What's cheaper, Gas or Electric?

t8769

I wonder

If I go out of my concrete bunker/flat.. should I leave the heater on very low, and stop the room from cooling down..

Would that be more cost effective?

Thanks

Cardew

t8769 wrote: »

I wonder

If I go out of my concrete bunker/flat.. should I leave the heater on very low, and stop the room from cooling down..

Would that be more cost effective?

Thanks

No doubt inadvertently, your question could cause the regular controversy that such a query always starts.

What it boils down to is the inevitable compromise between cost and comfort.

Fairly obviously the higher you leave the temperature in your flat when you go out, the more comfortable it will be on your return.

Equally obviously the higher you leave the temperature in your flat when you go out, the more it will cost to run your Central Heating.

So from a cost perspective you should turn off the heating when you are out.

Some people believe that it costs more to heat up a room from cold than it does to keep the CH on all the time at a lower temperature; they are wrong!!!!!



The ideal solution is to have the heating on a timer and have it come on just before you return. How far in advance of your return depends on your property, but 30 minutes would be a good start point, and adjust as required.

mech_2

Cardew wrote: »

No doubt inadvertently, your question could cause the regular controversy that such a query always starts.

What it boils down to is the inevitable compromise between cost and comfort.

Fairly obviously the higher you leave the temperature in your flat when you go out, the more comfortable it will be on your return.

Equally obviously the higher you leave the temperature in your flat when you go out, the more it will cost to run your Central Heating.

So from a cost perspective you should turn off the heating when you are out.

Some people believe that it costs more to heat up a room from cold than it does to keep the CH on all the time at a lower temperature; they are wrong!!!!!



The ideal solution is to have the heating on a timer and have it come on just before you return. How far in advance of your return depends on your property, but 30 minutes would be a good start point, and adjust as required.

Not wishing to get embroiled in the controversy (I've done that once and once was more than enough), but a number of times I have heard people say that they were told it was more economical to leave it on constantly and low by the person who put in their new boiler. Maybe this is where it keeps coming from? I suspect people are more likely to listen to the installer than anyone else...

I found this the other week: http://homepages.tesco.net/~R.J.H.C/cond.htm

I don't think it's well structured, but I won't critique the whole article, the part I'm concentrating on is this: "For a condensing boiler it is more fuel efficient to run for sustained periods of time at a lower temperature rather than running for shorter periods of time at higher temperatures. By trickling heat into the system continuously, so all the radiators are always warm, the burner is kept on a low rate of modulation constantly".

He's not actually talking about leaving the heating on all the time, but some people might come away with that impression. He's just saying "it's better not to run your radiators too hot". That's all the customer needs to know. The rest of it is just describing what the boiler does when the heating is on. This is wide open to misinterpretation by someone who only wants to know how to operate the central heating controls and doesn't care what the boiler is doing.

Cardew

mech wrote: »

Not wishing to get embroiled in the controversy (I've done that once and once was more than enough), but a number of times I have heard people say that they were told it was more economical to leave it on constantly and low by the person who put in their new boiler. Maybe this is where it keeps coming from? I suspect people are more likely to listen to the installer than anyone else...

I found this the other week: http://homepages.tesco.net/~R.J.H.C/cond.htm

I don't think it's well structured, but I won't critique the whole article, the part I'm concentrating on is this: "For a condensing boiler it is more fuel efficient to run for sustained periods of time at a lower temperature rather than running for shorter periods of time at higher temperatures. By trickling heat into the system continuously, so all the radiators are always warm, the burner is kept on a low rate of modulation constantly".

He's not actually talking about leaving the heating on all the time, but some people might come away with that impression. He's just saying "it's better not to run your radiators too hot". That's all the customer needs to know. The rest of it is just describing what the boiler does when the heating is on. This is wide open to misinterpretation by someone who only wants to know how to operate the central heating controls and doesn't care what the boiler is doing.

I couldn't agree more with your assessment.

Again without getting involved in controversy, depending on the property it might well be that have your house constantly at a low temperature, say, 17C might be cheaper than having it at, say, 20C when you are in occupation and switching it off when you are not.

The question is would you be happy living in the house at 17C - I know my family and I wouldn't.

However, without question, having the house at 17C when you are present, and switching it off when not, would be the cheapest option of the lot!

t8769

OK

Thanks!!

t8769

PS

I've always thought that much of the energy saving advice from government is questionable at best and silly at worst.

By far the easiest way to save energy I've found is to install very heavy curtains, put cardboard behind radiators, replace an old boiler and insulate everything possible. I rarely see this advice given.

All this stuff about turning off chargers and being careful about light bulbs seems insignificant.

For half the year, the heating's on, and chargers and old fashioned light bulbs are heating the house with the excess energy they put out. Wasteful I'm sure, but not a touch on most people I know, who have thin or no curtains, who let their radiators bleed energy into the walls, and who haven't got around to insulating their lofts.

I've no idea who puts out this government advice but its always seemed to me quite barmy.

I'm not an expert, but I reckon properly insulated curtains will do more for energy saving than replacing light bulbs.

Ken68

Agree t8769, some of the people I've round here are unbelievable, vastly inflated quotes just because I was getting a grant. And the expense of getting onto the EST list has to be recovered from somewhere.
Like you say , old fashioned curtains and standard insulation.
Where is the advice on exterior insulation, window and door shutters, for example. Noone.

Cardew

t8769 wrote: »

I've always thought that much of the energy saving advice from government is questionable at best and silly at worst.

I've no idea who puts out this government advice but its always seemed to me quite barmy.

The biggest example of this is the huge emphasis everyone seems to give ‘standby consumption’ because of the publicity about this evil.

Post after post on this forum from people complaining about their huge electricity consumption (“the meter must be faulty!”) always emphasize that “I never leave my TV on standby” and seem to think that this is the most important saving measure they can take.

Whilst any saving is worth having, in reality standby consumption is a very small percentage of the energy bill.

Terrylw1

Yeah, totally agree with Cardew. Not leaving things on standby is just a way of getting everyone to save a little bit which may help the government justify some target they have set themselves. It doesn't address the real problems which are the appliances and their use.

Also, from a consumers point of view some of the best things you can do are a) always get your bills on actual readings, not estimates and b) keep switching to get better deals.

t8769

Mmm

That's interesting.

I'm not expert, but again and again I visit people who switch off their TVs, but don't close the curtains at night, letting heat flood out of the house.

Again and again I hear 'experts' and government officials whittle on about things on standby, and lightbulbs. Are these officials being deliberately silly, or is there some strange plot at hand?


Its as if you want to loose weight, and are advised to avoid eating olives.

I was in Norfolk a while back, there were some very expensive, very ugly windmills everywhere, off and on shore. Lord knows what the tax payer pays in subsidies for these things.

Stranagely enough, not a single building in the area seemed to have double glazing, and our place didn't even have insulated walls or propper curtains.

I thought that perhaps the locals could out-produce the electricity generating capabilities of those windmills, by spending 1% of what it cost to run them, on insulation.

I'm wonder if this is New Labour's addiction to huge Soviet-style programmes, and their habbit of throwing billions at anything that might work, without much thought, (or just government incompetence).

I once lived in the mountains of a far away land, where the temperature dropped below 10 at night. I found that putting 3 layers of curtains on the windows enabled me to drop my heating costs by about 20%.

My 'wasteful' lightbulbs heat my house 6mo of the year, its not going to make much difference if I change them.


I agree with you Terrylw1, if the govt wanted to save energy, it could simply pass a law that all appliences had to have AAA rating. In Australia all toilets must be low water-use, in Japan all City buildings must have solar pannels to cut down on energy use, in Israel almost every private building has a solar water heater on the roof. Hardly rocket science.

Perhaps its easier for the govt to talk about light bulbs, than deal with the real issues, image-over-substance?