Gas on constantly or on and off...?

oldskoo1

closed wrote: »

You can come home to a lovely warm house with a timer, it's cheaper, and kinder to your CH system.

I'm not one to nit pick but for our arrangement we are in and out at different times.

Timed would work as you mentioned if its a typical 8hour working day.


And yes i agree with cardew, it is cheaper to have it on timed. My preference for 24/7 is simply this, its not that much more expensive to be on 24/7 in my house (roughly another £20 a quarter in winter) and the comfort levels are much nicer.

Cardew

daska wrote: »

While I admit that this is anecdotal, but when we changed to 24/7 heating but used the thermostat to adjust the temperature morning and evening our bills reduced by 20% the first year (and it was very much more comfortable when we had to trog downstairs to the bathroom in the middle of the night ) It was impossible to do a direct comparison because the weather isn't exactly the same every year but it was so much more comfortable that we decided to continue running the heating 24/7 and the bill didn't increase substantially in subsequent years. So for us it was a good choice.

As said a couple of times above, turning down the thermostat turns off the boiler.

It achieves exactly the same effect as having your heating timed.

The 'exam question' asked if having the heating on constant was cheaper than timed.

aelitaman

Cardew wrote: »

As said a couple of times above, turning down the thermostat turns off the boiler.

It achieves exactly the same effect as having your heating timed.

The 'exam question' asked if having the heating on constant was cheaper than timed.

You are twisting the question now to suit your argument. Read the first post. The OP asked if it was cheaper to leave the heating on with a THERMOSTAT or use a timer.

They did not ask if it was cheaper to have the boiler running 24/7 at full blast with no TRV;s no thermostat whilst going on holiday for a few weeks or all the other examples you have given.

SuzieSue

Cardew wrote: »

As said a couple of times above, turning down the thermostat turns off the boiler.

It achieves exactly the same effect as having your heating timed.

The 'exam question' asked if having the heating on constant was cheaper than timed.

Turning down the thermostat does turn off the boiler if you turn it down low enough, however the advantage of using the thermostat rather than a timer is that you can ensure that the temperature of the room that the thermostat is in does not go below a certain temperature (in my case 14 degrees at night), so I never wake up feeling cold in the middle of the night. 95% of the time, because my thermostat is set at 14 degrees, my heating never comes on, but when it does, I really appreciate it. It also means that the house never cools down so much that the boiler has to work really hard to warm it up in the morning which I believe saves money for the reasons I have given previously, although I realise I will never convince you of this, so we will just have to agree to disagree.

DVardysShadow

SuzieSue wrote: »

It also means that the house never cools down so much that the boiler has to work really hard to warm it up in the morning which I believe saves money for the reasons I have given previously, although I realise I will never convince you of this, so we will just have to agree to disagree.

A stupid phrase, usually meaning that someone is intent on ignoring the laws of physics or logic or both.

SuzieSue

DVardysShadow wrote: »

A stupid phrase, usually meaning that someone is intent on ignoring the laws of physics or logic or both.

No, this time it means, I have tried my best but when people use the laws of physics selectively, I haven't got the time nor inclination to try anymore.

aelitaman

Right so the OP asked if using a thermostat and leaving the heating on 24/7 (most people think that this phrase means that when it gets cold that the boiler will fire up and heat the house not that the boiler is constantly heating the water in he central heating system 24/7) or using timers.

So a system with a thermostat and TRV's. Heating is available to come on 24/7 when thermostat turns it on. Thermostat and TRVS all set to 15C. Temperature in house over 24 hour period never drops to below 16C. Result is that boiler never comes on at all. Gas used zero even though to the user the central heating has been turned on 24/7.

System with no thermostat but a timer and TRV's. Time set for two hours in the morning and 5 hours in the evening. TRV's set to 15C temp in house like above never drops to below 16C. So when the timer kicks in the boiler fires up heats the water in the system to temp even though none of the radiators with TRV's open and no hot water goes through them (good system design actually stipulates that one radiator should not have TRV's and be open constantly this is usually the towel rail in the bathroom so this will get hot). In this scenario the boiler will use gas twice during a 24 hour period to keep the water in the GCH system to temp.

The secanrio that I use may be unrealistic in the depths of winter when it is minus outside but does illustrate that there are more than one variable to take into account.

Chrysalis

oldskoo1 wrote: »

I'm an advocate of 24/7

I'm on my second winter of 24/7 and it's always lovely to come home to a warm house.

People recoil in horror and give some right looks when we say we leave it on 24/7.


We have a 4 bed detached, quite new, full DG, good doors, draft proofing and insulation.

Our Jan bill is due soon and from the meter reading i took tonight, if our usage stays the same till the billing date our bill we be £220 for 3 months of Gas based on our unit price of gas... Good news being, we are about £400 in credit (including monthly payments) before the amount is deducted. We are using about 7 units of gas a day it appears.

Elec is low too, about £25 per month.

Not too dissimilar from last year.


//Think thats 65-70 KWH's a day on gas.

I can only conclude if yours is that cheap for 24/7 then people cant assume things from each other as too many variables. Although even at £220 for quarter thats more than I can afford on heating so I wouldnt run it 24/7 although I would at that price be able to run it more than I do now.

efficiency of boiler.
presence of a thermostat, if none exists the boiler always on.
insulation, if its poor again boiler needs to work harder.
accuracy of meter.

Clearly we all have different tolerance levels for comfort, I don't particurly enjoy sitting in the cold but I can put up with it, whilst others cannot.

ixwood

SuzieSue wrote: »

Turning down the thermostat does turn off the boiler if you turn it down low enough, however the advantage of using the thermostat rather than a timer is that you can ensure that the temperature of the room that the thermostat is in does not go below a certain temperature (in my case 14 degrees at night), so I never wake up feeling cold in the middle of the night. 95% of the time, because my thermostat is set at 14 degrees, my heating never comes on, but when it does, I really appreciate it. It also means that the house never cools down so much that the boiler has to work really hard to warm it up in the morning which I believe saves money for the reasons I have given previously, although I realise I will never convince you of this, so we will just have to agree to disagree.

Sorry, but never allowing the house to cool, so that the boiler doesn't have to "work really hard" to warm it up is just ridiculous.

Boilers are most efficient when going flat out. If anything, as you have the heating on longer, then your boiler will be under more strain as it's on for a longer period overall.

Heating an empty house will never save money. That really shouldn't be hard to understand. Maybe you're just trolling.

If you're still adamant that it will, then obviously you must leave your kettle on 24/7 to make savings there too.

Cardew

aelitaman wrote: »

You are twisting the question now to suit your argument. Read the first post. The OP asked if it was cheaper to leave the heating on with a THERMOSTAT or use a timer.

They did not ask if it was cheaper to have the boiler running 24/7 at full blast with no TRV;s no thermostat whilst going on holiday for a few weeks or all the other examples you have given.

How am I twisting things?

The title of the thread(which the OP chose) "was gas on constantly or on and off"

He then stated:

Someone has recently told me that it is cheaper to leave the boiler on and on the thermostat all day even when we are out of the house as this avoids the system heating the whole house from freezing and simply tops it up to maintain the temperature.

Note leave the boiler on, and on the thermostat.

Nothing in his opening post about turning the boiler on and off, by turning the thermostat up and down, when out of the house.

We then have silly posts like:

It also means that the house never cools down so much that the boiler has to work really hard to warm it up in the morning which I believe saves money for the reasons

As stated earlier this is from an urban myth that it takes more energy to heat a house from cold, than keep it at a constant temperature as the boiler doesn't have to work as hard.

To me the very clear question posed(as it has been dozens of times) is asking if it is cheaper to leave the heating on constantly at, say, 20C on the thermostat, or having it on a timer.

The answer to that question is, without any shadow of doubt, it is cheaper to have it on a timer. Again as quoted above:

The basic law of physics is that is you require more energy to maintain a constant temp in a body (a house, a pan of water, a kettle, an oven) than to heat it from cold when required.

If someone wishes to control their heating by turning down the thermostat when they do not require the house to be at the 20C e.g at night, then this will have largely the same effect as using a timer..

I suspect the reason the majority of us use the timer is that we want the heating to come on before we get out of bed.