Static Caravan - Central Heating

whitehartal

I have a 40' x 12' Delta Hadley static. Its centrally-heated by a Morco GB24 gas boiler.

This winter is the first time I've used it in the cold weather, and I'm wondering whether it's more efficient to leave the central heating on all the time with the radiator thermostatic valves set "low", or to set the boiler to come on at certain times during the day, when needed (morning and evening, generally...I'm fine through the night with a nice big quilt, and from around 11am until 5pm, it's warm enough for me with no heating on).

I guess the argument is whether having the boiler on 24 hours a day on "low" (by which I mean "comfortable for me") is better than having it on for 4 hours in the morning and 7 hours in the late afternoon/evening, but heating from "cold".

Anyone out there with the definitive answer?!!!

grumbler

whitehartal said:

... I'm wondering whether it's more efficient to leave the central heating on all the time with the radiator thermostatic valves set "low", or to set the boiler to come on at certain times during the day, when needed (morning and evening, generally..

The latter is more efficient. It's pure physics. The answer is absolutely definite - whether it's a caravan or a house.

I guess the argument is whether having the boiler on 24 hours a day on "low" (by which I mean "comfortable for me") is better than having it on for 4 hours in the morning and 7 hours in the late afternoon/evening, but heating from "cold".

I think you mean leaving your thermostat, not the boiler.

IMO, it's obvious that heating to your 'low/comfortable' temperature for 11 hours per day is more efficient than doing the same 24/24. The only problem can be more condensation during the could hours, but this has nothing to do with the efficiency.

ThisIsWeird

As Grumb says.

I presume your 'low', 'comfortable for me' temp will be the same, whether on for the whole 24 hours, or your 4+7 hour option? In which case the latter will use less energy - for obvious reasons

Yes, part of the 4+7 times will be used to get the place 'warm', whereas having it 'warm' all the time will have no such delay, but you'll pay for the privilege.

Folk often ask if it's worth having the heating on 'low' all of the time so that they can get it up to 'proper' temp more quickly, and whether this is more efficient compared to heating it up 'proper' from cold each time. But the same applies; yes, the boiler will have to run flat out to get the place warmed up from cold, but this will still be less energy than keeping it 'low' all of the time in anticipation.

The difference might not be huge, tho', especially if the 'low' temp is quite low, and other factors also come into play such as comfort, and whether the larger hot/cold cycles could cause condensation as G points out.

I keep our house at a min background of 14oC overnight. In practice, it very rarely comes on. 

whitehartal

Folk often ask if it's worth having the heating on 'low' all of the time so that they can get it up to 'proper' temp more quickly, and whether this is more efficient compared to heating it up 'proper' from cold each time. But the same applies; yes, the boiler will have to run flat out to get the place warmed up from cold, but this will still be less energy than keeping it 'low' all of the time in anticipation.

Thanks for the replies. This quote was really helpful, and that was what I was getting at...whether "cold to comfortable" was more efficient than "24 hours comfortable"...and this has answered it!