which is cheaper?

fi123

we have a new boiler system fitted. since I'm on incapacity B , I can only afford to heat 2 rooms for about 8 hours a day. I heat up water for half an hour every other day.

The boiler fitters insist that if I keep the thermostat low I can heat the whole house and have the water on constantly it will be cheaper than the boiler having to reach a certain heat under my regimen. Are the fitters right or am I right to keep the boiler off as much as possible?

oldskoo1

I switched about 3 or 4 years back

I used to have it on timed, twice a day. 20c or 21c in morning for about an hour or so, and the same in the evening from 5:30 - 10:30pm.

I switched to having it on 18C constantly. We just had a new born so heating wasn't a debatable point, it had to be warm.

When we got our bill, we realised it actually wasn't that much more. Hardly worth worrying about. We stuck to 18C because that is what the hospital said would suit a new born.

The next 2 years we had it on 16C constantly and boosted to 18C in the evenings sometimes. This saved a lot and i would argue that it was the same or cheaper than having it come on twice at day at a higher temperature.

However, we had the added benefit of a warm house 24/7. Of course some peoples definition of warm might be 21C, if you run it 24/7 at those higher temps you will burn cash at a fast rate. I work all day some days here at 16C and like now for example i'm very warm. I do have slippers on and a fleece jacket but a t-shirt underneath so i'm not making special arrangements.

It's very hard to compare year on year as the unit price of energy keeps going up and 3 winters ago it was quite mild, the last 2 winters have been incredibly harsh and VERY cold. You have to use some common sense and logic to figure out just how much different it is in usage and cost taking outside ambient temperature into account. Who knows what it will be like this year. So far i'm using £1.20 p/d of gas.

I also realised i didn't need to heat my water for as long. There are 4 of us here in this house and 15 mins morning / 30mins evening at 55C tank thermostat is easily enough for showers.


Ultimately, the less your boiler is on, the cheaper it will be. That's a fact, so theoretically timed will be cheaper.

But like i said, putting it on 24/7 at a lower temp, might just result in similar usage / cost for more comfort or even less cost if your timed temperature is high. Just use a fleece and slippers.

I posted a thread this morning which helps you monitor gas usage. All you need is 2 meter readings (best to take them over 24 hours, using your current method and using the lower temp constant method) - see here : https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3628031

It has a spreadsheet to calculate cost given 2 meter readings, you just need to know what you pay for tier 1 and tier 2 gas.

rogerblack

fi123 wrote: »

we have a new boiler system fitted. since I'm on incapacity B , I can only afford to heat 2 rooms for about 8 hours a day. I heat up water for half an hour every other day.

The boiler fitters insist that if I keep the thermostat low I can heat the whole house and have the water on constantly it will be cheaper than the boiler having to reach a certain heat under my regimen. Are the fitters right or am I right to keep the boiler off as much as possible?

Heating the water at the same time the CH is on will have little additional impact on bills.

However, it's easy to test!
For a little while, on odd days do one thing, on even days do the other.
Total up the gas usage on even and odd days, and you can now directly compare.
Even if the weather doesn't stay exactly constant, over 8 days or so, it should average out.