I heard an engineer on radio recently state that it is more economical to leave heating on for longer periods at a lower temperature than have it come on for shorter periods at higher temperature. He suggested that having the heating come on for short periods overnight in winter saves money as less overall heating is required to raise internal temperature from very low (when heating is left off for long periods) to comfortable. Is this true? What is the most economical way to use home heating? I currently have an oil burner.
2006-08-01 00:40:10 · 9 answers · asked by phil_intime 1 in Environment
Long and low is best. Have you a condensing type boiler? They are very efficient. Also what type of heating? We have oil fired condensing boiler with underfloor heating. Have solar panels to preheat water as well.
Have a 3000 sq ft house and cost me £300 last year to have house very comfortable all the time.
Also you don't get the same maintenance costs if you leave your boiler on low. Also make sure you get the boiler serviced every year without fail.
2006-08-01 00:44:33 · answer #1 · answered by Storm Rider 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Most if not all of the energy you spent is ultimately turned into heat - only if some hydrocarbons leave the chimney unburned, you have less than 100% efficiency. But you also loose energy when hot smoke and steam leaves the chimney.
It's possible that your heating system works better (allows less energy to escape via the chimney) if you keep the temperature as constant as possible. This would really depend on the kind of heating you have. If you have electrical heating, this is not an issue and you should just keep your house as cold as is bearable for you, your pets, your plants and the building etc.
Another issue is that heat gradients cause air to move which may subjectively be felt as lower temperature. This might be a case for avoiding a too sudden heating in the morning.
2006-08-01 08:01:31 · answer #2 · answered by helene_thygesen 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Best way, is to buy a programmable T-stat. Set for 68°F during the day, and set to 66°F during away and night times, and set the thermostat to swing about 3°F. This will save money on your fuel. Additional fuel savings can come at a slight increase of electricity if you have a forced air(fan) in your furnace, by running your fan all the time. This keeps air circulating constantly through your home. Fuel savings will be greater than added electrical costs. In the winter it is always cheaper to set your thermostat as low as you can be comfortable. Never set a programmable thermostat back more than 3°F during away/sleep periods.
2006-08-01 07:49:58 · answer #3 · answered by Scott M 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Great question but one which I don't truly know the correct answer. But, I have heard this one as well and wasn't sure if I was having my leg pulled either.
I got told that it takes less energy to keep a boiler (for water and/or heating) hot than it does if you keep letting it go cold (overnight for example) and then having to use loads of energy to re-heat it again in the morning.
I swung to the 'leave it on permanently' brigade but have never changed my timers to reflect that so am interested to hear what everyone else thinks as well.
2006-08-01 07:49:40 · answer #4 · answered by Pete Sweet 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Definitely longer at lower temperatures. It is inefficient to warm the heating system, let it cool, then reheat it, etc. That said, if it is cold outside, your house won't be that warm, whereas if you carefully select times for heating you have the right temperature when you want it.
I prefer to focus on proper insulation to avoid heat loss in the first place.
2006-08-01 07:46:20 · answer #5 · answered by izzieere 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i agree with the engineer and have always kept it on low.
i like in an old scottish sandstone house which is cool even on the hottest days so it is a costly business to heat up if it gets cold.
2006-08-01 07:47:49 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I recommend you shut all the windows and crank the heating right up for a few days - I do this and it keeps my flat warm for months, although I do live in Zambia
2006-08-01 07:44:50 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
depends on your system it might be more economical to buy a new one - keeping water at a constant temperature above freezing is more economic than letting it cool and reheating it
2006-08-01 12:28:29 · answer #8 · answered by mini prophet of fubar 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would say longer at a low temp.
2006-08-01 07:44:38 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋