Energy myth-busting: Is it cheaper to have heating on all day?

Boxman

Not sure I ever said you were a miner. Oh yes, I remember those brutal police beating up the gentle peace loving pickets (think flower people in San Francisco in 1967) who only wanted to politely persuade others to join their cause by talking to them.

wantanswers wrote: »

now whats your thoughts on saving money with all day heating or are you one of those who is paid expenses as part of a remuneration package ....so really don't have an opinion?

Not quite sure what you mean but I'm just an average salaried bloke who lives with his wife in a house with gas CH, d. glazing, cavity and up to date boosted loft insulation.

I have an open mind and have been following the thread with interest. I always thought that having heating on with two timed periods would use less gas overall but as many have said that I could be mistaken, after the Christmas madness I plan to do a trial for a week or so in January to see what difference leaving heating on all day will make to our consumption in a (presumably) typical winter month.

wantanswers

Boxman;57948225]

Not sure I ever said you were a miner. Oh yes, I remember those brutal police beating up the gentle peace loving pickets (think flower people in San Francisco in 1967) who only wanted to politely persuade others to join their cause by talking to them.

You didn't, I just told you I wasn't at the time.

You may well remember those brutal police beating up those gentle loving pickets and of course I do accept there were some brutal miners, but you will never be privy to what I saw and experienced first hand as a neutral, sitting daily amongst the bus loads of Met Cops returning from their early morning shift boasting tales of 'thuggery' and smashing the 'ba$%tards' then as recreation sitting down watching those lovely movies whilst eating the best..... happy days for those Met Guys and of course financially rewarding....but hey I digress!

Anyway One of the points I was making though is that it was bleeding cold in those 70s and 80s days whilst scavenging for coal.



Not quite sure what you mean but I'm just an average salaried bloke who lives with his wife in a house with gas CH, d. glazing, cavity and up to date boosted loft insulation.

I thought by your tone you were in a privileged position and had your heating bills paid for you as part of a remuneration package...I apologise for thinking so!

I have an open mind and have been following the thread with interest. I always thought that having heating on with two timed periods would use less gas overall but as many have said that I could be mistaken, after the Christmas madness I plan to do a trial for a week or so in January to see what difference leaving heating on all day will make to our consumption in a (presumably) typical winter month.

Good luck with the trial, I'll be interested in your results.

victor2

Well, that's killed off most interest in this thread.

bestyman

victor2 wrote: »

Well, that's killed off most interest in this thread.

Not exactly. It has made me think of an easy way to settle the" all day vs timed" debate.

We need two volunteers with coal fires to perform a simple experiment. Also needed is a simple clock and a bag of coal..

Person A can light his fire for 24 hours. Person B can light his fire, from say 6pm till 11pm (my heating is on this).

The person that has used the least amount of coal is the winner, and as the amount of coal used is directly proportional to cost, also the most efficient.

I suspect that the fire that is only on for a few hours would use the least coal, but from reading this thread I`m sure others will disagree.

wantanswers

Come on bestyman I left coal way back in the 80s.....There's always one!

Anyway just before i settle down to watch ManU can i pick up on your previous post Victor.

I cant remember your post but from what i gather it appears you have a boiler rated at about 120,000 btu.

Anyway for my test over 168 hours ie 3/12 Monday 8.15am until 10/12 Monday 7.15am I have used 573Kwhr (Gas for your benefit Besty)

My boiler programmer setting was 24 hour continuous.

Daytime 7am - 9pm = 20c Thermostat setting.

Night time 9pm - 7am = 17C

Outside temperatures during that time Day/Night averaging around Zero and minus Zero.

Total Hours = 168
Total Kwhrs = 573Kwhr.

Average usage over the time period 3.41Kwhr/hr.

How does it compare?

PS Besty....Your brain doesn't appear to match your counterparts feet skills! Just kidding.
3-1 fs Besty.

Architect_first

27 years ago I built our house in masonry construction, with insulation blocks and full cavity fill. The energy efficiency was ahead of the building regulation standards for nearly 20 years. Likewise roof and wall insulation. The first year I set the boiler (we have radiator thermostats but no main room stat for a reason) to come on at 6.15 am to 9am and from 4pm until 10.30pm. I read the gas use last thing at night and also recorded the weather conditions. The following year I did the same but the heating stayed on all day from 6.15am until 10.30pm. Comparing the 2 regimes I found that I use approximately HALF of the gas used with the heating off during the day. It was therefore more efficient leaving it on. MY conclusions are:
1. The fabric stays warmer and the boiler is not working so hard to heat the place as it does not cool down so much.
2. With everyone out at work (or at school) especially during the week, the house settles into a atate of stasis with no doors, windows etc., being opened thus cooling the house down.
3. The air temperature and air quality was better. When heating on 2 periods there was an 'air chill' until late into the heating time.

The heating regime would be different with houses built with timber frame. This is because there is only 12mm of dense material before the insulation so the property would heat up quickly. In this case twice a day would work.


The above is my experience and many of my past clients have followed the same regime having started on a 2 period heating state. Others may find it different. I can only suggest that you try it. Reed the meter after the boiler has gone off and before you go to bed. Compare the amount used with similar use during similar weather conditions (cold winds chill more than mild days). Then you can make up your own mind as I have done.

kcletheroe

Ok, this is my first post on the forum so please be nice!

I was told to keep my thermostat on at 15°c so that there is not a a lot of energy required to come up to temperature.

I would like to know if 2 hours at 20°c is cheaper and more efficient than 20 minutes at 30°c?

Also, how do I put reflective material behind the radiators? There is a very small space. Do they need taking off? I live in a housing association flat.

Thank you,

:question::question::question::undecided:undecided

Cardew

Architect_first wrote: »

27 years ago I built our house in masonry construction, with insulation blocks and full cavity fill. The energy efficiency was ahead of the building regulation standards for nearly 20 years. Likewise roof and wall insulation. The first year I set the boiler (we have radiator thermostats but no main room stat for a reason) to come on at 6.15 am to 9am and from 4pm until 10.30pm. I read the gas use last thing at night and also recorded the weather conditions. The following year I did the same but the heating stayed on all day from 6.15am until 10.30pm. Comparing the 2 regimes I found that I use approximately HALF of the gas used with the heating off during the day. It was therefore more efficient leaving it on. MY conclusions are:
1. The fabric stays warmer and the boiler is not working so hard to heat the place as it does not cool down so much.
2. With everyone out at work (or at school) especially during the week, the house settles into a atate of stasis with no doors, windows etc., being opened thus cooling the house down.
3. The air temperature and air quality was better. When heating on 2 periods there was an 'air chill' until late into the heating time.

The heating regime would be different with houses built with timber frame. This is because there is only 12mm of dense material before the insulation so the property would heat up quickly. In this case twice a day would work.


The above is my experience and many of my past clients have followed the same regime having started on a 2 period heating state. Others may find it different. I can only suggest that you try it. Reed the meter after the boiler has gone off and before you go to bed. Compare the amount used with similar use during similar weather conditions (cold winds chill more than mild days). Then you can make up your own mind as I have done.

Welcome to the forum, and whilst aware we have to be nice to new posters, your post simply defies the laws of physics and your conclusions have no scientific merit.

You contend that by having the heating on for 16.25hours a day you used 50% of the gas that you consumed when the heating was on for 9.25hours a day.

So an extra 7hours heating a day halved the daily consumption!

It begs the question, using your conclusions, why don't you have the heating on 24 hours a day and make even bigger savings i.e. if an extra 7 hours heating halves the bill, another 7.75hours a day must reduce consumption even more!

Cardew

kcletheroe wrote: »

Ok, this is my first post on the forum so please be nice!

I was told to keep my thermostat on at 15°c so that there is not a a lot of energy required to come up to temperature.

I would like to know if 2 hours at 20°c is cheaper and more efficient than 20 minutes at 30°c?



:question::question::question::undecided:undecided

Welcome to the forum.

Your question cannot be answered as it depends on a number of unknown factors - insulation? boiler output etc.

A couple of points.

Assuming that your thermostat is accurate and sited in a living room, 15C is too low for comfort for watching TV etc - in fact for older people it is dangerous.

Setting the thermostat to 30C for 20 minutes will just have the boiler working flat out but won't approach 30C in that time.

docnarrative

Someone has told me that it's significantly cheaper to run a freestanding convector heater (with thermostat) than a freestanding oil-filled panel radiator (also with thermostat) to keep a constant base temperature going. Is that correct?