Ways to reduce utility bills and make home energy efficient

[jeds]

The radiator reflectors can make a small difference.

In a solid walled property if they are installed well (ie you take the radiators off the wall) then they should save in the region of £20 a year.

If you've got an insulated cavity wall then they will save you pennies a year.

Which is pretty obvious if you think about it. The reflectors try to prevent the hot spot of heat from the radiator transferring to the wall directly behind it. If the wall is a good insulator then it doesn't matter much if the inside side of the wall gets hot.

Spot on. (except the figures would be incredibly difficult to measure) Poor wall insulation and foil behind a radiator could make a difference. A well insulated wall = foil waste of time.

 

[JP_]

Except chocolates - I remember buying one of those plastic tubs of Quality Street six years ago for £3.99. They were marked up at the same price the other day.

Dunno, I was shocked at the price for a box of Thorntons in the coop the other day, about £14 for a box that used to be around £6

 

[JP_]

and, even my son was moaning about the price of Freddos now!

 

[mattylad]

Wear warmer clothes - fleeces - everyone in our house has an Oodie (very thick hoody thing) and we have not needed the heating on yet.

Yes the cost of things has rocketed, Asda Shades 24 pack was £8.50 and is now £10.20 and we make our toilet roll in the UK!!

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Dunno, I was shocked at the price for a box of Thorntons in the coop the other day, about £14 for a box that used to be around £6

Thortons were always one of the most expensive chocolates. They used to have their own shops, but I suspect they became such poor value compared to other manufacturers - they ended up closing many/all of their outlets, and selling via other outlets. Obviously, they are still trying to sell at premium prices.

 

[JP_]

They are nice though, much better than most of the others in the shops.

 

[diy_fun_uk]

In terms of how well residential properties are insulated and environmentally efficient, let's consider a scale from 0% to 100%, the former representing 'extremely poor' and the latter 'excellent, gold standard.' I wonder where on this scale houses being built now would sit? I'm referring to cookie cutter estates. Obviously there will still be differences from builder to builder, however I'd be interested where, on average, things are on this.

 

[wobs]

wobs, honestly, you are free to believe whatever you want, but, to remind you what you said; "All else being equal, you can get better thermal performance with as thermnal (sic) mass with insulation on the outside. You need far less insulation for the same thermal performance."

This simply isn’t correct. U-value is a measure of the heat that is lost through the wall and the u-value remains EXACTLY the same regardless of where you place the insulation. If you use 'far less insulation' as you suggest, the u-value will be lower and you will lose heat faster. I don't know where the architect got that information from but it is wrong. I suspect it goes back to olden days when coal was two bob a sack.

Let me repeat - I am not saying the U-value would be the same, and yes I know what the U-value means. I am saying the thermal performance would be improved as you would need less heating overall. I am aware of heat loss in such a situation. But a thermal mass allows for a more stable temperature, resulting in less need for heating overall. It releases heat back into the room when the room temperature drops.
Further evidence:

Thermal mass of insulation materials - Back to Earth

Find out more about how we approach this building scenario.

www.backtoearth.co.uk

Moving back to the winter months and there are studies showing that thermal mass helps reduce the heating requirements of buildings too. I have previously blogged about a report which shows that in spite of differing occupancy styles heavyweight buildings reduce heating requirements by up to 20% during the heating period. This is within buildings which have the same theoretical heat losses, same U-values, just different materials used in their construction. Some of this could be because the way the demand slowly builds on the heating system in a heavyweight house as it cools slowly. A lightweight building will cool more quickly, possibly putting higher demands on the heating system but in shorter bursts, making the system much less efficient. The speed at which heat travels through the walls (diffusivity) will also have some bearing on it too. Some natural fibre materials use water as a phase change material within their fibres to store and release heat prolonging the time taken for the heat to travel through the walls. Some of it will be to do with storing solar gains but, whatever the reason, a 20% reduction in your heating bill is not to be sniffed at.

However, the onus is on you to demonstrate that thermal mass makes no different. You need to support your view with evidence.

Basically, the above shows that the thermal mass reduced the need for heating by about 20% in that case.

Edit: And here:

Studies have shown that concrete buildings have lower heating and cooling loads than lightweight buildings, thus life cycle cost will be lower or less insulation can be used for equivalent performance

Thermal mass and Energy Savings

Credit: Original article published here. Thermal mass is the ability of a material to absorb and store heat energy (Thermal Sponge). A lot of heat energy is required to change the temperature of high density materials like concrete, which is therefore said to have high thermal mass. Lightweight...

jvi-inc.com

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Let me repeat - I am not saying the U-value would be the same, and yes I know what the U-value means. I am saying the thermal performance would be improved as you would need less heating overall. I am aware of heat loss in such a situation. But a thermal mass allows for a more stable temperature, resulting in less need for heating overall. It releases heat back into the room when the room temperature drops.

I deliberately added a couple of tons of thermal mass to my home, back in the 80's. Idea was, it would absorb the sun's heat during the day and release it in the evening, avoiding or delaying the need for heating. In the summer, it stores the cool of the night, 'releasing' it during the heat of the day. Thermal mass, certainly helps stabilize temperatures indoors.

 

[mattylad]

I have 22" stone walls in my 1850 terrace, absolutely zero insulation except for the 50mm kingspan between the roof timbers when I had it reroofed.

I know of no way to insulate except for adding it on the inside walls, Getting the cellar ceiling insulated will be a mammoth job too.
So basically it aint appening mate!

 

[Notch7]

I find when I cook, it creates enough of a rise in temperature to heat the room (5 x 5m) comfortably.

I plan also to ban use of the tumble dryer and put our heated drying rack in the lounge to heat that room.

I'd like to get a wood burner, but Mrs Secure is worried about exacerbating Asthma.

We’ve stopped using the tumble drier.

my wife uses Airers which go in the spare room.


Funnily enough in my previous house, I used to use the tumble drier and had the pipe blowing into the stair well. It never caused any condensation at all. Made the house smell of bounce.