tinfoil down the back of a radiator ??..

[COLVERT]

Originally Posted by Avulon

PS. This is why modern heating systems are equiped so that the heating doesn't turn off (truly off) but is intended to go to a setback heat value during the unoccupied period. All homes differ in what the suitable setback temperature is. The time taken to heat from the setback temp to the 'normal' occupied temperature should be setup on the timer for the best comfort of the occupants when they are home: i.e. if setback temp is 16 and comfort temp is 21 and it takes an hour to elevate the temp from 16 to 21 then the heating should switch to 21 an hour before the occupants would be expected home.... Or just get used to 20 degrees and leave it at that 24/7.

Another well thought out answer and the method that I personally use.

The better the insulation the faster the room will come up to the required comfortable temperature.

If 95% efficiency insulation was a possibility the full time 'on' costs would get to a comfortable minimum allowing heating to be on all of the time.

A thing, I guess, we would all like to achieve.---

[stevestrat]

Originally Posted by COLVERT

In fact some of the inner walls are constructed from THERMALITE blocks.

What's thermalite Live in a 150 year old cottage with walls about 18" thick and solid stone.

Keeping the heating on 24/7 isn't really an option, live out in the sticks and heating is bottled gas (not cheap), no mains supply. Use very little during the summer but at this time of years if you try hard enough you can kill two 47kg (£80 each) in a fortnight!

When my parents first moved here nearly 40 years ago, they enquired about mains gas and to run a line from the main road would have been about £30k, three of the four cottages agreed to split the cost but the fourth refused. Didn't go ahead as nobody wanted to shell out that kind of money for the fourth cottage to come along later and be able to connect to the new gas supply for a fraction of what everybody else paid.

[COLVERT]

Originally Posted by Darcydog

No - a simpler way is to do what we did when my wife required a warm home 24/7 during her recuperation.

We found that the cost was the same - it made not a jot of difference to our costs - BUT! - we were warm all the time - morning and during the day, evening and at night.

All at no extra cost.

And yet you do the classic cop out and say that ‘the ones ly way to prove you are wrong is by having identical houses, blah blah blah blah blah....

In other words rather than you admit that I and many other “converts” might have a point - you set up some extreme conditions where only if these parameters can be set up within a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled study would you accept that heating up a house you have let get cold requires much the same energy as maintaining that same house at a comfortable temp. For the same given weather conditions.

Sorry - but you make me laugh!

A man in denial and the Rude posts reinforce it unfortunately. ( Bit like the folk in those RAMSEYS KITCHEN nightmares. )

Let's be scientific not Horrific.---

[COLVERT]

Originally Posted by stevestrat

What's thermalite Live in a 150 year old cottage with walls about 18" thick and solid stone.

Keeping the heating on 24/7 isn't really an option, live out in the sticks and heating is bottled gas (not cheap), no mains supply. Use very little during the summer but at this time of years if you try hard enough you can kill two 47kg (£80 each) in a fortnight!

When my parents first moved here nearly 40 years ago, they enquired about mains gas and to run a line from the main road would have been about £30k, three of the four cottages agreed to split the cost but the fourth refused. Didn't go ahead as nobody wanted to shell out that kind of money for the fourth cottage to come along later and be able to connect to the new gas supply for a fraction of what everybody else paid.

I know exactly what you mean.

I have for the last thirty years been trying to get some life back into the three derelict house I bought over here in France.

They have all been just as you describe. My ones.-------

-----------------

Electricity only. Water from a well.

No toilet facilities. Tin containing sawdust in an out side shed.--

Solid stone walls through which any heat inside the house gathered speed as it headed for the outside.---

I've had the FUN rewiring. plumbing and installing central heating in them all.---Never again.--

All good experience and as they say--nothing beats experience.--

[Darcydog]

Originally Posted by COLVERT

A man in denial and the Rude posts reinforce it unfortunately. ( Bit like the folk in those RAMSEYS KITCHEN nightmares. )

Let's be scientific not Horrific.---

And yet I feel it is you that is in denial. All I am saying is that the energy usage to maintain a room at a given temperature once it has been achieved is no more than when you let the room cool and have to heat the room all over again.

I cannot see how this denies anything. Surely it is you that is denying the possibility that the energy usage for both methods is much the same?

You then compound YOUR denial by inferring that you have science on your side.

You dismiss my findings in the absolute belief that you are right and I am wrong.

Science is about scepticism, asking questions. You are not being scientific - you are being an advocate for your beliefs.

It is your suggestion that my point has no merit because I cannot prove what I say is true without a full blown scientific study that makes me laugh!!

Why?

Because if you really knew how science “worked” you would have realised prior to writing this that by the same token, you cannot “prove” that your supposition is correct without the exact same scientific study!

Instead what we get is a smokescreen of appeals to your greater authority.

[MSS]

For those of us in older properties - mine is a 500+ year old oak framed building with paster inner and outer layers - the option to leave the heating on all day is simply not viable. The walls are generally so thin that heat would escape at a horresduous rate all day.

Our oil fired boiler, that sounds like a jet engine when running, comes on for 2 hours in the morning and similar the evening to ensure the fabric of the building remains dry and there is a background level of heating. Oil powered electric radiators heat the occupied areas (lounge, dining room) all day.

We fire up the log burner in the lounge on special occasions or if it is really cold+windy outside.

Interestingly, we are so comfortable with slightly lower temperatures (around 18 degrees) that I used to go to work in a short sleeved shirt whilst everyone else would be sitting there in fleeces. Ditto now when I am at the college three days a week. I find temperatures in most offices uncomfortably high.

[Darcydog]

Originally Posted by mss

For those of us in older properties - mine is a 500+ year old oak framed building with paster inner and outer layers - the option to leave the heating on all day is simply not viable. The walls are generally so thin that heat would escape at a horresduous rate all day.

Our oil fired boiler, that sounds like a jet engine when running, comes on for 2 hours in the morning and similar the evening to ensure the fabric of the building remains dry and there is a background level of heating. Oil powered electric radiators heat the occupied areas (lounge, dining room) all day.

We fire up the log burner in the lounge on special occasions or if it is really cold+windy outside.

Interestingly, we are so comfortable with slightly lower temperatures (around 18 degrees) that I used to go to work in a short sleeved shirt whilst everyone else would be sitting there in fleeces. Ditto now when I am at the college three days a week. I find temperatures in most offices uncomfortably high.

Our home and the one before it are totally different. Well insulated having been upgraded in our ownership with double glazing, loft insulation and tthe old central heating pipes that used to run under the floor set in the concrete, bi-passed and run in recesses behind larger skirting board.

We did this on both houses as both were typical 1970’s construction being nice and big and airy with large panoramic double aspect windows. The interior walls are/were solid - I cannot stand plasterboard interior walls.

One thing we refused to have is cavity wall insulation. Some house are fine with this - but I have always been a great believer in free flowing ventilation. The recent reports in the news of how some people now suffer condensation and mould problems due this stuff stopping the house “breathing” makes me thankful we never had it done.

Our homes were both set at 20degC. It works for us. We do run our heating 24/7 as when I was working both my wife and I worked from home a lot. SWMBO still does.

No doubt due to the excellent insulation we have, our bills are low compared to others round here. And when we take into account the fact that we do have our heating on 24/7 and others still run their heating only morning and evening I would urge others to at least consider the possibility that there is a better way of heating a home.

As I have previously said - we turned our heating on to help facilitate my wife’s recovery on leaving hospital. We expected an increased heating bill as a consequence and were happy to accept this.

But the reality was that the bills were much the same - in fact at our annual review the cost remained the same despite energy costs increasing.

So I’m not sure who is playing the role of Gordon Ramsey here Maninder

It’s not like it is me going bust by not taking on new ideas!

Quite the opposite I feel.

..........

From how you describe your house - have you considered an air source heat pump? They can be a bit annoying if you have one with noisy fans but as a source of constant low level background heat they work really well.

You used to be able to get grants for them here in Hampshire and a FIT was available as well - but I think that has all but gone now.

However, like most things, the cost of them has reduced significantly.

Edit - not FIT - should be RHI

[MSS]

Morning Clive - our house is listed so works are limited to repairs. This means that we cannot really consider anything other than the existing heating installation.

As an example, we had to agree with the listing building officer at the local council all the renovation work that we wanted to carry out when we bought the property. The windows were all replaced with new, in hardwood, but they are replicas of what was there before and therefore single glazed.

I did put in 18 inch thick roof installation though.

[Darcydog]

Originally Posted by mss

Morning Clive - our house is listed so works are limited to repairs. This means that we cannot really consider anything other than the existing heating installation.

As an example, we had to agree with the listing building officer at the local council all the renovation work that we wanted to carry out when we bought the property. The windows were all replaced with new, in hardwood, but they are replicas of what was there before and therefore single glazed.

I did put in 18 inch thick roof installation though.

Yes - my son and I deal with this all the time - he is a Master Thatcher. Biggest issue is where a home owner wants a particular patern on the ridge but they are not allowed to change what was there before.

As you say - same with windows. However, we regularly see secondary glazing fitted within listed buildings.

So may be worth checking that out - if you can live with the “faff” of secondary glazing.

EDIT - It would seem that an Air Source Heat Pump can be fitted to a listed building. I was sure I had seen one. Whilst you cannot change the structure or fittings in any way, the fact that an ASH pump can sit as a stand alone unit outside the building allows them.


We were all ready to go with an air source heat pump four years ago - the cheque book was out, funds available and I was ready to go!!

But the firm that would have installed it did the calculations showed me that because we were well insulated and had gas heating rather than solid fuel or oil, then we would never see a cost benefit.

So fair play to them - but I still say that the concept is sound - in particular the idea of having a base level of background heating for free appeals to me. But four/five years ago the cost was close to £10K. But now it’s circa £6K.

But the RHI was larger back then - not even sure if it’s still available?

[yelnats]

As an adjunct to the general debate does the fitting of radiator covers inhibit their effectiveness ?