Yep, bad choice of words....what I meant was as it runs cooler it uses less energy, so less Kw/h. I really need to stop doing these on my phone.
Floors dug up - should we put in underfloor heating??
- Thread starter houseonahill
- Start date
Sponsored Links
If a house is held at a mean average temperature above the outside when you don’t need it (are at work or sleeping) then there are losses all that time. If the house is allowed to cool down to outside temperature there are no losses.
It is the same argument that some try to claim it is cheaper to leave heating on low all the time. It isn’t.
It is the same argument that some try to claim it is cheaper to leave heating on low all the time. It isn’t.
No such thing as a kW/h. Power is kW (= kJ/s). Energy is kWh, kW times h.
Last edited:
To warm a room requires a certain amount of energy based on the heat losses of that room. That amount of energy remains the same however you provide it. If it runs cooler it must run for longer.
Sponsored Links
runs cooler but heating a helluva lot more water so explain how that is cheaper
I doubt it’s possible to make a clear judgment on which is most efficient. I’m not convinced things like Nest and similar, and weather compensation, give any noticeable advantage either. Does anybody know of any trials by official bodies (or anybody else without wanting to sell something), to compare? It wouldn’t be at all easy to arrange a number of properties in identical situations and operating regimes, apart from the system being trialled.
My own experience, for what it’s worth – when I first had a house with CH, both out at work all day, so had it coming on and off on the programmer. When the kids arrived, started leaving it on 24/7. Didn’t notice any increase in gas use and found for same comfort could have the roomstat 1-2°C lower. Been doing that ever since.
My own experience, for what it’s worth – when I first had a house with CH, both out at work all day, so had it coming on and off on the programmer. When the kids arrived, started leaving it on 24/7. Didn’t notice any increase in gas use and found for same comfort could have the roomstat 1-2°C lower. Been doing that ever since.
Last edited:
In an evening, you can set a fallback temp, say 15°C.
If, in the morning the temperature was above this level, the floor won’t fire-up.
I haven’t found my bills any dearer than previously, radiators in the house. Ufh in extension.
Apart from initial warm up time, ufh is far more efficient than radiators in my opinion, and more comfortable.
If, in the morning the temperature was above this level, the floor won’t fire-up.
I haven’t found my bills any dearer than previously, radiators in the house. Ufh in extension.
Apart from initial warm up time, ufh is far more efficient than radiators in my opinion, and more comfortable.
it is more complex than heat in = heat out
conventional wall radiators are at least 80% convectors -so the air temperature is highest at ceiling height -around 2 foot above a standing person
underfloor heating is mostly radiant and heats the room with the highest temperature at floor level -so far more efficient at heating people.
That agrees with my experience with 24/7 heating. IMO better to keep a steady temperature rather than cycling, and better for the house structure.
This from The Energy Saving Trust:
Is it cheaper to leave the heating on low all day or turn it on only when I need it?
Energy Saving Trust, the idea it's cheaper to leave the heating on low all day is a myth. They're clear that having the heating on only when you need it is, in the long run, the best way to save energy, and therefore money. (A timer's best as your thermostat turns your heating on and off to keep your home at the temperature you set.)
The key thing to understand here is that it's all about the total amount of energy required to heat your home.
It's a given that a certain amount of energy is constantly leaking out of your home (how much will depend on how good your insulation is). The Energy Saving Trust says if you're keeping the heating on all day you're losing energy all day, so it's better to heat your home only when you need it.
Is it cheaper to leave the heating on low all day or turn it on only when I need it?
Energy Saving Trust, the idea it's cheaper to leave the heating on low all day is a myth. They're clear that having the heating on only when you need it is, in the long run, the best way to save energy, and therefore money. (A timer's best as your thermostat turns your heating on and off to keep your home at the temperature you set.)
The key thing to understand here is that it's all about the total amount of energy required to heat your home.
It's a given that a certain amount of energy is constantly leaking out of your home (how much will depend on how good your insulation is). The Energy Saving Trust says if you're keeping the heating on all day you're losing energy all day, so it's better to heat your home only when you need it.
Radiant heat will not heat the room. It heats people, the rest passes through the windows. But I'm not sure that I believe underfloor heating is mostly radiant anyway.
If it is far more efficient where are the (far more) losses with radiators?
I think the whole argument comes down to where it is installed, how it is installed and how it is used. If it is installed as a complete package with good insulation and used properly it seems there are efficiencies to be made over traditional CH running costs. Whilst I cannot find anywhere case studies that state that UFH is more efficient, I also can't find any that says it isn't, in fact the information I seem to be able to find is that the jury is still out.
That being said, I retrofitted my downstairs to overlay UFH with wood, tile and carpet topping and have dropped my gas costs by over 10% in the last year. The house is much more comfortable, the whole space is much more evenly warmed, one room that had 2 radiators totaling 3Kw never seemed to get warm enough or there were cold spots/draughts, there's no longer an issue with that and the UFH rating for that room is now approx 1.7kw (22m2@76Wm2) So my experience is that it certainly is more efficient. That and the cooler system (boiler currently set @ 50deg) means less stress on my system, so there are efficiencies to be made in other areas too.
Added to that I now run my stats @ 19Deg which is 2 deg less than I did before - The energy savings trust states that dropping a room temp by 1deg can save up to 10% in energy costs - so in my experience it's a win win.
That being said, I retrofitted my downstairs to overlay UFH with wood, tile and carpet topping and have dropped my gas costs by over 10% in the last year. The house is much more comfortable, the whole space is much more evenly warmed, one room that had 2 radiators totaling 3Kw never seemed to get warm enough or there were cold spots/draughts, there's no longer an issue with that and the UFH rating for that room is now approx 1.7kw (22m2@76Wm2) So my experience is that it certainly is more efficient. That and the cooler system (boiler currently set @ 50deg) means less stress on my system, so there are efficiencies to be made in other areas too.
Added to that I now run my stats @ 19Deg which is 2 deg less than I did before - The energy savings trust states that dropping a room temp by 1deg can save up to 10% in energy costs - so in my experience it's a win win.
Swing and roundabouts I would have thought, while the slab is warming gas is being consumed with hardly any heat being emitted
Edit: that was to post#28
Edit: that was to post#28
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
