Central Heating On 24/7

captainhindsight_2

DTDfanBoy wrote: »

Levels of insulation, solar gain etc have no bearing as they do not alter if your heating is on or off.

A house kept at 20c 24/7 will always lose more energy than it would if it was kept at 20c for 23 hours and allowed to cool to 19.5c for one hour a day

Forget your fancy thermal stores and solar gains it's all completely irrelevant, at the end of the day it's basic physics, the bigger the ΔT the greater and faster the loss from the system must be :money:

I am saying sometimes depending on a number of vairables, it does not cost more to maintain a constant temperature than allowing the temperature to fluctuate.

One example, insulated house, large thermal store charged by solar gain. Buffer tanks heated by solar thermal/solar pv and can also be used 24/7 to charge the thermal stores if required. Thus zero cost to maintain a constant temperature 24/7. (next you are going to say 'what about the pump that costs money to run', so charge batterys with solar pv during the day which can be used to run the central heating pumps at night from the buffer tanks)

You are saying there is not one possible example where by it is not possible, you are wrong.

DTDfanBoy

captainhindsight wrote: »

You are saying there is not one possible example where by it is not possible, you are wrong.

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying.

It doesn't matter how you gather, store or disperse the energy, there will always be costs associated with it, the more a battery is cycled the shorter the lifetime, the more a pump is used the shorter the lifetime, inverters blah blah blah etc etc etc


It all boils down to the simple inescapable fact that energy will always move from one system to another in order to achieve equilibrium, in this instance energy will always move faster as the differential involved grows.

If you attempt maintain the house temperature when you're not in it the loss from the system will stay the same, if you stop adding energy to the system when you're not there the loss will decrease as the house cools.

Less energy used will always = more money in your pocket :beer:

Cardew

You are just wasting your time, he takes this silly stance on most subjects. It is a game, you say 'black' and he will say 'white' - and vice versa.


Reminds me I am taking some kids to the pantomime next month - 'Oh yes it is - Oh no it isn't.'

captainhindsight_2

DTDfanBoy wrote: »

Less energy used will always = more money in your pocket :beer:

That is not always true! lol.

I have empty farm buildings being heated with biomass boilers and I am claiming the RHI for.

3p/kWh in 7.6p/kWh out. The more heat that is generated (and waste) the more money I have in my pocket. :beer::j:beer:

I also own a few ESCos in carehomes and apartment buildings etc, more energy used the more money in my pocket! Same as above + 4p/Kwh from the property owner! This example even works without the RHI. :beer::j:beer:

captainhindsight_2

Cardew wrote: »

You are just wasting your time, he takes this silly stance on most subjects. It is a game, you say 'black' and he will say 'white' - and vice versa.


Reminds me I am taking some kids to the pantomime next month - 'Oh yes it is - Oh no it isn't.'

The thing you cant admit is that what I am saying is possible, nothing is impossible!

captainhindsight_2

espresso wrote: »

It is not money saving to pay £60 for a new timer when you could get a 7 day programmable room stat for less money which would be more beneficial. Very easy to fit (2 wires), much more convenient and it will save you money.

It is money saving it is just not as money saving as what you mentioned...

lstar337

captainhindsight wrote: »

One example, insulated house, large thermal store charged by solar gain.

I have this (Highly insulated house with South facing large patio doors/windows and thick concrete slab floor), and on those days (sun heats the floor and house is 21c+ all day) I don't put the heating on at all.

Are you going to tell me that having the heating on all day is cheaper than not turning it on at all?

Snorbitz

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. disappear and silly questions like this

Not that ol chestnut again! Planet Earth has been here long before humans and will no doubt still be here long after we've died out most probably through a nuclear war. Mother nature has a way of looking after itself.

I don't give a stuff about all this green nonsense. If I'm cold, then I put my heating on. I don't go to work all day and work for a boss I can't stand just to come home and freeze my backside off when it's cold. I don't feel guilty one bit. It's my money right? I don't smoke, I don't drive and I don't drink. I think I'm entitled to turn my stat up once in a while!

Snorbitz

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?

Now that's just being plain silly and not a very good analogy at all. lol. Unless you're homeless. you're not actually living and sleeping in your car overnight are you? So even though I don't own a car, the answer is no, I wouldn't leave my car engine on overnight. Besides, it would probably annoy the neighbours.

captainhindsight_2

lstar337 wrote: »

I have this (Highly insulated house with South facing large patio doors/windows and thick concrete slab floor), and on those days (sun heats the floor and house is 21c+ all day) I don't put the heating on at all.

Are you going to tell me that having the heating on all day is cheaper than not turning it on at all?

:-O if you learned to read my point is about maintaining a temperature not leaving the heating on rising the temperature higher and higher!