Heating on low and constant better?

Shoey1610

I was just wondering if it is more economical to have the heating on constantly but at a low temperature or to come on twice a day but at a higher temperature? I'm at home with my little girl so we would be in and out of the house most of the day. This might be a really stupid question, so apologies if it is!

Ken68

In and out all day, Shoey, you would be letting go all the time of accumulated heat only to start all over again.
Twice a day on for the heating does for me with a sort of airlock (lobby with extra door curtains) to keep heat in.
Also save up the jobs needed outside so as to limit opening doors, which are probably best done mid-day.

Shoey1610

Thanks for your reply Ken. You have given me another idea though, perhaps it help to keep the door shut between our front room and the front door so I'm not letting so much heat out each time I open the door. Thanks!

TITEASCRAMP

I am doing this as an experiment at the moment the heating has been on low now for 4 days. I'm doing a week like this then a week come on early morning and early evening.
I will let you know next week.

MancBrel

I've already done this experiment, over the course of last winter. I have a new combi boiler and a 3 bedroomed house. My wife and I are out Monday to Friday daytimes, and in most evenings. Weekends, who knows?

I used to have the boiler on for an hour in the mornings, and then set it again for evenings. I decided to set the thermostat at a comfortable setting (depending on the outside temp) all the time.

The result for me was that I was spending about the same as before, however I the house was much nicer to live in. When I came home from work the house was warm, but the radiators were cold to the touch.

Hope this is of use?

TITEASCRAMP

I have actually just finished the experiment. I have found exactly the same results as above.
Same cost, but so much more pleasent to live in. Complared to only having the heating on about 3 hrs a day.

Hope that helps too

Cardew

TITEASCRAMP/ManncBrel

It would be helpful if you explained just what your 'experiment' involved.

There is an Urban Myth that it is somehow cheaper to leave your heating on 24/7 rather than have it on a timer.

I am not clear what you are actually saying; particularly the 'low all day'

Now if you are saying leaving it at, say, 20C all day(24/7) is as cheap as having it set to 20C for timed periods; then that simply is not correct as it defies the law of physics. See

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=564426

However depending on the insulation in the property it could be cheaper to have it set to, say, 16C for 24/7 rather than timed periods at 20C. But then 16C is not a comfortable temperature for most people in the evenings.

Rather than feed this Urban Myth it would be good if you could explain what your experiment involves.

Palerie-head

Not sure if this is of any relevance to you, but I moved into a new house from a 1930's semi and my fuel bills are half of what they were. Probably due to a combination of more efficient boiler, better insulation, better windows and of course the fact that we are paying more for the mortgage and watch the bills a little more closely so actually make sure the thermostat isn't cranked up when it's not neeed. I keep our thermostat set at 15 degrees so the house is always pleasantly warm, even on the coldest days, but some evenings we stick it up to 20 but in the 14 months we have been in the new house the thermostat has never been over 20 - and sometimes it gets bakingly hot.

Not an experiment as such, but thought I'd stick my oar in anyway.

ph.

TITEASCRAMP

Cardew wrote: »

TITEASCRAMP/ManncBrel

It would be helpful if you explained just what your 'experiment' involved.

There is an Urban Myth that it is somehow cheaper to leave your heating on 24/7 rather than have it on a timer.

I am not clear what you are actually saying; particularly the 'low all day'

Now if you are saying leaving it at, say, 20C all day(24/7) is as cheap as having it set to 20C for timed periods; then that simply is not correct as it defies the law of physics. See

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=564426

However depending on the insulation in the property it could be cheaper to have it set to, say, 16C for 24/7 rather than timed periods at 20C. But then 16C is not a comfortable temperature for most people in the evenings.

Rather than feed this Urban Myth it would be good if you could explain what your experiment involves.

All I have done is leave it on constant, i dont have a thermosat to set a temperature. I have TRV's at the moment they are on 1-2.
I have looked how many units this is using per day as oppose to what i was doing before which was just and hr in morning and a couple of hrs in the evening.
I have cavity wall and loft insulation. Dg througout. New condensing boiler.

Also i do have a condensing boiler, for it to condense, the return temperature needs to be 54 degrees. Turning it on and off doesnt condense the same.
If you need any more help just ask.

blissfulbabe

I tried this last year - kept my heating on all the time, set at low. The upshot was the house felt chilly in the evenings, although we dressed in layers and I was anal about draftproofing, drawing curtains early etc. To add insult to injury my gas usage went up about 30% compared to the previous year.

This winter, when I can finally be persuaded to turn the CH on it will be going on for an hour in the morning and more in the evening.

kizzykizzywizzy

Great thread Shoey, not stupid at all:T
I must admit, I have been quite tight with my heating so far this year & it's not nice to live in the house with it cold & just boosting the heating when gets too cold, I've been wearing jumpers, unknown for me to do as always walked around the house as if it was a heatwave:p
I was thinking this was the way to go
I must admit the last 2 days haven't felt well, so had the heating on more & so much nicer even at a low constant heat, please tell me this is cheaper, as after living in freezing flats & bedsits in my younger days where the water froze in the kettle:eek: & you could see your breath, just can't stand the cold now.