Hi,

I have always been an avid supporter of underfloor heating -- I don't
know anyone personally to have any complaints about them. However in
telling people here in Ireland that we installed it in a stone house
we are renovating, almost everybody is "appalled" and skeptical. They
tell us stories of people who have them installed and get them ripped
out soon afterwards because of the gas guzzling/high heating costs. I
can only think that in these bad experiences, the insulation under the
floor and on the walls is improperly done, but they insist that this
possibility is unlikely and that underfloor heating is an inherently
disastrous heating method. But I don't see how something that is so
successful and common elsewhere remains so successful if that is the
case. I'm tired of defending the choice we made with the heating :-(

Anybody have ideas on the possible sources of bad experiences/high
running costs with underfloor heating?

Thanks,
g

On 5 Sep 2003 10:52:40 -0700, (g) wrote:


they insist that this
possibility is unlikely and that underfloor heating is an inherently
disastrous heating method. But I don't see how something that is so
successful and common elsewhere remains so successful if that is the
case. I'm tired of defending the choice we made with the heating :-(

Anybody have ideas on the possible sources of bad experiences/high
running costs with underfloor heating.

Electric underfloor heating quite rightly got a bad name for cost and
poor installation as it was a favourite in a number of council built
houses in the 60's and, in true council fashion, was badly designed
and installed.

The experience with water systems is, as you say quite the reverse.
On a sample of 1 my neighbour and I have identically sized houses
built to more or less the same design and the same insulation
standards 10 years ago. Both were self build - he installed
conventional heating I used underfloor. Both use mains gas. The
pattern of occupation of both houses is similar but the heating costs
for mine are consistently 15-20% less than his.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

In message , Peter Parry
wrote

The
pattern of occupation of both houses is similar but the heating costs
for mine are consistently 15-20% less than his.


But surely no meaningful conclusion can be drawn from a sample of 2. I
have friends that want their house heated to temperatures that I find
uncomfortable - their house temperature may be only a few degrees
higher.

I know of some people that have tuned on the heating for short periods
to 'take the chill off' in the last week. My heating is still off.

--
Alan

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On 5 Sep 2003 10:52:40 -0700, (g) wrote:


they insist that this
possibility is unlikely and that underfloor heating is an inherently
disastrous heating method. But I don't see how something that is so
successful and common elsewhere remains so successful if that is the
case. I'm tired of defending the choice we made with the heating :-(

Anybody have ideas on the possible sources of bad experiences/high
running costs with underfloor heating.

Electric underfloor heating quite rightly
got a bad name for cost and
poor installation as it was a favourite in
a number of council built houses in the
60's and, in true council fashion, was badly designed
and installed.

Not correct. Most were in private homes. If gas is available councils
always went for gas fired heating as it is 1/4 of the price of electricity
to run.




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

"g" wrote in message
om...
Hi,

I have always been an avid supporter of underfloor heating -- I don't
know anyone personally to have any complaints about them. However in
telling people here in Ireland that we installed it in a stone house
we are renovating, almost everybody is "appalled" and skeptical. They
tell us stories of people who have them installed and get them ripped
out soon afterwards because of the gas guzzling/high heating costs. I
can only think that in these bad experiences, the insulation under the
floor and on the walls is improperly done, but they insist that this
possibility is unlikely and that underfloor heating is an inherently
disastrous heating method. But I don't see how something that is so
successful and common elsewhere remains so successful if that is the
case. I'm tired of defending the choice we made with the heating :-(

Anybody have ideas on the possible sources of bad experiences/high
running costs with underfloor heating?

In this months Selfbuild and Design mag there is an article on heating
systems by an eco expert. Underfloor heating was ruled out in poorly
insulted houses (which may be the case in Ireland) and only deemed suitable
in homes with, or just above, current building regs insulation levels. High
insulation levels were better suited to forced air heat recovery ventilation
systems.

The design of UFH has to be right, with no cold spots in the floors, "high"
insulation under the floors and "very" good control. A condensing boiler is
now virtually mandatory for economy. If all points are not right then it
may be a disaster.






---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 11:32:20 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
.. .

Electric underfloor heating quite rightly
got a bad name for cost and
poor installation as it was a favourite in
a number of council built houses in the
60's and, in true council fashion, was badly designed
and installed.

Not correct. Most were in private homes.

According to the BRI 80% of electric underfloor installations were in
public housing. During the Wilson Callaghan era there was a policy
of installing oil, gas and electricity in equal mixes in public
housing, the cheapest fuels were electricity and oil.

gas is available councils
always went for gas fired heating as it is 1/4 of the price of electricity
to run.

Not then.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 11:32:20 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
.. .

Electric underfloor heating quite rightly
got a bad name for cost and
poor installation as it was a favourite in
a number of council built houses in the
60's and, in true council fashion, was badly designed
and installed.

Not correct. Most were in private homes.

According to the BRI 80% of electric underfloor installations were in
public housing. During the Wilson Callaghan era there was a policy
of installing oil, gas and electricity in equal mixes in public
housing, the cheapest fuels were electricity and oil.

gas is available councils
always went for gas fired heating as it is 1/4 of the price of
electricity
to run.

Not then.

Gas has always been cheaper than electricity; in the past 40 years anyway.
My UFH electric system was in private house and I knew of few in public
housing. Public housing was going all warm air.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 16:33:49 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Peter Parry" wrote in message
.. .

According to the BRI 80% of electric underfloor installations were in
public housing. During the Wilson Callaghan era there was a policy
of installing oil, gas and electricity in equal mixes in public
housing, the cheapest fuels were electricity and oil.

Gas has always been cheaper than electricity; in the past 40 years anyway.

No it hasn't, oil has quite often been cheaper and in the 60's/70's
off peak electricity was cheaper at times.

My UFH electric system was in private house and I knew of few in public
housing.

Quite possibly, but your knowledge and reality are often a long way
apart.


--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

g wrote:

Hi,

I have always been an avid supporter of underfloor heating -- I don't
know anyone personally to have any complaints about them. However in
telling people here in Ireland that we installed it in a stone house
we are renovating, almost everybody is "appalled" and skeptical. They
tell us stories of people who have them installed and get them ripped
out soon afterwards because of the gas guzzling/high heating costs. I
can only think that in these bad experiences, the insulation under the
floor and on the walls is improperly done, but they insist that this
possibility is unlikely and that underfloor heating is an inherently
disastrous heating method. But I don't see how something that is so
successful and common elsewhere remains so successful if that is the
case. I'm tired of defending the choice we made with the heating :-(

Anybody have ideas on the possible sources of bad experiences/high
running costs with underfloor heating?



With decent insulation and a wet system - i.e. not electric - its pretty
close to a conventional system.

What I find is that teh longer delays mean it spends a fair time warming
up and colling down, and this represents a little bit of heat you
probably wouldn't have used if it came yup to temp faater.

Do a decent insulation job and go for it. If you want to be very clever,
bt in zone valves and thermostats for every room. Then buold a
controller than can cope with all of that on a different basis from the
rest of the CH.

Its possible to vastly overheat if you don't have some way of ensuring
each room is at the right temp.





Thanks,
g

IMM wrote:

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...

On 5 Sep 2003 10:52:40 -0700, (g) wrote:



they insist that this
possibility is unlikely and that underfloor heating is an inherently
disastrous heating method. But I don't see how something that is so
successful and common elsewhere remains so successful if that is the
case. I'm tired of defending the choice we made with the heating :-(

Anybody have ideas on the possible sources of bad experiences/high
running costs with underfloor heating.

Electric underfloor heating quite rightly
got a bad name for cost and
poor installation as it was a favourite in
a number of council built houses in the
60's and, in true council fashion, was badly designed
and installed.


Not correct. Most were in private homes. If gas is available councils
always went for gas fired heating as it is 1/4 of the price of electricity
to run.


So? It also costs about 3 times as much to install. Who pays for fiuel?
Who pays for installation?

Go figure (assuming your un snotty Uni taught you (a) the meaning of the
word and (b() how to do it).






---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

IMM wrote:

"g" wrote in message
om...

Hi,

I have always been an avid supporter of underfloor heating -- I don't
know anyone personally to have any complaints about them. However in
telling people here in Ireland that we installed it in a stone house
we are renovating, almost everybody is "appalled" and skeptical. They
tell us stories of people who have them installed and get them ripped
out soon afterwards because of the gas guzzling/high heating costs. I
can only think that in these bad experiences, the insulation under the
floor and on the walls is improperly done, but they insist that this
possibility is unlikely and that underfloor heating is an inherently
disastrous heating method. But I don't see how something that is so
successful and common elsewhere remains so successful if that is the
case. I'm tired of defending the choice we made with the heating :-(

Anybody have ideas on the possible sources of bad experiences/high
running costs with underfloor heating?


In this months Selfbuild and Design mag there is an article on heating
systems by an eco expert. Underfloor heating was ruled out in poorly
insulted houses (which may be the case in Ireland)


On the contrary, people have been insulting the Irish and their houses
for decades.

You must try harder to get your facts right. gamma minus.


(usual ill informed drivel deleted)

On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 22:28:23 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Peter Parry" wrote in message
news

I repeat: Gas has always been cheaper than electricity; in the past 40 years
anyway.

Repeating something ad nauseum does not make it true. Between 1968
and 1975 Gas was the most expensive fuel followed by coal then off
peak electricity and the cheapest was oil. During this period gas was
twice the price of oil and 50% more than electricity in cost. The
price of electricity rose between 1975 and 1976 and gas and
electricity became more or less equal in price and jointly the most
expensive fuels until 1980/81 when oil prices rose and oil became the
most expensive until 1985. In 1986 oil prices fell and oil became
the cheapest fuel again.

Gas prices fell and gas became the cheapest fuel between 1979 and
1982 when electricity became cheaper. Electricity remained cheaper
than gas between 1982 and 1990. Oil remained the cheapest heating
fuel from 1986 to 2000, Gas was the second cheapest between 1992 and
1999 and, for the first time since 1982, became the cheapest in 2000.

(Source- ONS Fuel Price Indices for the Domestic Sector 1970 - 2000)

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

IMM wrote:

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 16:33:49 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...

According to the BRI 80% of electric underfloor installations were in
public housing. During the Wilson Callaghan era there was a policy
of installing oil, gas and electricity in equal mixes in public
housing, the cheapest fuels were electricity and oil.

Gas has always been cheaper than electricity; in the past 40 years

anyway.

No it hasn't, oil has quite often been cheaper and in the 60's/70's


oil??


off peak electricity was cheaper at times.


I repeat: Gas has always been cheaper than electricity; in the past 40 years
anyway.



Some of us are older than you for a start.

Prior to notrh sea oil and gas, oil was often cheaper than gas.

Electricity ought to be always more expebnsive, but strange pricing
policies have made off peak occasionally cheaper than both.


(ad hminem drivel deleted)

Peter Parry wrote:

On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 22:28:23 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



"Peter Parry" wrote in message
news

I repeat: Gas has always been cheaper than electricity; in the past 40 years
anyway.


Repeating something ad nauseum does not make it true. Between 1968
and 1975 Gas was the most expensive fuel followed by coal then off
peak electricity and the cheapest was oil. During this period gas was
twice the price of oil and 50% more than electricity in cost. The
price of electricity rose between 1975 and 1976 and gas and
electricity became more or less equal in price and jointly the most
expensive fuels until 1980/81 when oil prices rose and oil became the
most expensive until 1985. In 1986 oil prices fell and oil became
the cheapest fuel again.

Gas prices fell and gas became the cheapest fuel between 1979 and
1982 when electricity became cheaper. Electricity remained cheaper
than gas between 1982 and 1990. Oil remained the cheapest heating
fuel from 1986 to 2000, Gas was the second cheapest between 1992 and
1999 and, for the first time since 1982, became the cheapest in 2000.

(Source- ONS Fuel Price Indices for the Domestic Sector 1970 - 2000)




(obviously written by some snotty uni bloke with shares in BP eh peter?)

Bring back nuclear power I say. Cheapests of the lot, no pollution and
greenhouse gases, infinitely renewable supplies of plutionium etc etc :-)

In this months Selfbuild and Design mag there is an article on heating
systems by an eco expert. Underfloor heating was ruled out in poorly
insulted houses (which may be the case in Ireland)

It's pointless for us to insulate cos we have to keep the kitchen door open
all the time to let the pigs run in and out.

Suzanne
The Irish are a fair people, they never speak well of one another.
Samuel Johnson

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 22:28:23 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Peter Parry" wrote in message
news

I repeat: Gas has always been cheaper than electricity; in the past 40
years
anyway.

Repeating something ad nauseum
does not make it true. Between 1968
and 1975 Gas was the most expensive
fuel

This is balls. Total balls. The reason gas took off was that it was cheap to
run, far cheaper than electricity. Oil fluctuated with Arab wars and
embargos.

snip misinformation




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 16:33:49 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...

According to the BRI 80% of electric underfloor installations were in
public housing. During the Wilson Callaghan era there was a policy
of installing oil, gas and electricity in equal mixes in public
housing, the cheapest fuels were electricity and oil.

Gas has always been cheaper than electricity; in the past 40 years

anyway.

No it hasn't, oil has quite often been cheaper and in the 60's/70's


oil??


off peak electricity was cheaper at times.


I repeat: Gas has always been cheaper than electricity; in the past 40
years
anyway.



Some of us are older than you for a start.

Prior to notrh sea oil and gas, oil was often cheaper than gas.

You have to focus. It was gas v lecky.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
Peter Parry wrote:

Gas prices fell and gas became the cheapest fuel between 1979 and
1982 when electricity became cheaper. Electricity remained cheaper
than gas between 1982 and 1990. Oil remained the cheapest heating
fuel from 1986 to 2000, Gas was the second cheapest between 1992 and
1999 and, for the first time since 1982, became the cheapest in 2000.
(Source- ONS Fuel Price Indices for the Domestic Sector 1970 - 2000)



(obviously written by some snotty uni bloke with shares in BP eh peter?)

Bring back nuclear power I say. Cheapests of the lot, no pollution and
greenhouse gases, infinitely renewable supplies of plutionium etc etc
:-)

And guaranteed work for years to come for the clean-up companies.

--
geoff

On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 21:13:01 +0100, Peter Parry
wrote:

On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 18:52:53 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Peter Parry" wrote in message
. ..


Repeating something ad nauseum
does not make it true. Between 1968
and 1975 Gas was the most expensive
fuel

This is balls. Total balls. The reason gas took off was that it was cheap to
run, far cheaper than electricity. Oil fluctuated with Arab wars and
embargos.

So you think the ONS have got it wrong? What is the source for your
assertion?

There is a PDF at

http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/inform/...nbrief2003.pdf

which confirms Peter's points. See pp20. The figures are
normalised at 1990 and go back to 1970 and forward to last year.

I think it must be right - it's too complicated for Alastair Campbell
to have written it.




..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 18:52:53 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Peter Parry" wrote in message
.. .


Repeating something ad nauseum
does not make it true. Between 1968
and 1975 Gas was the most expensive
fuel

This is balls. Total balls. The reason gas took off was that it was cheap
to
run, far cheaper than electricity. Oil fluctuated with Arab wars and
embargos.

So you think the ONS have got it wrong? What is the source for your
assertion?

Being there and doing it. In the late 1960s/early 70s people were
installing gas CH systems in houses fitted with electric underfloor heating
to keep bills down. Very nice in that if the gas CH was down the electric
UFH could be turned on.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
Peter Parry wrote:

Gas prices fell and gas became the cheapest fuel between 1979 and
1982 when electricity became cheaper. Electricity remained cheaper
than gas between 1982 and 1990. Oil remained the cheapest heating
fuel from 1986 to 2000, Gas was the second cheapest between 1992 and
1999 and, for the first time since 1982, became the cheapest in 2000.
(Source- ONS Fuel Price Indices for the Domestic Sector 1970 - 2000)

(obviously written by some snotty uni bloke with shares in BP eh peter?)

Bring back nuclear power I say. Cheapests of the lot, no pollution and
greenhouse gases, infinitely renewable supplies of plutionium etc etc
:-)

And guaranteed work for years to come for the clean-up companies.

And an eco time bomb under the ocean when al those containers corrode
through.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 21:13:01 +0100, Peter Parry
wrote:

On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 18:52:53 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Peter Parry" wrote in message
. ..


Repeating something ad nauseum
does not make it true. Between 1968
and 1975 Gas was the most expensive
fuel

This is balls. Total balls. The reason gas took off was that it was
cheap to
run, far cheaper than electricity. Oil fluctuated with Arab wars and
embargos.

So you think the ONS have got it wrong? What is the source for your
assertion?

There is a PDF at

http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/inform/...nbrief2003.pdf

which confirms Peter's points. See pp20. The figures are
normalised at 1990 and go back to 1970 and forward to last year.

It doesn't say what the prices represent. KW, therms. What? One thing is
for certain in the 1960/70s gas heating was going in like wildfire. Those
who could not afford it fitted gas fires. If electric was so cheap gas fires
would not have been sold at all,as electric fires were cheaper than gas and
no fitting expense. Gas was cheaper to run, that is why it took off like a
rocket in the 1960s - High Speed Gas, remember that?



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 21:13:01 +0100, Peter Parry
wrote:

On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 18:52:53 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Peter Parry" wrote in message
. ..


Repeating something ad nauseum
does not make it true. Between 1968
and 1975 Gas was the most expensive
fuel

This is balls. Total balls. The reason gas took off was that it was
cheap to
run, far cheaper than electricity. Oil fluctuated with Arab wars and
embargos.

So you think the ONS have got it wrong? What is the source for your
assertion?

There is a PDF at


http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/inform/...nbrief2003.pdf

which confirms Peter's points. See pp20. The figures are
normalised at 1990 and go back to 1970 and forward to last year.

It doesn't say what the prices represent. KW, therms. What? One thing
is
for certain in the 1960/70s gas heating was going in like wildfire. Those
who could not afford it fitted gas fires. If electric was so cheap gas
fires
would not have been sold at all,as electric fires were cheaper than gas
and
no fitting expense. Gas was cheaper to run, that is why it took off like a
rocket in the 1960s - High Speed Gas, remember that?

Have another look. According to page 20, in 2002 electricity is cheaper than
gas. As we all know this is balls. The graph is only projecting backwards
and forwards from 1990, which is very misleading.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 22:21:41 +0100, "IMM" wrote:




There is a PDF at

http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/inform/...nbrief2003.pdf

which confirms Peter's points. See pp20. The figures are
normalised at 1990 and go back to 1970 and forward to last year.

It doesn't say what the prices represent. KW, therms. What?

It doesn't matter. The figures are normalised to 100 at 1990 and all
the other figures and graphs are relative to that.

From the definitions on pp26:-

"Data relating to the energy content of fuels are on a gross calorific
value basis.
Prices are presented in real terms i.e. the effect of inflation has
been removed by adjusting each series using the GDP deflator."






One thing is
for certain in the 1960/70s gas heating was going in like wildfire. Those
who could not afford it fitted gas fires. If electric was so cheap gas fires
would not have been sold at all,as electric fires were cheaper than gas and
no fitting expense. Gas was cheaper to run, that is why it took off like a
rocket in the 1960s - High Speed Gas, remember that?



---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 22:40:38 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

There is a PDF at


http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/inform/...nbrief2003.pdf

which confirms Peter's points. See pp20. The figures are
normalised at 1990 and go back to 1970 and forward to last year.

It doesn't say what the prices represent. KW, therms. What? One thing
is
for certain in the 1960/70s gas heating was going in like wildfire. Those
who could not afford it fitted gas fires. If electric was so cheap gas
fires
would not have been sold at all,as electric fires were cheaper than gas
and
no fitting expense. Gas was cheaper to run, that is why it took off like a
rocket in the 1960s - High Speed Gas, remember that?

Have another look. According to page 20, in 2002 electricity is cheaper than
gas. As we all know this is balls. The graph is only projecting backwards
and forwards from 1990, which is very misleading.


There's no need. It's abundantly clear that this is normalised data
to 1990 and shows comparative prices.

You could normalise at any other date and easily calculate the
numbers.

There is a more detailed explanation at

http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/inform/...shtml#section2



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

IMM wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes

Peter Parry wrote:


Gas prices fell and gas became the cheapest fuel between 1979 and
1982 when electricity became cheaper. Electricity remained cheaper
than gas between 1982 and 1990. Oil remained the cheapest heating
fuel from 1986 to 2000, Gas was the second cheapest between 1992 and
1999 and, for the first time since 1982, became the cheapest in 2000.
(Source- ONS Fuel Price Indices for the Domestic Sector 1970 - 2000)


(obviously written by some snotty uni bloke with shares in BP eh peter?)

Bring back nuclear power I say. Cheapests of the lot, no pollution and
greenhouse gases, infinitely renewable supplies of plutionium etc etc
:-)


And guaranteed work for years to come for the clean-up companies.


And an eco time bomb under the ocean when al those containers corrode
through.




I dunno. Judging by the mutated look of most deep sea fish, that
happened years ago,



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003