We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Central Heating On 24/7
Comments
-
Worth reading:
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/utilities/energy-saving-myths?utm_source=MSE_Newsletter&utm_medium=bignote-three&utm_term=25-Nov-14-lt&utm_campaign=utilities&utm_content=2
Should I leave the heating on low all day even when I'm out, or turn it up only when I need it?
According to leading energy experts at the Energy Saving Trust, as well as British Gas, the idea that it's cheaper to leave the heating on low all day is a myth. They're clear that you'll save energy, and therefore money, by only having the heating on when it's required. (Using a timer's best, because your thermostat is designed to turn your heating on and off to keep your home at the temperature you set it.)
The key thing to understand here is that it's all about the total amount of energy required to heat your home.
It's a given that a certain amount of energy is constantly leaking out of your home (though exactly how much will depend on how good your insulation is). So if you're keeping the heating on all day you're losing energy all day - it's better to heat your home only when you need it, even if that means whacking the temperature up high.Should I keep the hot water boiler on all the time, or turn it on and off as needed?
A. If you have a gas, oil or LPG (liquefied petroleum gas) central heating system, it will always be cheaper to time the system so the hot water comes on only when required.0 -
They still won't believe us Cardew...0
-
There is no one answer to this, it is subject to a number of variables which is different in every single home."talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish" - Euripides0
-
captainhindsight wrote: »There is no one answer to this, it is subject to a number of variables which is different in every single home.
You are wrong. There is one answer to this. The Op asked:Is it cheaper to leave the Heating on 24/7 rather then turning it on each day? I've Googled the question but get different answers some say yes and some say no.
The answer is very clearly IT IS ALWAYS CHEAPER, WITHOUT A SHADOW OF DOUBT, TO ONLY HAVE THE HEATING ON AS AND WHEN NEEDED.
The difference in cost between running the heating 24/7 or timed is the only thing that changes depending on the variables at each property, but it will be more to leave it on 24/7, always.
I just don't understand how that can be disputed, unless people really do lack schoolboy (or girl) physics. Were you bunking off those lessons?!
Do the same people that say there is no one answer leave their cars running outside their houses ready for when they need it next? I mean, using their logic, it won't cost any more...0 -
You are wrong. There is one answer to this. The Op asked:
The answer is very clearly IT IS ALWAYS CHEAPER, WITHOUT A SHADOW OF DOUBT, TO ONLY HAVE THE HEATING ON AS AND WHEN NEEDED.
The difference in cost between running the heating 24/7 or times is the only thing that changes depending on the variables at each property, but it will be more to leave it on 24/7, always.
I just don't understand how that can be disputed, unless people really do lack schoolboy (or girl) physics. Were you bunking off those lessons?!
You are wrong, there are circumstances.
If a well insulated house has a large thermal store, whether this is thick solid walls with heavy external insulation or a large concrete slab (again well insulated) if you allow this thermal store to cool it will take hours of heating before the house actually becomes warm so you need to maintain the temperature in this store to get the highest efficiencies.
Your statements are narrow minded, and clearly you have no understanding of modern construction methods, heating and how to achieve the highest efficient levels.
No actually got an a in a level physics."talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish" - Euripides0 -
captainhindsight wrote: »You are wrong, there are circumstances.
If a well insulated house has a large thermal store, whether this is thick solid walls with heavy external insulation or a large concrete slab (again well insulated) if you allow this thermal store to cool it will take hours of heating before the house actually becomes warm so you need to maintain the temperature in this store to get the highest efficiencies.
Your statements are narrow minded, and clearly you have no understanding of modern construction methods, heating and how to achieve the highest efficient levels.
No actually got an a in a level physics.
I really wish you wouldn't come out with such statements that really do demonstrate your lack of understanding of physics.
Regardless of a well insulated house built with modern construction methods and thus a large thermal store, or a property with the insulation properties of a tent, the laws of physics still apply.
When the heating is switched off in either property it will start to cool down. As it cools the differential in temperature between the inside of the house and outside reduces and thus the rate of heat loss is lower.
e.g. if it is 0C outside and, say, 20C inside there will be a heat loss, when the inside temperature drops to say 19C the rate of heat loss will be lower.
It is fundamental principle of physics that it will take less energy to restore the temperature in the house back to 20C from, say 19C than maintain it at 20C.
If that isn't clear to you, let us take this example.
You have to leave your house unoccupied for, say, two years. Do you leave on the CH to maintain the temperature at 20C, because if you let the temperature drop to 0C it will take more energy to bring the house back up to 20C than maintaining it for two years at 20C?
I hope you might concede that maintaining it at 20C would use more energy than leaving it unheated for 2 years and then heating it back to 20C.
How about 1 year?
6 months?
1 month?
1 week?
1 day?
6 hours?
At what point to you feel the laws of physics do not apply?0 -
I really wish you wouldn't come out with such statements that really do demonstrate your lack of understanding of physics.
Regardless of a well insulated house built with modern construction methods and thus a large thermal store, or a property with the insulation properties of a tent, the laws of physics still apply.
When the heating is switched off in either property it will start to cool down. As it cools the differential in temperature between the inside of the house and outside reduces and thus the rate of heat loss is lower.
e.g. if it is 0C outside and, say, 20C inside there will be a heat loss, when the inside temperature drops to say 19C the rate of heat loss will be lower.
It is fundamental principle of physics that it will take less energy to restore the temperature in the house back to 20C from, say 19C than maintain it at 20C.
If that isn't clear to you, let us take this example.
You have to leave your house unoccupied for, say, two years. Do you leave on the CH to maintain the temperature at 20C, because if you let the temperature drop to 0C it will take more energy to bring the house back up to 20C than maintaining it for two years at 20C?
I hope you might concede that maintaining it at 20C would use more energy than leaving it unheated for 2 years and then heating it back to 20C.
How about 1 year?
6 months?
1 month?
1 week?
1 day?
6 hours?
At what point to you feel the laws of physics do not apply?
It really worries me that you use exaggerated examples, to justify your out of touch ill informed views.
On average, most houses would be unoccupied for around 6-10 hours a day so examples of months and years is just stupid.
In a well insulated house with huge thermal stores, using low temperature flow and re turn heating systems with underfloor heating and heat recovery ventilation systems. It is most efficient to maintain a temperature rather than allowing the property to become cold. First because it won't cool down much in the 6-10 hours it is empty anyway. If it was left long enough to become cold it would take an age to get to a comfortable temperature which is not practical.
You clearly do not understand how modern construction works, you build a huge thermal store (big thick walls and floors in case you didn't know) which are warmed up and then release heat gradually through out the day and night, the aim is to keep these thermal stores warm and the thermal store is the heat emitter not the underfloor heating as if you allow them to cool it would take an age to reheat and actually get the house warm. But if you maintain it, and use the building as a home so someone is there living in it (just incase you didn't know what a home was) It is much cheaper to maintain the temperature rather than allow fluctuations in temperature.
What you are saying may be true of high temperature heating systems, in houses with no thermal stores but not true of all houses."talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish" - Euripides0 -
captainhindsight wrote: »It really worries me that you use exaggerated examples, to justify your out of touch ill informed views.
You mean like the ridiculous exaggerated example that you gave regarding the predicted cost savings of a condensing boiler!
You would not even discuss if these could be achieved in real life and I have never seen you admit that you could be wrong about anything.
captainbullsight = Idiot.:doh: Blue text on this forum usually signifies hyperlinks, so click on them!..:wall:0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards