Central Heating On 24/7

[Deleted User]

sorry! are we supposed to be preserving the planet and reducing greenhouse gases . We get people like this obviously so interested in their own warmth and money, we havent a chance of succeeding. Its time the Government stepped in and allocated a set number of kwhrs and gallons of petrol per year per household then we would see all the ridiculous four wheel drive cars disappear and silly questions like this

jamesd

Pincher wrote: »

You can increase flow to the hallway radiator and make it warmer, but it could make the boiler click off early, so you have a warm hallway, but cold rooms.

That's where the more fancy systems like the Honeywell one I mentioned can win because they treat each room as its own zone and have the system on if any need the heat, off if none do.

Andy_WSM

sacsquacco wrote: »

sorry! are we supposed to be preserving the planet and reducing greenhouse gases . We get people like this obviously so interested in their own warmth and money, we havent a chance of succeeding. Its time the Government stepped in and allocated a set number of kwhrs and gallons of petrol per year per household then we would see all the ridiculous four wheel drive cars disappear and silly questions like this

Why don't you pop yourself over to North Korea to live? They have a controlling Government, I'm sure you'd be happy there.

RMS2

Kimberley wrote: »

Ok, thanks guys, it's just that my hallway is freezing even though the heating is on and was just wondering if it would help if the heating was on low all the time.

No, not worth it if you have a cold house, it'll suck the heat and money out.


I had a terraced house in London, I could leave the heating on 24/7 and it would hardly bother the boiler.


I have a semi in a rural location. It's below freezing outside at the moment and we hard a hard frost overnight, it wouldn't surprise me that it was down to at least -4 last night.


This house also has new double glazing and loft lagging etc. but the fuel bill would go through the roof if you left it on 24/7 and the boiler would be working most of the time.

jackyann

Andy_WSM wrote: »

The same laws of physics apply. Unless you know different?

In all circumstances it will be cheaper to have the heating off / not keep a kettle simmering. ALWAYS. That cannot be disputed. Doing so just confuses people. Every dwelling is different. Insulation properties etc. So the differences in cost will vary. But the laws of physics do not change.

The laws of physics (yes, I do know them) demonstrate that there are a considerable number of factors to take into account. Insulation and mass are also subject to the laws of physics - you must have done those experiments at school?

The laws of physics cannot of course take into account individual comfort or necessity, which is why I put those into a different paragraph.
The cost of different fuels is also a "human factor" rather than a law of physics.

Timing however, is also critical, and I think, one of the most important factors. Taking the simple kettle example:

Heat one cup of water from 0 to 100 degrees. 30 minutes later, heat 2 exactly the same, maybe an hour later it's 3, 20 minutes later another one.
Or: heat, say 7 cups of water 0 to 100 degrees, pour one, and put the kettle in a haybox or equivalent.
You really would have to do some careful experiments and calculations on that one to work out how much more energy was used.
And at an everyday level, you have to include the "human factor" cost of fuel, comfort & convenience.

Most of us, as I have done, over the years, observe carefully & do complex calculations in our heads that include all of these factors.

I do think that this debate is worthwhile as it helps people think about how to organise their heating to maximum effect.

jackyann

sacsquacco wrote: »

sorry! are we supposed to be preserving the planet and reducing greenhouse gases . We get people like this obviously so interested in their own warmth and money, we havent a chance of succeeding. Its time the Government stepped in and allocated a set number of kwhrs and gallons of petrol per year per household then we would see all the ridiculous four wheel drive cars disappear and silly questions like this

IMHO, this is not a silly question, it is an interesting debate.
Whilst I can't exactly remember OP's situation (if indeed it was stated) keeping warm is a necessity for the vulnerable & frail. I have had to take account of this over many years when heating my home.

Cardew

jackyann wrote: »

Most of us, as I have done, over the years, observe carefully & do complex calculations in our heads that include all of these factors.

I do think that this debate is worthwhile as it helps people think about how to organise their heating to maximum effect.

Agreed!


As long as people appreciate that having heating on 24/7 will ALWAYS be more expensive than timed heating(at the same set temperature), it is then a trade-off with convenience/comfort weighed against additional cost.

MillicentBystander

Question for those who believe it is cheaper to have your CH on 24/7: do you keep your car's engine running overnight?

jackyann

MillicentBystander wrote: »

Question for those who believe it is cheaper to have your CH on 24/7: do you keep your car's engine running overnight?

I think that this is an even less valid comparison than the kettle one, and I don't think is helpful, I'm afraid.

I have a sense that people who think that the debate about heating is cut-and-dried envisage one or two fit people, working regular hours in a modern house or flat with central heating.

And (I have posted this before) I have lived in one situation where it was cheaper to have 24 hour heating.
The physical factors were an old dwelling of single brick construction, with very poor insulation, and no prospect of improving it (other than heavy curtains & draught excluders). No central heating, water heated from a boiler heated by the one open fire in the place.
The human factors were one fit adult working irregular shifts and one working 9-5 + "on call" evenings & weekends.
We made up the open fire with slow-burning coke twice a day and kept it at low as possible. That was not only more pleasant and convenient, it was actually cheaper.

I have many other situations that I have shared on MSE over some years. I try, as do most people, to keep my posts pleasant and recognising the many different factors that people have to take account of.

Cardew

jackyann wrote: »

I think that this is an even less valid comparison than the kettle one, and I don't think is helpful, I'm afraid.

And (I have posted this before) I have lived in one situation where it was cheaper to have 24 hour heating.
The physical factors were an old dwelling of single brick construction, with very poor insulation, and no prospect of improving it (other than heavy curtains & draught excluders). No central heating, water heated from a boiler heated by the one open fire in the place.
The human factors were one fit adult working irregular shifts and one working 9-5 + "on call" evenings & weekends.
We made up the open fire with slow-burning coke twice a day and kept it at low as possible. That was not only more pleasant and convenient, it was actually cheaper.

I have many other situations that I have shared on MSE over some years. I try, as do most people, to keep my posts pleasant and recognising the many different factors that people have to take account of.

Without trying to be unpleasant, the situation you describe is a far less valid comparison than the kettle or engine running.


You state 'it was actual cheaper' but cheaper than what? i.e. against what situation are you comparing costs?


Would you agree that if you had your coke fire on as low as possible for just one hour a day it would be cheaper than having it on at the same intensity(i.e. low as possible) for twenty four hours a day?


If you do agree then for the purposes of the question posed, there is no need for further discussion - QED.


Obviously your 'human factors' made it necessary to have the fire on longer - but it would cost more.