Central Heating on constant really cheaper....

[Smileyo]

Morning all,
I have been told that keeping the heating on constant is cheaper than turning it on different times of the day. Has anyone tried this method and noticed the difference?

This sounds interesting, would like to know the outcome of this too...

Me too

I read a similar discussion on another forum recently and the general concensus was that it wasn't cheaper.

They suggested doing a two week trial - take a meter reading at the beginning of the first week, have the heating on one way for a week, take another meter reading, change to the other method for the second week and see which uses less fuel.

Not exactly but I did try keeping the immersion heater on constant for hot water in the summer.
We have oil C/H and a multi fuel stove which heats the water when lit.
My plumber told me it worked out cheaper to keep the immersion on rather than switch it on and off or use the oil.It wasn't cheaper, my electricity bill rocketed , oil would have been cheaper.

Sorry this doesn't answer your question though!

Interesting. I guess it depends whether you have thermostatic valves on all your radiators? I was told last winter (when our boiler broke down during the big freeze) that it is better during very cold weather to have it on 24/7 and just turn radiators down to frost setting at night, so that's what we're doing at the moment.

I don't see how that can possibly be true.
Its simple physics.

I mean the OP not midnight's comment. You don't want your heating off to the extent the boiler or pipes freeze!

Sorry, should have been clearer: 'better' doesn't necessarily mean 'cheaper' or 'more environmentally sound' . I think he just meant it is less likely to break.

...which on reflection might indeed mean 'cheaper' - my mum's just had to fork out 2 grand for a new combi boiler.

Yes, quite so!

does it also depend on whether your central heating is run off oil, gas or electricity?

We had no boiler from March last year to January this year and because we were running the hot water off the immersion our electricity bill was enormous. Although we did not pay for oil. Our heating was run off the wood burner.

I think if its electricity it will be very expensive. If its oil then maybe not so bad.

Just looked on link Thinever attached. I think i can conclude happily that it is false economy to keep my gas central heating on constant and im better off using the timer. Had to ask as im usually at work thoughout the day but at home as school is closed and the house is a little cold. Money is flaming tight as it is so the thought of putting the heating on constant does scare me. Il wait until 6pm for the heating to switch on, ds just confirmed that he isnt cold so its all good. Il just put an extra jumper on.

We have the same thoughts going on. Since the cold snap, we've kept our heating on constant. We keep thermostat on 14 during day, when we're home from work we turn up to 18.

The theory we're working to is, if we leave the heating off, and put it on timer and boost it, then the house is getting stone cold all the time, so the heating then isn't making a dent when it is on.

We're thinking that by keeping it at a certain temp, then the walls won't get cold, and it won't take so long to heat the house once we are home.

I have NO IDEA whether this is economical or not. Logic tells me not, since obviously we're running the gas all the time.

Anyone?

I think it depends on your insulation as well. If you have a modern triple-glazed well insulated home then you don't lose much heat so you can keep the heating on full time and not much is lost. If you live in an atmospheric stone sieve, much more heat is lost so keeping it on full time just means more goes out.

Yeah, I mentioned this on another thread the other day. DP, who's an engineering type, reckons that in a cold snap it works out cheaper to keep it on constantly, basicly for the reason strumpet said - you need to keep the fabric of the house warm. Heating the air is not too expensive but if you've allowed the walls to cool down, your boiler will be working at 100% capacity for ages trying to keep it warm while the walls are sucking up all the heat.

If you're worried about money or carbon, it's better to turn the thermostat down than to have it switched on for less time, but this only applies during a cold snap.

What fuel source and your insulation your house has will make a difference to how much energy you waste by constant heating, but in all cases you will be spending more money than if you let the house cool down when you don't need it so hot (when you're out, at night, if DCs are out and you can tolerate cold)

Use the timer. Use the thermostat if you've got one.

The simple piece of physics is Newton's law of cooling: the rate of heat loss of a body is proportional to the difference in temperatures between the body and its surroundings.

If the walls of your house are constantly warm they will be constantly losing heat to the outside!

Yes, if they cool down it will take longer for you to get your house warm when you come in but you will NOT be using more energy overall.

(wishes she could draw a graph...)

DH, who advises on environmental legislation and "green" stuff to the EU says that, as energy of heat is constant (or something) then it is not cheaper to run 24 hours. The cooling and reheating is not reduced by having constant temperature. He used some fancy words to explain this, but he says, having the heating on during the hours you are asleep is pointless and not cheaper and not more efficient.

He says only keep heating constant if it is so cold you think your pipes would freeze and burst or if you have a young baby in the house.

He is doing the documentation for the energy rating for buildings at the moment for it to be introduced next year (so buildings get an A-E ratings, like fridges and washing machines do now) so I assume he knows what he is talking about.

When I was at Uni we lived in a big old Victorian house - we spent the first year frozen (ice on the top of our water glass and everything) - the following year, I suggested leaving the heating on low all the time and offered to pay the difference on the previous year's bill (I was by no means flush, just hate being cold.)
We kept it on really low and just turned it up a notch at times. The bill was £22 more in the end (and everyone agreed to split it as we had all been so lovely and toasty).
I do think it depends on the house - this place had such thick walls that putting the heating on for 2 hours must have required so much energy just to get it up to temp - once it was warm, it stayed warm.

During this cold snap, our gas central heating is on a constant of 12.5 (to keep pipes from freezing etc) during the night and during the day when we are all out at work or school.
DS1 turns heating up to 15 when he comes home about 4.15, and when I and ds2 come home at 5.45 it's warm, not toasty, but warm.
We are a one parent family and I work full time, but money is tight, we wear jumpers and socks and slippers, have hot water bottles in bed and have thick curtains up.
We live in a victorian 3 bed mid terrace, and we have the usual problem of condensation (have moisture traps), but north facing side of house is colder than the rest (bathroom, kitchen and my bedroom). ds's both have room at the front (south facing do do get sunlight during the day).

energy saving Trust recommends using a timer.

www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Easy-ways-to-stop-wasting-energy/Stop-wasting-energy-and-cut-your-bills/Tips-to-help-you-stop-wasting-energy/Top-ten-tips