In the long run, what is more economical.... (re heating)

[Workingman]

interesting answers.

The science and engineering says not having it on all the time is cheaper.

BTW1 That's a cracking deal to be offered just as autumn and winter are setting in.

BTW2 My system is on a manual clock with little sliders to set the on/off times or to be on 24hr or Off, and the thermostat also has an 'Off' position. For that reason I set the clock to 24hr and I use the thermostat to turn it "off" but to regulate it at 18 - 20c when it is "on". And to explain the final part of my last post. During really cold days/nights, when the temp is about 5C to below zero, I set the thermostat to 10C, just in case. Indoors hardly ever gets that cold so the boiler rarely fires up.

[Aggers]

I don't think it is a good idea to let your house get really cold, because you will use more electricity
when you decide to put it on, and it will take much longer to heat up to a reasonable temperature.

We have electric wall heaters, each with it's own thermostat. During the winter months we have our heaters on all the time,
with thermostats set at 18-20 degrees C. If we feel that is too low, then we turn up the appropriate thermostat. or switch on the
living room electric flame-effect fire which has a surprisingly effective psychological way of making you feel warmer even when
its actual heating is not on.

[meriad]

Well, I spoke to E.ON again and it turns out I somewhat misunderstood the deal they were offering . It's the unit prices for both gas and electricity that will be fixed for two years but I still will have to pay for what I use (it would have been too good to be true). But I asked a colleague (the company I work for is a finance company that invests in renewable energy so I'm in the right place to ask at least ) and he very highly recommended going for the fixed prices as he is very very certain the energy prices will be going up; so I've gone ahead and done that.

Also, re the heating on or off thing, I checked with another cat friend who is a building surveyor and this is what she replied;

Re heating, it depends a bit on the building. If it's a well insulated modern building, then intermittent heating isn't too much of a problem. But in older buildings, solid brick and/or stonework are slow to warm up, so all you're doing with short bursts of heat is warming up the air, and not the walls. The warmer air will hold more moisture, then when you go out for the day and shut the building up, this moisture condenses out on the cold walls, windows etc, resulting in condensation, possible mold growth, and certainly a higher moisture content in the walls. This reduces their temperature and means some of the next burst of heat is wasted just drying the walls out before they warm up again. Even if you don't have a condensation problem, with buildings like this using continuous low levels of heat means the walls not only have a chance to warm up, but they also hold the heat and act like a storage heater, keeping the house warm for longer.

So yes, in older buildings, continuous low levels of heating are better for keeping the building warmer and drier, but tbh I haven't tested it on the fuel bills. I know others who have, who say it pays off, but at the very least it's better for the building, and warmer.

There endeth the Building Science lecture! Hope that helps!

Once temperatures are more settled (it's still quite warm during the day) I am going to give it a try and see what happens and I'll definitely let you know.

[Kaz]

Interesting..............

Thanks Ria