On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:46:13 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Bill Noble" wrote in message
...


"Ignoramus10802" wrote in message
...
On 2009-10-29, Pete C. wrote:

Ignoramus10802 wrote:

On 2009-10-29, Stormin Mormon
wrote:
Please forgive me while I troll for a moment.....

Is it energy saving to turn the thermostat down, when
leaving the house? I mean, the furnace has to run to catch
up when I get home. I have a way of looking at the matter.
I'll explain my point of view after the argument is
underway.


Imagine for a minute that you have to leave house for a month.

Would it be energy efficient to turn thermostat down? Of course, as
less heat will be produced for a whole month, with only a few minutes
to catch up.

The same applies to only one day.

i

It's far more complicated than that. Factors such as insulation / heat
loss, type of heating, multi-stage heating, electric backup heat on heat
pumps, etc. all come into play in determining the away duration and temp
reduction where savings begin, and in some cases (typically high
efficiency homes) it can require a multi day absence to see any savings.

This is patently untrue.

I

Correct - whatever the net effect of insulation is, there is a net
negative heat flux from the house to the outside. The flux is
proportional to the temperature difference (the exact equation will depend
on the radiation, convection and conduction components - radiation alone
is governed by the Stephan-Boltzman equation). The larger the difference
the greater the flux. Averaged over any period of time, any time spent
with the thermostat set lower will yeild a lower internal temperature,
hence less heat flux. Whether that is enough to show up in your bill is
another question, but from a energy savings point of view, it is
incontestible.

The confounding issue, though, is the thermal mass of the house. That's why
the DOE explanation says that the savings occur when the temperature inside
the house has stabilized at the lower temperature.

When you shut off the furnace, the thermal mass of the inside of the house
is what's giving up heat to the outside. That's stored energy that came from
the furnace heat. When you raise the temperature, you have to restore that
heat to the thermal mass. So with the furnace off and the temperature inside
of the house dropping, you're losing stored heat. When you turn the
thermostat back on, you have to restore that lost heat, which will also heat
up the atmosphere inside of the house (which is a very small portion of the
total inside thermal mass).

That's what I read from their description, anyway, and it comports with
things I've read about it from other sources. There is no (theoretical) net
gain or loss when the thermal mass is put through the cycle of cooling down
and heating up. The savings occur when the temperature is reduced and
stabilized.

The furnace is supplying an average of so many BTU when it is running
(assuming the usual on/off type of furnace).

The house is losing so many BTU when it is at temperature T0 inside,
and the losses will always Be LESS when the temperaure is closer to
the outside temperature (assumed to be lower, of course).

When the house is cooling, the thermal mass is supplying part of the
heat to the outside. When the house is heating up, the furnace is
supplying heat to warm the thermal mass, PLUS the heat which is being
lost to the outside.

The heat lost to the outside during the cooling *that is supplied by
the thermal mass* is made up for that part of the heat supplied by the
furnace to heat the house back to T0, so that part IS a wash.

What's missing is that for for every second the house is at a lower
temperature than T0, the heat loss to the outside is less, so even if
it cools down and immediately is heated up there will be an energy
saving.

If it was linear (which it isn't, but bear with me) then say the
outside temperature was 25F and the internal temperature was 75F.
The loss is k*(75-25) = k*50, where k is a constant. Now allow the
house to cool to 50F over an hour, then heat it back up again to 75F
over another hour. The heat loss to the outside during that time is
k*(62.5-25) = 37.5*k, which is 25% less (62.5F is the *average* inside
temperature over those two hours). Chances are the heat loss is
actually worse than linear (convection and radiation are worse, and
conduction is linear), so this should be conservative. Now if it's 25%
of 2/24 of a day, that's not very much (about 2% saving) but it is
going to be a saving.

This all assumes that a house is decently insulated and that the thermal
mass of the house is substantial. Of course, the thermal differential
between the inside and outside temperatures are always at work, suggesting
that there is less heat loss with each degree of reduction of inside
temperature, as you say. But the DOE's reference to actual testing agrees
with the fact that, as soon as you turn the thermostat down, you begin
losing *stored* heat, and when you turn it back up, 100% of that lost heat
must be restored, regardless of actual thermal losses through the walls and
ceiling.

Yes, that *part* of it is a wash.