Deleted

ariarnia

Deleted_User said:

TEST 2
Last night we tried a second test - the woodburner had been on all day to heat the house. The CH thermostat is in the hall next to the room where the woodburner is situated - therefore, the CH thermostat is in the second warmest spot in the house.

At 9.30pm we put the last log on the fire and shut the lounge door (it stayed shut until this morning). 
We opened some of the coldest room doors to help bring the hall temp down - so distributing heat more evenly.
We switched on the CH to come on when hall temps dropped below 12 degrees.

for comparison that's basically almost exactly what we do. 

we leave the boiler on constant in the hole house at 15 degrees. we light the fire in the lounge at somewhere between 3-5pm (mostly when it gets dark but before dinner). we let it go out at about 9 or 10pm (so put the last log on about when the kids go to bed and we are in bed by midnight when theres still embers). in november we used an average of 20kwh of gas a day. thats' running with a flow temp of 55 and the boiler runs efficiently because it never starts from stone cold. obviously we will use more this month because its colder (and the mil will visit at some point so the heating will be on 18 or so for a couple of days). but i'll work that out in jan. jan and december are our highest use months historically but last year we used about 5500kwh of gas in total. 

we have a bigger house (meaning 2 stories) which helps with insulation but means harder air flow i think. we also have a bit of a warmer base temp than you. and we have a larger stove (rating 4.9kw but can do up to 8 i think). so probably burn more logs. and as i mentioned above we pay for a lot of ours (unless its a really mild winter) so this is the way that works out cheaper for us. 

Mstty

I suspect for the cost of £500 of wood versus time to collect free wood, chop, season and collect the cardboard/paper etc to make paper bricks to some people it's more worthwhile time earning money or other pursuits.

That and all the time to tend to the fire all day.

Being a small stove it must regularly get clogged up full of ash as well so another daily messy task.

An interesting experiment but as stated before 14oC in all but the lounge and hall is not bearable for many.

Apodemus

ariarnia said:

Deleted_User said:

TEST 2
Last night we tried a second test - the woodburner had been on all day to heat the house. The CH thermostat is in the hall next to the room where the woodburner is situated - therefore, the CH thermostat is in the second warmest spot in the house.

At 9.30pm we put the last log on the fire and shut the lounge door (it stayed shut until this morning). 
We opened some of the coldest room doors to help bring the hall temp down - so distributing heat more evenly.
We switched on the CH to come on when hall temps dropped below 12 degrees.

we have a bigger house (meaning 2 stories) which helps with insulation but means harder air flow i think. 

Don't underestimate the benefit of heat rising.  A 2-storey building, with a smaller footprint, may well allow the heat to flow through the ground floor better, compared with Scarter's extended bungalow, then rise through the building.

ariarnia

Deleted_User said:

ariarnia said:

we have a bigger house (meaning 2 stories) which helps with insulation but means harder air flow i think. we also have a bit of a warmer base temp than you. and we have a larger stove (rating 4.9kw but can do up to 8 i think). so probably burn more logs. and as i mentioned above we pay for a lot of ours (unless its a really mild winter) so this is the way that works out cheaper for us. 

I'm not trying to talk you into trying this as I know you have a solution that works.

However, you've raised the issue of airflow being more difficult in a two story house. One option might be to put a (closeable) ceiling vent in the room with the woodburner - perhaps with a computer fan (battery operated and quiet). In an ideal situation where your bedroom was above lounge you could simply open the vent before bedtime and move the warm air from the lounge to the bedroom.

We're thinking of doing something similar to allow us to heat the kitchen (next door  to the lounge) via a vent in the adjoining wall. Currently we have to heat the hall before we can heat the kitchen - and normally that's fine. But if I want to use the kitchen I will have the option of directing the warm air into that room first.

maybe longer term but the room above the lounge is the one that benefits from the heat (because of the chimney flu going up thru the house) but it would be building work and we spent most of the year living in a building site so while we can afford the bills i think we'll stick for a bit longer. plan so far is in a couple of years to go for an ground source air pump and maybe solar (i'm not convinced we use enough electric to justify solar)

markin

My 12 Sq m of loose fire wood turned into around 224 sq foot stacked neatly and so £4 per sq foot/basket, 2-4 baskets per day, Between 2 fires.  


12 sq meter, 75 each  £900/224 = 4

Ally_E.

Deleted_User said:

ariarnia said:

we have a bigger house (meaning 2 stories) which helps with insulation but means harder air flow i think. we also have a bit of a warmer base temp than you. and we have a larger stove (rating 4.9kw but can do up to 8 i think). so probably burn more logs. and as i mentioned above we pay for a lot of ours (unless its a really mild winter) so this is the way that works out cheaper for us. 

I'm not trying to talk you into trying this as I know you have a solution that works.

However, you've raised the issue of airflow being more difficult in a two story house. One option might be to put a (closeable) ceiling vent in the room with the woodburner - perhaps with a computer fan (battery operated and quiet). In an ideal situation where your bedroom was above lounge you could simply open the vent before bedtime and move the warm air from the lounge to the bedroom.

We're thinking of doing something similar to allow us to heat the kitchen (next door  to the lounge) via a vent in the adjoining wall. Currently we have to heat the hall before we can heat the kitchen - and normally that's fine. But if I want to use the kitchen I will have the option of directing the warm air into that room first.

That would compromise soundproofing between the floors though. We considered it, but the noise travelling from living room to bedroom is a big concern. 

Chrysalis

EssexHebridean said:

Deleted_User said:

We have a 4 bed bungalow. A new boiler was fitted about 4 years ago - it's 34KW

This year we're (so far, and despite days of freezing weather; -5 last night and STILL not above freezing)  managing to heat the whole house comfortably with a 3kw woodburner.

If I run the woodburner flat out for 13 hours that's 13 x 3kw = 39kw.

But it's not running flat out - sometimes is spends a few hours damped down and burning slowly. Every so often I'll put a home made paper brick on it and leave it for an hour - so that it almost drops out of the green zone - before stoking it up again. 

The point is, and I don't really know what to make of it yet, my woodburner is running all day using less energy than my boiler would use in an hour.

The pattern of heating is different - more really cosy rooms with the woodburner, but more cooler areas in the house too. We definitely get up to colder rooms, but they quickly get EXTREMLY cosy. Swings and roundabouts - both work well...I prefer the woodburner. 

This isn't about cost as I get most of my wood for free. But I'm just trying to get my head around all the factors involved in switching to a more energy efficient way of running the house.

This isn't right though is it, as you boiler wouldn't be running flat out for 13 hours. My understanding is that the boiler will run at capacity for the first little while until the temperature in the house increases, then would cycle on and off as needed to maintain that temperature. Heating via a stove also of course is significantly more labour intensive, and wouldn't as a sole source of heating suit the average working household. In your situation it may well be more cost effective, but not based on "it costing less to run all day than your boiler would use in an hour".

Boilers might run constant if the heat loss cannot be overcome by the central heating, it depends on the boiler, the pipe work and the heat retention of the property, a lot assume on MSE that everything is the same from property to property when the reality is gas consumption varies heavily.

I tried my boiler for 2 hours a couple of days ago on CH, I looked at the KwH consumption and was like yep forget that, the cost would be mouth watering, now using an electric blanket.  (was over 30 KwH).  Also on my boiler its only 74% efficient, and requires to heat the water as well when using CH, not a radiator only mode.

I think people are right to try alternatives as GCH can be extremely expensive.

sofa_searcher

Chrysalis said:

EssexHebridean said:

Deleted_User said:

We have a 4 bed bungalow. A new boiler was fitted about 4 years ago - it's 34KW

This year we're (so far, and despite days of freezing weather; -5 last night and STILL not above freezing)  managing to heat the whole house comfortably with a 3kw woodburner.

If I run the woodburner flat out for 13 hours that's 13 x 3kw = 39kw.

But it's not running flat out - sometimes is spends a few hours damped down and burning slowly. Every so often I'll put a home made paper brick on it and leave it for an hour - so that it almost drops out of the green zone - before stoking it up again. 

The point is, and I don't really know what to make of it yet, my woodburner is running all day using less energy than my boiler would use in an hour.

The pattern of heating is different - more really cosy rooms with the woodburner, but more cooler areas in the house too. We definitely get up to colder rooms, but they quickly get EXTREMLY cosy. Swings and roundabouts - both work well...I prefer the woodburner. 

This isn't about cost as I get most of my wood for free. But I'm just trying to get my head around all the factors involved in switching to a more energy efficient way of running the house.

This isn't right though is it, as you boiler wouldn't be running flat out for 13 hours. My understanding is that the boiler will run at capacity for the first little while until the temperature in the house increases, then would cycle on and off as needed to maintain that temperature. Heating via a stove also of course is significantly more labour intensive, and wouldn't as a sole source of heating suit the average working household. In your situation it may well be more cost effective, but not based on "it costing less to run all day than your boiler would use in an hour".

Boilers might run constant if the heat loss cannot be overcome by the central heating, it depends on the boiler, the pipe work and the heat retention of the property, a lot assume on MSE that everything is the same from property to property when the reality is gas consumption varies heavily.

I tried my boiler for 2 hours a couple of days ago on CH, I looked at the KwH consumption and was like yep forget that, the cost would be mouth watering, now using an electric blanket.  (was over 30 KwH).  Also on my boiler its only 74% efficient, and requires to heat the water as well when using CH, not a radiator only mode.

I think people are right to try alternatives as GCH can be extremely expensive.

If the central heating is struggling to keep a house warm due to poor home heat retention, then a wood, oil rad, heat pump or whatever would also struggle. So trying an alternative is pointless as it's not tackling the root cause of the issue i.e poor home insulation.

Chrysalis

sofa_searcher said:

Chrysalis said:

EssexHebridean said:

Deleted_User said:

We have a 4 bed bungalow. A new boiler was fitted about 4 years ago - it's 34KW

This year we're (so far, and despite days of freezing weather; -5 last night and STILL not above freezing)  managing to heat the whole house comfortably with a 3kw woodburner.

If I run the woodburner flat out for 13 hours that's 13 x 3kw = 39kw.

But it's not running flat out - sometimes is spends a few hours damped down and burning slowly. Every so often I'll put a home made paper brick on it and leave it for an hour - so that it almost drops out of the green zone - before stoking it up again. 

The point is, and I don't really know what to make of it yet, my woodburner is running all day using less energy than my boiler would use in an hour.

The pattern of heating is different - more really cosy rooms with the woodburner, but more cooler areas in the house too. We definitely get up to colder rooms, but they quickly get EXTREMLY cosy. Swings and roundabouts - both work well...I prefer the woodburner. 

This isn't about cost as I get most of my wood for free. But I'm just trying to get my head around all the factors involved in switching to a more energy efficient way of running the house.

This isn't right though is it, as you boiler wouldn't be running flat out for 13 hours. My understanding is that the boiler will run at capacity for the first little while until the temperature in the house increases, then would cycle on and off as needed to maintain that temperature. Heating via a stove also of course is significantly more labour intensive, and wouldn't as a sole source of heating suit the average working household. In your situation it may well be more cost effective, but not based on "it costing less to run all day than your boiler would use in an hour".

Boilers might run constant if the heat loss cannot be overcome by the central heating, it depends on the boiler, the pipe work and the heat retention of the property, a lot assume on MSE that everything is the same from property to property when the reality is gas consumption varies heavily.

I tried my boiler for 2 hours a couple of days ago on CH, I looked at the KwH consumption and was like yep forget that, the cost would be mouth watering, now using an electric blanket.  (was over 30 KwH).  Also on my boiler its only 74% efficient, and requires to heat the water as well when using CH, not a radiator only mode.

I think people are right to try alternatives as GCH can be extremely expensive.

If the central heating is struggling to keep a house warm due to poor home heat retention, then a wood, oil rad, heat pump or whatever would also struggle. So trying an alternative is pointless as it's not tackling the root cause of the issue i.e poor home insulation.

Sometimes the root cause cant be tackled due to lack of capital or been rented (so LL responsibility).

Other types of heating source can work out cheaper than CH.  The weakness of CH is its what its designed to do which is to heat an entire property from one energy source.

I dont disagree on tacking heat retention, the issue is just its not a practical option for many people.

I got no idea of what the OP is doing if its going to be a success, I suppose my point was there is nothing wrong with experimenting with alternative ways instead of just assuming CH is the best fit for every one.

Chrysalis

Deleted_User said:

Chrysalis said:

sofa_searcher said:

Chrysalis said:

EssexHebridean said:

Deleted_User said:

We have a 4 bed bungalow. A new boiler was fitted about 4 years ago - it's 34KW

This year we're (so far, and despite days of freezing weather; -5 last night and STILL not above freezing)  managing to heat the whole house comfortably with a 3kw woodburner.

If I run the woodburner flat out for 13 hours that's 13 x 3kw = 39kw.

But it's not running flat out - sometimes is spends a few hours damped down and burning slowly. Every so often I'll put a home made paper brick on it and leave it for an hour - so that it almost drops out of the green zone - before stoking it up again. 

The point is, and I don't really know what to make of it yet, my woodburner is running all day using less energy than my boiler would use in an hour.

The pattern of heating is different - more really cosy rooms with the woodburner, but more cooler areas in the house too. We definitely get up to colder rooms, but they quickly get EXTREMLY cosy. Swings and roundabouts - both work well...I prefer the woodburner. 

This isn't about cost as I get most of my wood for free. But I'm just trying to get my head around all the factors involved in switching to a more energy efficient way of running the house.

This isn't right though is it, as you boiler wouldn't be running flat out for 13 hours. My understanding is that the boiler will run at capacity for the first little while until the temperature in the house increases, then would cycle on and off as needed to maintain that temperature. Heating via a stove also of course is significantly more labour intensive, and wouldn't as a sole source of heating suit the average working household. In your situation it may well be more cost effective, but not based on "it costing less to run all day than your boiler would use in an hour".

Boilers might run constant if the heat loss cannot be overcome by the central heating, it depends on the boiler, the pipe work and the heat retention of the property, a lot assume on MSE that everything is the same from property to property when the reality is gas consumption varies heavily.

I tried my boiler for 2 hours a couple of days ago on CH, I looked at the KwH consumption and was like yep forget that, the cost would be mouth watering, now using an electric blanket.  (was over 30 KwH).  Also on my boiler its only 74% efficient, and requires to heat the water as well when using CH, not a radiator only mode.

I think people are right to try alternatives as GCH can be extremely expensive.

If the central heating is struggling to keep a house warm due to poor home heat retention, then a wood, oil rad, heat pump or whatever would also struggle. So trying an alternative is pointless as it's not tackling the root cause of the issue i.e poor home insulation.

Sometimes the root cause cant be tackled due to lack of capital or been rented (so LL responsibility).

Other types of heating source can work out cheaper than CH.  The weakness of CH is its what its designed to do which is to heat an entire property from one energy source.

I dont disagree on tacking heat retention, the issue is just its not a practical option for many people.

I got no idea of what the OP is doing if its going to be a success, I suppose my point was there is nothing wrong with experimenting with alternative ways instead of just assuming CH is the best fit for every one.

Central heating was designed for an era where energy was cheap and readily available. I doubt we're ever going to see that again in my lifetime!

Thats the scary thing, you are almost certainly right, deflation is rare.