Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Heating on all the time cheaper than off at night rumour
There seems to be floating about among some people I know online the
idea that keeping the central heating on all the time is cheaper than turning it off at night. Not sure where it comes from, but seeing as they all frequent the same/ related e-mail lists, maybe from there. The basic idea seems to be that it costs more to heat the house back up in the morning, than to keep it at the same temp. now I know it depends on things like internal and external temp (we have a programmable stat set at 12-13 C, it hardly seems to turn on except when down to about freezing outside from what I can tell), But in principle it seems rubbish, it must use more energy to keep something hot, than to let it cool and then reheat., but a couple of people had been hard to convince, esp. as a 'plumber told me it) Or is my brain addled?? :-) -- Chris French |
#2
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Heating on all the time cheaper than off at night rumour
On 19 Dec, 16:12, chris French
wrote: There seems to be floating about among some people I know online the idea that keeping the central heating on all the time is cheaper than turning it off at night. Not sure where it comes from, but seeing as they all frequent the same/ related e-mail lists, maybe from there. The basic idea seems to be that it costs more *to heat the house back up in the morning, than to keep it at the same temp. now I know it depends on things like internal and external temp (we have a programmable stat set at 12-13 C, it hardly seems to turn on except when down to about freezing outside from what I can tell), But in principle it seems rubbish, it must use more energy to keep something hot, than to let it cool and then reheat., but a couple of people had been hard to convince, esp. as a 'plumber told me it) Or is my brain addled?? :-) -- Chris French ISTR hearing that the story began with experiments on immersion heaters and was erroneously extrapolated to central heating which is, of course, completely different. Some time ago I carried out experiments both in my home and church heating systems. I concluded that there was very little in it in either case, but that it was slightly cheaper to switch off at night. It also depends, of course, whether you're in all day or just the evenings. You'll just have to experiment yourself. The hard bit is finding two periods with identical outside temperatures. Chris |
#4
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Heating on all the time cheaper than off at night rumour
On 19 Dec, 16:21, "Bob Eager" wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:41:51 UTC, wrote: ISTR hearing that the story began with experiments on immersion heaters and was erroneously extrapolated to central heating which is, of course, completely different. It's not valid for them anyway. You have something which, left to its own devices, loses heat over time. The rate of heat loss will reduce as its temperature gets nearer to that of its surroundings (heat transfer rate depends on difference in temperature). If left to cool, there is reducing heat loss over whatever time elapses. If kept at same temperature, there is heat loss over the same time, but it's constant (-ish) because the temperature difference does not reduce - i.e. more heat is lost over the same time. In both cases, that heat loss has to be made up. That's how much fuel/cost will be involved. More heat lost - more cost. -- The information contained in this post is copyright the poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by http://www.diybanter.com ISTR there was some point about older (solid wall) houses that fair worse if unheated for periods as the walls get damp from rain etc and so become even worse at insulating until they are dried out again - which takes more heat than if they were kept up to temp (and losing heat) throughout same period - even so still seems a bit "mathematical" to me to be relied on..... Jim |
#5
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Heating on all the time cheaper than off at night rumour
jim wrote:
On 19 Dec, 16:21, "Bob Eager" wrote: On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:41:51 UTC, wrote: ISTR hearing that the story began with experiments on immersion heaters and was erroneously extrapolated to central heating which is, of course, completely different. It's not valid for them anyway. You have something which, left to its own devices, loses heat over time. The rate of heat loss will reduce as its temperature gets nearer to that of its surroundings (heat transfer rate depends on difference in temperature). If left to cool, there is reducing heat loss over whatever time elapses. If kept at same temperature, there is heat loss over the same time, but it's constant (-ish) because the temperature difference does not reduce - i.e. more heat is lost over the same time. In both cases, that heat loss has to be made up. That's how much fuel/cost will be involved. More heat lost - more cost. ISTR there was some point about older (solid wall) houses that fair worse if unheated for periods as the walls get damp from rain etc and so become even worse at insulating until they are dried out again - which takes more heat than if they were kept up to temp (and losing heat) throughout same period - even so still seems a bit "mathematical" to me to be relied on..... Jim But switching the heating off overnight doesnt see a house lose much temperature. To get the effect you mention it would need to be off a month or more. NT |
#6
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Heating on all the time cheaper than off at night rumour
|
#7
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Heating on all the time cheaper than off at night rumour
"Bob Eager" wrote in message ... On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:41:51 UTC, wrote: ISTR hearing that the story began with experiments on immersion heaters and was erroneously extrapolated to central heating which is, of course, completely different. It's not valid for them anyway. You have something which, left to its own devices, loses heat over time. The rate of heat loss will reduce as its temperature gets nearer to that of its surroundings (heat transfer rate depends on difference in temperature). If left to cool, there is reducing heat loss over whatever time elapses. If kept at same temperature, there is heat loss over the same time, but it's constant (-ish) because the temperature difference does not reduce - i.e. more heat is lost over the same time. In both cases, that heat loss has to be made up. That's how much fuel/cost will be involved. More heat lost - more cost. I'm confused. Is that a yes or a no to the original question? tim |
#8
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Heating on all the time cheaper than off at night rumour
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 19:18:04 UTC, "tim....."
wrote: "Bob Eager" wrote in message ... On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:41:51 UTC, wrote: ISTR hearing that the story began with experiments on immersion heaters and was erroneously extrapolated to central heating which is, of course, completely different. It's not valid for them anyway. You have something which, left to its own devices, loses heat over time. The rate of heat loss will reduce as its temperature gets nearer to that of its surroundings (heat transfer rate depends on difference in temperature). If left to cool, there is reducing heat loss over whatever time elapses. If kept at same temperature, there is heat loss over the same time, but it's constant (-ish) because the temperature difference does not reduce - i.e. more heat is lost over the same time. In both cases, that heat loss has to be made up. That's how much fuel/cost will be involved. More heat lost - more cost. I'm confused. Is that a yes or a no to the original question? In summary - anyone who says that it's cheaper to leave it on, rather than turn it off and then heat it up again later, is talking nonsense. No matter whether it's an immersion heater, central heating or whatever. -- The information contained in this post is copyright the poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by http://www.diybanter.com |
#9
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Heating on all the time cheaper than off at night rumour
"Bob Eager" wrote in message ... On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 19:18:04 UTC, "tim....." wrote: "Bob Eager" wrote in message ... On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:41:51 UTC, wrote: ISTR hearing that the story began with experiments on immersion heaters and was erroneously extrapolated to central heating which is, of course, completely different. It's not valid for them anyway. You have something which, left to its own devices, loses heat over time. The rate of heat loss will reduce as its temperature gets nearer to that of its surroundings (heat transfer rate depends on difference in temperature). If left to cool, there is reducing heat loss over whatever time elapses. If kept at same temperature, there is heat loss over the same time, but it's constant (-ish) because the temperature difference does not reduce - i.e. more heat is lost over the same time. In both cases, that heat loss has to be made up. That's how much fuel/cost will be involved. More heat lost - more cost. I'm confused. Is that a yes or a no to the original question? In summary - anyone who says that it's cheaper to leave it on, rather than turn it off and then heat it up again later, is talking nonsense. No matter whether it's an immersion heater, central heating or whatever. That's what I thought, but it wasn't clear tim |
#10
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Heating on all the time cheaper than off at night rumour
Bob Eager wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 19:18:04 UTC, "tim....." wrote: "Bob Eager" wrote in message ... On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:41:51 UTC, wrote: ISTR hearing that the story began with experiments on immersion heaters and was erroneously extrapolated to central heating which is, of course, completely different. It's not valid for them anyway. You have something which, left to its own devices, loses heat over time. The rate of heat loss will reduce as its temperature gets nearer to that of its surroundings (heat transfer rate depends on difference in temperature). If left to cool, there is reducing heat loss over whatever time elapses. If kept at same temperature, there is heat loss over the same time, but it's constant (-ish) because the temperature difference does not reduce - i.e. more heat is lost over the same time. In both cases, that heat loss has to be made up. That's how much fuel/cost will be involved. More heat lost - more cost. I'm confused. Is that a yes or a no to the original question? In summary - anyone who says that it's cheaper to leave it on, rather than turn it off and then heat it up again later, is talking nonsense. No matter whether it's an immersion heater, central heating or whatever. Well if the boiler was 100% efficient, and constant efficiency, yes. However that's not the case in the real world. The other issue is diifferential heating: houses coming up to temperature may have some parts hotter than need be, that will lose more heat, depending where the thermostats are. |
#11
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Heating on all the time cheaper than off at night rumour
"Bob Eager" wrote in message ... On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:41:51 UTC, wrote: ISTR hearing that the story began with experiments on immersion heaters and was erroneously extrapolated to central heating which is, of course, completely different. It's not valid for them anyway. You have something which, left to its own devices, loses heat over time. The rate of heat loss will reduce as its temperature gets nearer to that of its surroundings (heat transfer rate depends on difference in temperature). If left to cool, there is reducing heat loss over whatever time elapses. If kept at same temperature, there is heat loss over the same time, but it's constant (-ish) because the temperature difference does not reduce - i.e. more heat is lost over the same time. In both cases, that heat loss has to be made up. That's how much fuel/cost will be involved. More heat lost - more cost. If you can do the maths you will find its always cheaper to turn it off and reheat unless you have a very odd tariff. As it cools it loses less heat so it will always lose less heat over the same period when off than when on. This is true for CH and immersion heaters. |
#12
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Heating on all the time cheaper than off at night rumour
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 08:03:43 UTC, "dennis@home"
wrote: "Bob Eager" wrote in message ... On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:41:51 UTC, wrote: ISTR hearing that the story began with experiments on immersion heaters and was erroneously extrapolated to central heating which is, of course, completely different. It's not valid for them anyway. You have something which, left to its own devices, loses heat over time. The rate of heat loss will reduce as its temperature gets nearer to that of its surroundings (heat transfer rate depends on difference in temperature). If left to cool, there is reducing heat loss over whatever time elapses. If kept at same temperature, there is heat loss over the same time, but it's constant (-ish) because the temperature difference does not reduce - i.e. more heat is lost over the same time. In both cases, that heat loss has to be made up. That's how much fuel/cost will be involved. More heat lost - more cost. If you can do the maths you will find its always cheaper to turn it off and reheat unless you have a very odd tariff. As it cools it loses less heat so it will always lose less heat over the same period when off than when on. This is true for CH and immersion heaters. Which is what I said. -- The information contained in this post is copyright the poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by http://www.diybanter.com |
#13
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Heating on all the time cheaper than off at night rumour
If you can do the maths you will find its always cheaper to turn it off
and reheat unless you have a very odd tariff. I think that is an interesting point, and may be behind the "immersion heater" story. With a well insulated tank, and a policy of taking a large bath every evening, and on "Economy 7", you might a disbenefit in switching off for part of the "cheap energy" window. |
#14
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Heating on all the time cheaper than off at night rumour
wrote in message ... On 19 Dec, 16:12, chris French wrote: There seems to be floating about among some people I know online the idea that keeping the central heating on all the time is cheaper than turning it off at night. Not sure where it comes from, but seeing as they all frequent the same/ related e-mail lists, maybe from there. The basic idea seems to be that it costs more to heat the house back up in the morning, than to keep it at the same temp. now I know it depends on things like internal and external temp (we have a programmable stat set at 12-13 C, it hardly seems to turn on except when down to about freezing outside from what I can tell), But in principle it seems rubbish, it must use more energy to keep something hot, than to let it cool and then reheat., but a couple of people had been hard to convince, esp. as a 'plumber told me it) Or is my brain addled?? :-) -- Chris French ISTR hearing that the story began with experiments on immersion heaters and was erroneously extrapolated to central heating which is, of course, completely different. -------------------------------------------------------------------- so what was the result of the immersion heater and in what way was it completely different (I agree that it is, I interested in what the tester thought was the difference) tim |
#15
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Heating on all the time cheaper than off at night rumour
chris French wrote:
There seems to be floating about among some people I know online the idea that keeping the central heating on all the time is cheaper than turning it off at night. Not sure where it comes from, but seeing as they all frequent the same/ related e-mail lists, maybe from there. The basic idea seems to be that it costs more to heat the house back up in the morning, than to keep it at the same temp. now I know it depends on things like internal and external temp (we have a programmable stat set at 12-13 C, it hardly seems to turn on except when down to about freezing outside from what I can tell), But in principle it seems rubbish, it must use more energy to keep something hot, than to let it cool and then reheat., but a couple of people had been hard to convince, esp. as a 'plumber told me it) Or is my brain addled?? :-) The rate of heat loss from a system always increases as the temperature difference between inside and outside increases. In fact it's pretty much proportional to that difference. You therefore MUST always use more energy keeping that temperature difference constantly high than letting it cool for a while and reheating it again as needed. However with a reasonably well insulated house the net extra cost is very low. If we assume in cold weather an 18 degree C difference between inside and outside when the heat is on, 16 hours of heat on during the day and 8 with it off overnight and a 4 degree total drop in temp of the house overnight (i.e. an average of 2 degrees) the net extra cost of keeping the heating on all the time is only about 4%. That's less than you'd save just turning the thermostat temperature down by 1 degree. For a poorly insulated house the savings would be greater but still not very much. For the saving to be as much as 10% the house temperature would have to drop by 10 degrees C overnight for which you'd probably have to leave all the windows open. As with most things where some people think one thing and some another the reason is simple. There's not much difference in the two approaches. The two biggest influences on heating costs are the temperature you set and the insulation of the house. Turning the heat off at night is negligible in comparison to either of those. -- Dave Baker |
#16
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Heating on all the time cheaper than off at night rumour
"Dave Baker" wrote in message ... 8 However with a reasonably well insulated house the net extra cost is very low. If we assume in cold weather an 18 degree C difference between inside and outside when the heat is on, 16 hours of heat on during the day and 8 with it off overnight and a 4 degree total drop in temp of the house overnight (i.e. an average of 2 degrees) the net extra cost of keeping the heating on all the time is only about 4%. That's less than you'd save just turning the thermostat temperature down by 1 degree. Sorry but that does not make sense. If its off for 8 hours out of 24 you will save nearly one third. You may save more as it usually colder at night and will use more energy than in the day. It will take slightly more energy to raise the temp back to the norm in the morning but it shouldn't take much. |
#17
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Heating on all the time cheaper than off at night rumour
dennis@home wrote:
"Dave Baker" wrote in message ... 8 However with a reasonably well insulated house the net extra cost is very low. If we assume in cold weather an 18 degree C difference between inside and outside when the heat is on, 16 hours of heat on during the day and 8 with it off overnight and a 4 degree total drop in temp of the house overnight (i.e. an average of 2 degrees) the net extra cost of keeping the heating on all the time is only about 4%. That's less than you'd save just turning the thermostat temperature down by 1 degree. Sorry but that does not make sense. If its off for 8 hours out of 24 you will save nearly one third. You may save more as it usually colder at night and will use more energy than in the day. It will take slightly more energy to raise the temp back to the norm in the morning but it shouldn't take much. I agree with your sound logic, in theory the heat losses (and hence energy costs) through the night will be higher if the house is heated but a recent check on meter readings suggest that the case might not be quite so straightforward. We have the heating set to run from 08:00 to 23:30. The overnight set point is 13C so it's effectively turned off overnight unless the weather gets very cold. The programmer uses optimum start so I don't know exactly what time it normally starts up but the maximum advance is 2 hours so I'll assume it starts up on average a bit less than this at 06:30 (I certainly don't intend waking up at 06:00 to find out). Average gas consumption for the last week has been about 300 ft^3 per day but extra meter readings last thing at night and at about 08:00 for a couple of nights show that about 100 ft^3 are consumed each morning in bringing the house back up to temperature leaving 200ft^3 for the remaining 15.5 hours, i.e. 200/15.5 = 12.9 ft^3 per hour to maintain a steady temperature. So if we left the heating on all the time the daily consumption would be 12.9x24 = 309.6 ft^3 - remarkably close to what we're using already. O.K. the losses through the night would be a bit higher due to the outside temperature being lower but I don't expect it would make a huge difference. I don't intend to put it to the test though because we don't like sleeping in a hot bedroom but don't want to turn the bedroom TRV down because we want the room to have warmed up by the time we have to get up in the morning. -- Mike Clarke |
#18
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Heating on all the time cheaper than off at night rumour
The message
from Mike Clarke contains these words: Sorry but that does not make sense. If its off for 8 hours out of 24 you will save nearly one third. You may save more as it usually colder at night and will use more energy than in the day. It will take slightly more energy to raise the temp back to the norm in the morning but it shouldn't take much. I agree with your sound logic, in theory the heat losses (and hence energy costs) through the night will be higher if the house is heated but a recent check on meter readings suggest that the case might not be quite so straightforward. Hardly sound logic to suggest that the heat needed to rewarm the house is minimal. We have the heating set to run from 08:00 to 23:30. The overnight set point is 13C so it's effectively turned off overnight unless the weather gets very cold. The programmer uses optimum start so I don't know exactly what time it normally starts up but the maximum advance is 2 hours so I'll assume it starts up on average a bit less than this at 06:30 (I certainly don't intend waking up at 06:00 to find out). Average gas consumption for the last week has been about 300 ft^3 per day but extra meter readings last thing at night and at about 08:00 for a couple of nights show that about 100 ft^3 are consumed each morning in bringing the house back up to temperature leaving 200ft^3 for the remaining 15.5 hours, i.e. 200/15.5 = 12.9 ft^3 per hour to maintain a steady temperature. So if we left the heating on all the time the daily consumption would be 12.9x24 = 309.6 ft^3 - remarkably close to what we're using already. O.K. the losses through the night would be a bit higher due to the outside temperature being lower but I don't expect it would make a huge difference. I don't intend to put it to the test though because we don't like sleeping in a hot bedroom but don't want to turn the bedroom TRV down because we want the room to have warmed up by the time we have to get up in the morning. Consider a really simplified model in which the outside temperature is constant and the house requires a single unit to keep it up to temperature and loses one degree for every hour without heat. Heating on for 24 hours would require 24 units. Heating on for 16 hours would require 16 units plus whatever it takes to get it back up to temperature. In our simplistic model the temperature loss is 8 degrees which requires 8 units to reverse. 16 + 8 = 24. So no saving. In the real world there is a small saving because the heat loss is a function of the temperature difference so during the time the heating is off the rate of heat loss will decay. -- Roger Chapman |
#19
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Heating on all the time cheaper than off at night rumour
"roger" wrote in message ... The message from Mike Clarke contains these words: Sorry but that does not make sense. If its off for 8 hours out of 24 you will save nearly one third. You may save more as it usually colder at night and will use more energy than in the day. It will take slightly more energy to raise the temp back to the norm in the morning but it shouldn't take much. I agree with your sound logic, in theory the heat losses (and hence energy costs) through the night will be higher if the house is heated but a recent check on meter readings suggest that the case might not be quite so straightforward. Hardly sound logic to suggest that the heat needed to rewarm the house is minimal. We have the heating set to run from 08:00 to 23:30. The overnight set point is 13C so it's effectively turned off overnight unless the weather gets very cold. The programmer uses optimum start so I don't know exactly what time it normally starts up but the maximum advance is 2 hours so I'll assume it starts up on average a bit less than this at 06:30 (I certainly don't intend waking up at 06:00 to find out). Average gas consumption for the last week has been about 300 ft^3 per day but extra meter readings last thing at night and at about 08:00 for a couple of nights show that about 100 ft^3 are consumed each morning in bringing the house back up to temperature leaving 200ft^3 for the remaining 15.5 hours, i.e. 200/15.5 = 12.9 ft^3 per hour to maintain a steady temperature. So if we left the heating on all the time the daily consumption would be 12.9x24 = 309.6 ft^3 - remarkably close to what we're using already. O.K. the losses through the night would be a bit higher due to the outside temperature being lower but I don't expect it would make a huge difference. I don't intend to put it to the test though because we don't like sleeping in a hot bedroom but don't want to turn the bedroom TRV down because we want the room to have warmed up by the time we have to get up in the morning. Consider a really simplified model in which the outside temperature is constant and the house requires a single unit to keep it up to temperature and loses one degree for every hour without heat. Heating on for 24 hours would require 24 units. Heating on for 16 hours would require 16 units plus whatever it takes to get it back up to temperature. In our simplistic model the temperature loss is 8 degrees which requires 8 units to reverse. 16 + 8 = 24. So no saving. In the real world there is a small saving because the heat loss is a function of the temperature difference so during the time the heating is off the rate of heat loss will decay. In the real world you have to take into account the heat capacity to work out how long it takes to reheat the house, not the heat loss. I.e. your simple model doesn't work. |
#20
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Heating on all the time cheaper than off at night rumour
roger wrote:
Consider a really simplified model in which the outside temperature is constant and the house requires a single unit to keep it up to temperature and loses one degree for every hour without heat. Heating on for 24 hours would require 24 units. Heating on for 16 hours would require 16 units plus whatever it takes to get it back up to temperature. In our simplistic model the temperature loss is 8 degrees which requires 8 units to reverse. 16 + 8 = 24. So no saving. Now consider the actual boiler output. The plus whatever it takes to get it back to temperature may push teh boiler into continuous flat out mode. How much less efficient is it then? Or you may have to raise the outlet temperature to get it to warm up faster. More loss of effiiency. Analsysing transient conditions using steady state analysis is a very precarious exercise. In the real world there is a small saving because the heat loss is a function of the temperature difference so during the time the heating is off the rate of heat loss will decay. Don't be too sure. Red hot rads heating up room against a cold wall, lose a lot of heat..then the wall itself gets locally very hot leading to more heat losses through that part of it. Until the room stabilises. The more concentrated the heat and the higher temp the heat the more there is a chance of excess loss over simple steady state analysis. what about ultra hot feed pipes in the loft? sure they are insulated, but the hotter they are, the more they lose.. The better your insulation the more likely you are to get little benefit from time switching and actually stray into excess transient losses. |
#21
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Heating on all the time cheaper than off at night rumour
On 19 Dec, 16:16, "Dave Baker" wrote:
For a poorly insulated house the savings would be greater but still not very much. For the saving to be as much as 10% the house temperature would have to drop by 10 degrees C overnight for which you'd probably have to leave all the windows open. Oh dear, ours can easily drop from 22C down to 12C overnight with no heating (this is with outside temps above freezing, we're in centralish London, with rarely a frost). Single-glazed sash windows are probably to blame, along with less-than-optimal loft insulation. |
#22
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Heating on all the time cheaper than off at night rumour
"chris French" wrote in message ... There seems to be floating about among some people I know online the idea that keeping the central heating on all the time is cheaper than turning it off at night. Not sure where it comes from, but seeing as they all frequent the same/ related e-mail lists, maybe from there. The basic idea seems to be that it costs more to heat the house back up in the morning, than to keep it at the same temp. now I know it depends on things like internal and external temp (we have a programmable stat set at 12-13 C, it hardly seems to turn on except when down to about freezing outside from what I can tell), But in principle it seems rubbish, it must use more energy to keep something hot, than to let it cool and then reheat., but a couple of people had been hard to convince, esp. as a 'plumber told me it) Or is my brain addled?? :-) -- Chris French Yes - it's a load of tommyrot - obviously more energy used keeping it hot all the time. Now I did work in an oil refinery where if they let the pipes cool it got very expensive, as the tarry gunge set solid, never to move again G AWEM |
#23
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Heating on all the time cheaper than off at night rumour
On Dec 19, 1:16*pm, "Andrew Mawson"
wrote: "chris French" wrote in message ... There seems to be floating about among some people I know online the idea that keeping the central heating on all the time is cheaper than turning it off at night. Not sure where it comes from, but seeing as they all frequent the same/ related e-mail lists, maybe from there. The basic idea seems to be that it costs more *to heat the house back up in the morning, than to keep it at the same temp. now I know it depends on things like internal and external temp (we have a programmable stat set at 12-13 C, it hardly seems to turn on except when down to about freezing outside from what I can tell), But in principle it seems rubbish, it must use more energy to keep something hot, than to let it cool and then reheat., but a couple of people had been hard to convince, esp. as a 'plumber told me it) Or is my brain addled?? :-) -- Chris French Yes - it's a load of tommyrot - obviously more energy used keeping it hot all the time. Now I did work in an oil refinery where if they let the pipes cool it got very expensive, as the tarry gunge set solid, never to move again G AWEM- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Well right now it's minus 8 C outside (it was minus 12 earlier today). Inside it's somewhat less than plus 20 degrees. Probably around 67 F. When retiring in a couple of hours time will definitely turn down the thermostats in the two rooms we use most. And the TV will be off so it's wasted heat will not be present either. The temp. since it is not all windy tonight will drop slowly and by morning the house will be cooler by quite a few degrees and thus losing less heat per unit of time than right now while I am still up and about. It won't take long, maybe half an hour with the thermostats turned back up, in the morning for the two or three most used living areas to warm back up. And if I was leaving for the day I might even leave them turned down until returning tomorrow evening! As a single retiree home most of the time it is possible to keep thermostats in the less used rooms turned lower. A basement workshop, and an attached storeroom garage are only heated occasionally when in use. The bathroom has a row of six inefficient 40 watt bulbs; much of the time since they are on when bathroom is in use they are sufficient to heat the room so the 500 watt electric baseboard heater rarely cuts in. It's quite obvious that one heats the areas necessary to the degree needed and anything more costs more to heat. At any temperature the heat loss from wind IS a significant factor; not so much because wood frame houses here are leaky, they are not. If anything are often too well sealed and must use air/heat exchangers; but because wind carries away heat from the structure. |
#24
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Heating on all the time cheaper than off at night rumour
terry wrote:
It's quite obvious that one heats the areas necessary to the degree needed and anything more costs more to heat. At any temperature the heat loss from wind IS a significant factor; not so much because wood frame houses here are leaky, they are not. If anything are often too well sealed and must use air/heat exchangers; but because wind carries away heat from the structure. It is NOT obvious that 'heating fast' is as boiler efficient as 'keeping warm'. It is NOT obvious that 'heating fast' will not in many cases overshoot the 'needed temperature' by quite a margin. If parts of the structure take longer to warm up. This is a case where simplistic analysis fails, because the devils are in the details. The other case we discussed here recently and was very hard to pin down, was 'what is the most fuel efficient way to accelerate a car to its cruising speed'. Popular myth has it 'as gently as possible' simplistic analysis says that since the energy gained is constant, it doesn't matter whether its a short sharp burst or a prolonged gentle shove. Detailed analysis implies its about operating the car engine in its most efficient part of the power band. Which in the case of a petrol engine is assuredly NOT low throttle setting at low RPM. Although possibly it is for a Diesel. Nor yet full revs and wide open ;-) |
#25
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Heating on all the time cheaper than off at night rumour
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
terry wrote: It's quite obvious that one heats the areas necessary to the degree needed and anything more costs more to heat. At any temperature the heat loss from wind IS a significant factor; not so much because wood frame houses here are leaky, they are not. If anything are often too well sealed and must use air/heat exchangers; but because wind carries away heat from the structure. It is NOT obvious that 'heating fast' is as boiler efficient as 'keeping warm'. It is NOT obvious that 'heating fast' will not in many cases overshoot the 'needed temperature' by quite a margin. If parts of the structure take longer to warm up. This is a case where simplistic analysis fails, because the devils are in the details. The other case we discussed here recently and was very hard to pin down, was 'what is the most fuel efficient way to accelerate a car to its cruising speed'. Popular myth has it 'as gently as possible' simplistic analysis says that since the energy gained is constant, it doesn't matter whether its a short sharp burst or a prolonged gentle shove. Detailed analysis implies its about operating the car engine in its most efficient part of the power band. Which in the case of a petrol engine is assuredly NOT low throttle setting at low RPM. Although possibly it is for a Diesel. Nor yet full revs and wide open ;-) It also appears to me that the room (well, our lounge) feels warmer when the radiator is hot (rather than warm). Letting the room cool down, then heating up relatively fiercely can *feel* warmer than keeping it at a steady state. Very difficult to factor in things like that with any degree of accuracy. Many years ago, Porsche were reported as having done fuel economy tests in town. Result: Best economy achieved by accelerating fairly briskly to around 30, then keeping steady speed. As TNP wrote, nothing is obvious in the real world. -- Rod Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious onset. Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed. www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org |
#26
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Heating on all the time cheaper than off at night rumour
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 16:16:44 -0000, "Andrew Mawson"
wrote: Now I did work in an oil refinery where if they let the pipes cool it got very expensive, as the tarry gunge set solid, never to move again G So would they actually have to cut away the pipes and replace or could they get them clear somehow? Dad mentioned something similar the other day. Apparently it's just as inconvenient when a ship hold (Shell tankers in his case) full of something that should be liquid (like pitch or tar I think he said) goes solid. They normally pumped steam through pipes in the tanks when the sea / outside temp dropped below a certain point and this would keep the cargo liquid. However if the heating system failed (or they forgot to turn it on) and the cargo did go solid, the steam heating system wasn't able to take it back to liquid again (poor convection) and it would all have to be cut out by hand. :-( T i m |
#27
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Heating on all the time cheaper than off at night rumour
In article , chris French
writes There seems to be floating about among some people I know online the idea that keeping the central heating on all the time is cheaper than turning it off at night. But in principle it seems rubbish, it must use more energy to keep something hot, than to let it cool and then reheat., Of course you are right. but a couple of people had been hard to convince, esp. as a 'plumber told me it) Arguing with idiots is seldom satisfying. -- fred BBC3, ITV2/3/4, channels going to the DOGs |
#28
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Heating on all the time cheaper than off at night rumour
"chris French" wrote in message ... There seems to be floating about among some people I know online the idea that keeping the central heating on all the time is cheaper than turning it off at night. Not sure where it comes from, but seeing as they all frequent the same/ related e-mail lists, maybe from there. The basic idea seems to be that it costs more to heat the house back up in the morning, than to keep it at the same temp. now I know it depends on things like internal and external temp (we have a programmable stat set at 12-13 C, it hardly seems to turn on except when down to about freezing outside from what I can tell), But in principle it seems rubbish, it must use more energy to keep something hot, than to let it cool and then reheat., but a couple of people had been hard to convince, esp. as a 'plumber told me it) I discovered that in my, very leaky, house if I had the heating off whilst I was out all day (or asleep), when I wanted it back on in order to make the room warm enough, quickly enough, I had to turn the boiler temperature up and that this did use more gas. So, in order to make the room warm enough when I got home (awake), using the normal boiler temp, I set the heating to come hours before and it still wasn't warm enough. I progressively made the "on" time earlier and earlier until it ended up only being off for about 2 hours in the day and 4 at night. I gave up at that point and it's now on all day, costing me about half a meter unit a day. tim |
#29
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Heating on all the time cheaper than off at night rumour
chris French wrote:
There seems to be floating about among some people I know online the idea that keeping the central heating on all the time is cheaper than turning it off at night. Not sure where it comes from, but seeing as they all frequent the same/ related e-mail lists, maybe from there. The basic idea seems to be that it costs more to heat the house back up in the morning, than to keep it at the same temp. now I know it depends on things like internal and external temp (we have a programmable stat set at 12-13 C, it hardly seems to turn on except when down to about freezing outside from what I can tell), But in principle it seems rubbish, it must use more energy to keep something hot, than to let it cool and then reheat., but a couple of people had been hard to convince, esp. as a 'plumber told me it) Or is my brain addled?? :-) I've heard one reasonable idea for when this might be true - in obscure circumstances. If when cool the walls drop below the dewpoint they will start soaking up water. Wet walls are not as good an insulator as dry ones. So if when the heating is off your walls start getting damp, then *and only then* it might be worth leaving the heating on. Or more likely, buying a dehumidifier to keep the mould under control! Andy |
#30
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Heating on all the time cheaper than off at night rumour
chris French wrote:
There seems to be floating about among some people I know online the idea that keeping the central heating on all the time is cheaper than turning it off at night. Not sure where it comes from, but seeing as they all frequent the same/ related e-mail lists, maybe from there. The basic idea seems to be that it costs more to heat the house back up in the morning, than to keep it at the same temp. now I know it depends on things like internal and external temp (we have a programmable stat set at 12-13 C, it hardly seems to turn on except when down to about freezing outside from what I can tell), But in principle it seems rubbish, it must use more energy to keep something hot, than to let it cool and then reheat., but a couple of people had been hard to convince, esp. as a 'plumber told me it) Or is my brain addled?? :-) The devil is in the detail, and whether your boiler is markedly more efficient at a nice slow trickle of heat than a full bore blast to get a cold house warm I did a few calcs on this and by and large if your house has a fairly large thermal mass, there isn't a lot on it either way, if its cardboard and rockwool, then the balance tends to tip in favour of only heating it when you need it, as the warm up time is pretty fast. BUT if yor biler is markedly less efficient at flat out heating the balance even there tips the other way,. i finally gave up worrying about it. |
#31
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Heating on all the time cheaper than off at night rumour
Quite apart from any considerations of cost etc., IMO it is bad for
the health to be subjected to constant temperature. The human organism needs change in all things... J^n |
#32
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Heating on all the time cheaper than off at night rumour
jkn wrote:
Quite apart from any considerations of cost etc., IMO it is bad for the health to be subjected to constant temperature. The human organism needs change in all things... J^n Well the healthiests time of my life was at college with a wonderful free and totally overspecced central heatings system. |
#33
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Heating on all the time cheaper than off at night rumour
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Well the healthiests time of my life was at college with a wonderful free and totally overspecced central heatings system. That's not the heating, that's because ethanol is an antiseptic. Andy |
#34
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Heating on all the time cheaper than off at night rumour
Andy Champ wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote: Well the healthiests time of my life was at college with a wonderful free and totally overspecced central heatings system. That's not the heating, that's because ethanol is an antiseptic. Andy I suspect it was the antibiotic value of cannabis actually. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Infared light for night time | UK diy | |||
Centreal Heating Boiler on all Night!!? | Home Repair | |||
Cheaper to set back heat pump at night or leave it? | Home Ownership | |||
Cheaper to set back heat pump at night or leave at same temp? | Home Repair | |||
Crappy night-time economy 7 electric heaters | UK diy |