Which is the most cost effective?

GrubbyGirl_2

Is it more cost effective to keep heating ticking over at a constant temperature 24/7 or let the house go cold and heat it up in the mornings and evenings?  My house is well insulated and we only heat rooms that we are using.  The heating works hard to get the temperature up to what we want it and when it's really cold we have to set the heating to come on for an hour before the time we need it to be at the right temperature.  As the house is well insulated I would have thought that keeping it at  a constant 19 degrees would be more economical.  

I would appreciate views

QrizB

GrubbyGirl_2 said:

I would appreciate views

There's an official MSE article on exactly this subject:
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/utilities/energy-saving-myths/

GrubbyGirl_2

QrizB said:

GrubbyGirl_2 said:

I would appreciate views

There's an official MSE article on exaclty this subject:
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/utilities/energy-saving-myths/

Thank you!

GrubbyGirl_2

QrizB said:

GrubbyGirl_2 said:

I would appreciate views

There's an official MSE article on exactly this subject:
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/utilities/energy-saving-myths/

Having now read it I see it's not conclusive!!  I guess I should try one week each way and see what the smart meter says

Effician

GrubbyGirl_2 said:

 My house is well insulated and we only heat rooms that we are using.  The heating works hard to get the temperature up to what we want it and when it's really cold we have to set the heating to come on for an hour before the time we need it to be at the right temperature.

May be worth looking into why your well insulated house loses so much heat between ON times,  i guess that if the loss is as bad you seem to imply you'd just be wasting energy when not at home.

daveaspy

The rate at which heat is lost through your walls/roof depends on the temperature difference between the inside and the outside (heat flows from high to low) - the bigger the difference the quicker heat is lost and your heating system will be constantly replacing that lost heat.

I understand the condensation issues mentioned around this, but if you have no condensation issues then it cannot be more cost effective to keep your heating on all day and continually lose that heat, even if you are well insulated that heat will still leak out albeit at a lower rate.

If you really want to keep it on because it takes a long time to heat up again then the lower you can keep it the less heat/money will leak out of your walls while you aren't there

Aylesbury_Duck

daveaspy said:

The rate at which heat is lost through your walls/roof depends on the temperature difference between the inside and the outside (heat flows from high to low) - the bigger the difference the quicker heat is lost and your heating system will be constantly replacing that lost heat.

I understand the condensation issues mentioned around this, but if you have no condensation issues then it cannot be more cost effective to keep your heating on all day and continually lose that heat, even if you are well insulated that heat will still leak out albeit at a lower rate.

If you really want to keep it on because it takes a long time to heat up again then the lower you can keep it the less heat/money will leak out of your walls while you aren't there

I agree.  I've often thought of it like a kettle.  No one would keep their kettle simmering away all day so they save energy compared to heating it from tap to 100 Celsius when they need it, no matter how well-insulated the kettle might be.

Petriix

GrubbyGirl_2 said:

QrizB said:

GrubbyGirl_2 said:

I would appreciate views

There's an official MSE article on exactly this subject:
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/utilities/energy-saving-myths/

Having now read it I see it's not conclusive!!  I guess I should try one week each way and see what the smart meter says

The laws of physics are not subject to opinion. A greater temperature differential objectively leads to a greater transference of heat.

[Deleted User]

We had to run the heating one winter, November through March and kept it low 06:00-20:00 aprox. Didn't use a lot more than the previous year when we were running the boiler hot and on for a few hours. Think there was a few quid in it.

Kept meter readings and tracked it and quite surprised but we were running the boiler in the right temp range for condensing to work properly.

Suppose it depends on a lot of factors.

tux900

Aylesbury_Duck said:

I agree.  I've often thought of it like a kettle.  No one would keep their kettle simmering away all day so they save energy compared to heating it from tap to 100 Celsius when they need it, no matter how well-insulated the kettle might be.

I don't know how good that analogy is. You drink tea at discrete points in time, and in between you don't. It's very unlike heating a home.

Besides which, ever heard or tea urns and boiling water taps? They are intended for regular draw off and would be a much more relevant comparison to make. 

Not saying you're conclusions wrong though; just the premise! ;-) 

Swipe

tux900 said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

I agree.  I've often thought of it like a kettle.  No one would keep their kettle simmering away all day so they save energy compared to heating it from tap to 100 Celsius when they need it, no matter how well-insulated the kettle might be.

Besides which, ever heard or tea urns and boiling water taps? They are intended for regular draw off and would be a much more relevant comparison to make. 

Boiling water taps cost more than using a kettle