Underfloor Heating - the biggest con ever

theoldmiser

I have yet to find a scientific study that actually shows any advantages whatsoever to underfloor heating. I keep hearing companies who sell this snake oil talking about how it "eliminates cold spots", but I have never had a 'cold spot' in my house, and I have used £20 electric convector heaters from Argos for over 30 years. (I don't have gas in my street so I can't use it, and my house is every well insulated, so my average quarterly electricity bill used to be about £160, two years ago.)

Underfloor heating is the most ridiculously complicated, labour intensives, and material intensive way of heating a house, compared to either electric convector heaters, or a gas central heating system. Who wants pipes permanently laid INTO the floor itself? It's all based on solving 'problems' that don't actually exist in the first place.

grumbler

I've never heard of solving any problems. I think it's more about convenience - eliminating radiators and having a warm tiled floor that otherwise always feels cold in UK.

It's also very inefficient if buried in screed. Thermal inertia is huge. If, for example, you want to switch the heating off at night you have to do this well in advance and then heat tons of screed early in the morning. With radiators you can heat the air almost instantly.

BUFF

It's generally very efficient if designed in from scratch into a well-insulated building but it's quite different from the way that most people have become used to running their heating over the decades of having wet heating systems with radiators (or indeed fires before that) so requires  a change of mindset (low & slow rather than short, high intensity bursts of heat) & good controls. It fits in well with heat pumps as a source.
The large thermal inertia is part of it plus it's radiant heat whereas most of the heat emitted from conventional radiators ends up heating air in the top half of the room.

Like most heating systems, depending upon lifestyle, it will suit some people more than others.

stuart45

Radiant heat is more comfortable than convected heat, as the air temperature can be lower.

Woolsery

BUFF said:

It's generally very efficient if designed in from scratch into a well-insulated building but it's quite different from the way that most people have become used to running their heating over the decades of having wet heating systems with radiators (or indeed fires before that) so requires  a change of mindset (low & slow rather than short, high intensity bursts of heat) & good controls. It fits in well with heat pumps as a source.
The large thermal inertia is part of it plus it's radiant heat whereas most of the heat emitted from conventional radiators ends up heating air in the top half of the room.

Like most heating systems, depending upon lifestyle, it will suit some people more than others.

It's hard to retro-fit to a huge amount of our housing stock, which is why all the BS about converting to heat pumps doesn't cut it with the average consumer. Maybe if prices are driven high enough.....

BUFF

Woolsery said:

BUFF said:

It's generally very efficient if designed in from scratch into a well-insulated building but it's quite different from the way that most people have become used to running their heating over the decades of having wet heating systems with radiators (or indeed fires before that) so requires  a change of mindset (low & slow rather than short, high intensity bursts of heat) & good controls. It fits in well with heat pumps as a source.
The large thermal inertia is part of it plus it's radiant heat whereas most of the heat emitted from conventional radiators ends up heating air in the top half of the room.

Like most heating systems, depending upon lifestyle, it will suit some people more than others.

It's hard to retro-fit to a huge amount of our housing stock, 

which is why I gave the caveats that I did. As someone who lives in an Edwardian house I am well aware,

prowla

A case of pros and cons...

On the pro side: It is very space-efficient and is out of sight.

(I don't have under-floor heating.)

Doozergirl

Woolsery said:

BUFF said:

It's generally very efficient if designed in from scratch into a well-insulated building but it's quite different from the way that most people have become used to running their heating over the decades of having wet heating systems with radiators (or indeed fires before that) so requires  a change of mindset (low & slow rather than short, high intensity bursts of heat) & good controls. It fits in well with heat pumps as a source.
The large thermal inertia is part of it plus it's radiant heat whereas most of the heat emitted from conventional radiators ends up heating air in the top half of the room.

Like most heating systems, depending upon lifestyle, it will suit some people more than others.

It's hard to retro-fit to a huge amount of our housing stock, which is why all the BS about converting to heat pumps doesn't cut it with the average consumer. Maybe if prices are driven high enough.....

Electricity prices still need to come down in comparison to gas or it's still more expensive.  

At 300% efficiency (probably not at the times you need it) but 400% the price of gas, it's still more expensive to run an ASHP pump, so you need solar too.   And then you're looking at maybe £20k of sunk cost.  

JohnB47

If it wasn't for the ridiculous price of electricity, electric under floor heating is, I think, a good idea. In small areas, that is.

We have it in our bathroom and we have it coming on for around an hour before we get up in the morning. It definitely makes the bathroom feel very cosy and it's great to have the warmth on your feet.

No longer than an hour though and only between November and March.

ComicGeek

The main advantages are not having wall space taken up by radiators and having warm feet. If you're building a new house then there's hardly any cost difference between installing UFH and radiators, so a lot of developers include UFH at ground floor as a selling point, and then install radiators upstairs. 

Although I design UFH for large multi-million pound houses, I personally would never have it in my own house, and definitely not a screed system that takes forever to heat up and cool down. I don't like the feel of radiant heating systems, so the more convective feel of our radiators and air con units suits me better.

The only place I have UFH is electric mats in the bathroom - but that only costs me 2.5p/day for the short period I run it, so doesn't break the bank!

TELLIT01

We have UFH in our conservatory and it works very well for us.  In the winter months it's set low and keeps the chill off the room.  When we have visitors we turn it up and it's the room everybody heads for.  I think it is, in part, the warmth under foot which makes people feel warm all over.  With the whole floor being heated, the spread of heat is far more even than radiators or electric fan or convector heaters too.