 1. timed 2. thermostat control. And see which works best for you.

I am sure it will work differently for everyone. My experience is that 2 is best, given the following: I work from home, and I have been advised that MY system (underfloor hot water system with thermostat controls in each room), it is best to use method 2 as it takes absolutely ages to get the room up to temperature due to the heavy screed.

I don't appreciate at all being accused of lying about my experience. Good advisors on here should be open to people's unique experiences. I leave it to users to convey theirs and make up their own minds about the advice they want to take. And I will let the Trust know about mine. Clearly their advice is right though, it makes no sense to have the heating on all the time versus timer...mine is NOT on all the time, it is thermostat controlled.

storminbalder

selgann wrote: »

I'm sorry but I REALLY don't understand your reasoning...if you are away from your house for a year or week or course you would want to leave your boiler off because you will not benefit from it being on at all.

I also think that you are going by your own principles and not from people's INDIVIDUAL experiences. I am trying to find answers to my particular case. And it seems I have, and it is more efficient and therefore cheaper in MY case. I have looked at other threads and you always seem to ignore people's hard evidence of it being cheaper for them.

With systems and homes constantly changing these days you have to be open minded to other possibilities!! My underfloor heating works better this way I've been told, by people who have spent a lot of money on R&D. It's especially so with my condensing boiler. I think you shouldn't be too quick to dictate such a one-sided opinion when circumstance and systems are so different in every situation. Anyway, what I can tell you all is that for ME, it IS more efficient and no amount of theoretical debating can suggest otherwise or disprove fact.

Cardew is right you know. It really is quite obvious!

storminbalder

selgann wrote: »

I don't appreciate at all being accused of lying about my experience.

Not lying, just mis-guided and wrong. It's just that your theories fly in the face of everything that science has yet discovered. It really is basic key stage 3 stuff. I'm rubbish at science, and I understand!