Is it best to keep heating on?

Robert2009

This is the ideal reason for smart gas meters, then consumers would be able to see at a glance how much gas they are using and paying for.

Pity there wasn't an EASY way to convert an energy monitor transmitter to give a real time reading of gas consumtion as already given for electricity.

Andy_WSM

Robert2009 wrote: »

Pity there wasn't an EASY way to convert an energy monitor transmitter to give a real time reading of gas consumtion as already given for electricity.

Real time consumption figures are pointless too. Especially as most boilers "modulate" the flame - i.e. vary the flame (& their consumption) depending on the heat load. A figure used per day would be handy - or up to that time in the day, i.e. a running total.

macman

Please please please can we have a sticky on this topic? It's becoming really tedious, especially during the cold weather...

HappyMJ

j2011 wrote: »

One of the reasons to have the heating on but at a lower thermostat setting.

If your house cools down to 10 deg C when the heating is off during the day and takes 4 hours at full blast to get to 21 deg C yet if the thermostat is set at 16 deg C and the heating is on and then it only takes 1 hour to raise the temperature to 21 deg C it sometimes might be more economical to have the heating on but at a lower temperature.

This is where a programmable thermostat would be ideal.

The only way to find out is to experiment and read your meter every day to find out what is economical compared to comfort.

I'm suprised it takes your house 4 hours to get up to temperature. I'd be looking at getting bigger radiators. At the most it takes my house 30 minutes at full blast as you say. Not sure what the difference between full blast and on is but you used the term. Anyway as Cardew says the question was what is cheaper and timed is always cheaper. I admit I also leave heating on very low overnight (i think the lowest the thermostat goes is 9 degrees) as it gets too cold for sleeping comfort. It's actually about 4am when in drops to that temperature so doesn't cost that much more than on timer when it kicks in at about 7am. If I leave house I turn it off.

RichPyke

Mine cost more when timed than when it was on at 21c all day every day. The difference was minimal though... on 24/7 was 25 imperial units used, timed (2 hours in morning, 6 in evening) was 26 imperial units used...

I've now left it on 24/7, however I do suspect the insulation in my house is poor, it seems to lose the heat very fast (something I am about to look in to).

RichPyke

HappyMJ wrote: »

I'm suprised it takes your house 4 hours to get up to temperature.

I'm not surprised, mine is the same. Heating off during the day and it will take until 8 or 9pm to get to 21 (and it comes on at 4:00).

Sublime_2

Mines now timed from 7.00 am to 10pm at night, so is on for most of the day, and doesn't get too cold.

cbrpaul

RichPyke wrote: »

I'm not surprised, mine is the same. Heating off during the day and it will take until 8 or 9pm to get to 21 (and it comes on at 4:00).

I had the same until i started using my above method !!!

macman

The problem with this thread (and all the other identical ones), is that the initial question is always 'which method is cheaper?', and then along the way it metamorphoses into 'which method is more comfortable in cold weather?'
Which are two entirely different questions.

j2011

I'm suprised it takes your house 4 hours to get up to temperature

Mine heats up in about 30 mins, I was just using that for an example.