Boiler ON OR OFF?

NiNjA

This night sound really stupid, but is it cheaper to have my boiler on constantly, or have it heat up (timed)?
I've always thought that it would be more expensive to heat the entire boiler from cold, rather than just keep it ticking over throughout the day.
Brief run down: I'm in a 20 year old house, one adult and at home all day (redundant last sept, desperately seeking employment/sanity, just like the rest of the country). Have gas to rad central heating, don't cook by gas though but am concerned at my recent large rise in gas payments. Was £41 a month, now £51. Really panicking that I won't be able to afford it.
Spent October until today living off redundancy payment and savings, can't cope anymore, have had to apply for JSA, and associated benefits.
Apols if this has already been covered elsewhere, if so, please direct me.

Much thanks.

P.S. I need wine.

closed

it is more expensive to have anything on constantly than only when needed.

Heating only the rooms you are in at the time you are in them will also save money

ariba10

This has got to be "Spam"

nickcc

Unfortunately people used to be advised that leaving your heating, usually immersion, on all the time was cheaper than turning it on only when you needed it, fortunately times have changed.

NiNjA

Thanks for advice peeps. Sorry, this is def not spam, am doing my best to try and cut costs.
Am going to try heating water on timed option to see if that helps.

Here goes.....

Cardew

NiNjA wrote: »

Thanks for advice peeps. Sorry, this is def not spam, am doing my best to try and cut costs.
Am going to try heating water on timed option to see if that helps.

Here goes.....

It obviously is cheaper to have water heating(and central heating) timed than on constantly.

However in the case of Hot water, if your tank is well insulated, the savings will not be massive.

NiNjA

Am sure that someone told me once (albeit years ago) that heating up the tank from cold, twice a day would be more expensive than maintaining a temp within the tank. I think the theory is that it's more expensive to heat from stone cold than to keep topping up as the temp dips on the boiler.
Wish someone knew for sure. I feel so stupid I should know this stuff at my time of life.

HappyMJ

NiNjA wrote: »

Am sure that someone told me once (albeit years ago) that heating up the tank from cold, twice a day would be more expensive than maintaining a temp within the tank. I think the theory is that it's more expensive to heat from stone cold than to keep topping up as the temp dips on the boiler.
Wish someone knew for sure. I feel so stupid I should know this stuff at my time of life.

If no hot water is taken from the cylinder then the temperature of the water will still be quite hot. Only about 2kWh of heat will be lost and about 4kWh of gas will be needed to top up the heat twice a day. It should only take about 15 minutes running the boiler (assuming a 16kW boiler) to top up the cylinder and the thermostat will stop calling for heat. It makes little difference to your bills if you heated it as soon as a bath is run or a few hours later. Personally, I keep it on 24 hours a day so that hot water is available all the time. It costs more but it isn't much.

Cardew

NiNjA wrote: »

Am sure that someone told me once (albeit years ago) that heating up the tank from cold, twice a day would be more expensive than maintaining a temp within the tank. I think the theory is that it's more expensive to heat from stone cold than to keep topping up as the temp dips on the boiler.
Wish someone knew for sure. I feel so stupid I should know this stuff at my time of life.

It is known for sure! - The laws of Physics provide proof.

The 'urban myth' that it is more expensive to heat up from cold, is just that - an Urban Myth!

I appreciate you are new on MSE, but this subject has been discussed in dozens of threads.

Two points to illustrate this:(regulars will groan!)

Firstly if it were true, you would keep a kettle simmering 24 hours a day because it would be cheaper than heating it up from cold.

Secondly, if you went away from the house for, say, two years, would you think it cheaper to keep the heating/hot water on for those two years, rather than heating when you came back?

How about one year? a month? a week? a day? 12 hours? 1 hour? At what point do you think that the laws of physics do not apply?

However as said above, with a well insulated hot water tank the heat loss is not great even if the tank is heated 24/7 - typically about 2kWh in 24hours; so around 8p if you have gas. Also at this time of the year that heat is not 'lost' as it heats the fabric of the house - which is why many tanks are in an airing cupboard.

analyst_2

I think Cardew puts it well. Fizzix iz grate.

The laws of physics, over which parliament and the courts have no jurisdiction, state that entities flow from high to low.

Water - flows downhill
Electricity - flows from high voltage (PD) to lower (your batteries drain)

and HEAT - flows from higher temperature to lower. So the more you put in, the more it flows out.

victor2

As said (here and in many other threads), if it's on it's burning gas and you're paying for it. If it's off, it isn't and all you'll incur is a standing charge if there is one.
We've just had a particularly cold snap, colder than the same time a year ago, so you will have been using more gas than before. That combined with recent prices increases could explain your increased cost - even if you pay by monthly direct debit to smooth the cost out over the year.
However, look at reducing your usage while still being comfortable.... Only heat the areas that need it, don't have your heating on at night once you're tucked up in bed. Make sure your house is as well insulated as it reasonably can be.
Lots of tips can be found on here, or just ask and you'll doubtless get some pointers.