Peter Richardson wrote:

On 4 Oct 2003 03:20:30 -0700, (chris
wallace) wrote:


Peter Richardson wrote in message . ..

Electric is cheaper to install, thinner and no maintenance (no moving
parts)

Water is probably easier to control and therefore cheaper to run.

Depends how long you intend to stay, if you can justify the additional
expence of water system.

The decision is yours.

Thanks. I'm leaning towards electric. It seems that water would be
*much* harder to install. I already live here, so laying a screed
across the entire floor would require all my furniture (and me!) to be
moved out while it dries. It seems electric could be installed a room
at a time, which would be much easier in the short term. Is that
right?

Also, being thinner is an advantage for my flat.

How can I calculate the price differential between the two on running
costs? I'm not trying to add value to the flat, just make it warm!

Thanks for the help to both posters,

Chris.



The other poster is correct, underfloor heating can be installed in a
room at a time. Although electric is probably easier for the diy'er.

How much does it cost to run? Very difficult question, depends on how
much you use it. Water is certainly cheaper than electric but the
difference, can't really say.

I can say how much power electric underfloor heating takes. For a
concrete floor you should install 160W/m2. If you advise on the size
of the flat and how long you would want the heating on each day, I
estimate the number of kWh you will use in one day. This should help
you establish the cost of running electric heating.



Mmm. I am gettung by with less than 80W/m2. It entirely depends on
insulation levels.

Laying more pipe is very cheap and simple tho, once you make the
decision to do it at all.

It costs you the pipe, a bit of labour, and a bigger manifold for the
extra circuits.


Email me direct if you like.

Peter

www.pedarsonheating.com