How are you saving money this winter?

Thanks for reporting your findings, Wingman. By making measurements you have been able to compare the costs. Presumably the walls, etc. are retaining more heat than a modern home with cavity wall insulation and in my case the additional cost would be at least £1 a day. As you say, it makes more difference if the house is unoccupied during the day and the heating turned off.

Hi Wavechange, I guess there are numerous factors that will determine results such as type of property, degree of insulation, cavity walls, construction of building and wall thickness etc and the overall efficiency of the boiler. The potential savings will vary accordingly.

Some heating engineers do suggest that operating the heating at low level 24/7 is more cost effective, but I think this demonstrates this is probably not the case, although it does keep the property comfortably warm all the time. The only difference we noticed was first thing in the morning, when there was more of chill while the boiler worked to bring the building up to temperature.

But it was certainly a worthwhile exercise.

Yes, there are many factors to be considered, but from the point of view of energy use it cannot use less energy to keep heating on continuously. The increased cost needs to be weighed against the benefits.

The type of gas boiler is a factor. Older boilers operate on full power and then switch off. When there is little need for heat the boiler comes on for short periods and this ‘short cycling’ is wasteful. Modern boilers can ‘modulate’ so that rather than the burner switching between off and full power they can adjust the heat output, which is more efficient. Unless a heating engineer has carried out tests, as you have, I would not be convinced by their thoughts.

Unless there are structural faults, dampness and condensation should be controlled by ventilation and heating, if improving insulation is not practical. With the rising price of energy many will risk dampness problems if the cut back on ventilation.

Our boiler is relatively new, so as you indicated will be adjusting the heat output and hopefully operating at maximum efficiency. Seems logical really the less time the boiler is operating, the less energy used and less cost.

Ultimately, unless 24/7 operation is essential for the building, timed operation provides the most economical solution, so it was certainly worthwhile performing the comparison.

Thank you Wingman for taking the time and trouble to carry out this exercise, which will no doubt provide a useful guide for others to adjust their own means of heating, according to their type of property, their life style, and may enable them to save a little on future predicted increasing energy costs.

I hope it proved useful to others Beryl, especially those who have been advised to operate their heating 24/7 and are not home for most of the day as I imagine they will benefit from much greater savings.

We don’t mind the extra home heating costs in the winter months since we cut back on the foreign holidays in the warmer climes at that time of the year. In fact, I think we are making considerable savings.

Novel way of explaining the concept Em, I shall retain for future reference.

I well remember the first and only time a salesman pushed his way into my house to try and sell me an insulation package. The projected savings in gas costs were amazing, amounting to more than I was paying. I happened to have my quarterly bills to hand to show him.

Undaunted he tried a different approach and told me that 60% of the energy I used in heating my home was lost. When I looked concerned he was obviously encouraged. I said that I thought the figure might be a little higher – possibly 100%. After checking his notes he assured me that his figure of 60% was correct. At that point he decided it was time to leave and dropped his notes in a waste basket. I retrieved them and saw that he had written ‘Bad lead’.

If you freeze the water in your bucket, none will be lost. Similarly you can save energy by turning off your boiler completely. But not mine…..I like comfort.

Hopefully globally warming will produce a warm spring and summer so my gas consumption should be low and the devastating effects of increasingly high gas prices somewhat mitigated. Depending upon world events, if I am here by next Winter I might be revising that strategy but, when I do have to get up in the night, early in the morning, or return home in the small hours, I do like the bits of house I use to be warm.

While I accept the theory of your argument, there is a counter to it, which mitigates some of the savings you suggest are made.
Firstly we both agree that a house with gales through the windows and heat out of the roof will be costly to heat and it pays to insulate.
However, past experience has shown that houses I have lived in have a problem when the temperature fluctuates wildly. This leads to cracks in the plaster and some items in the house not functioning well from expansion and contraction.
Also, it takes quite a bit of energy to heat a house up from cold before the effects are felt inside. A house at a set temperature avoids the need for the all or nothing approach and the thermostat cuts in and out regularly instead of being on continuously every time the heating is turned back on. There is less stress on the boiler and the plumbing.
As Malcolm says it is a joy to come back into a warm house.
The time lapse between going out and coming in is also a factor. The longer the house is cold the less energy is used, but unless there is a freeze setting things can get really icy, damp and mouldy in the long absence.
I keep this house at a steady back-ground temperature and might use a fan heater in any room or find an extra jumper. It is certainly a lot warmer now the renovations have been completed.

Boilers, as with most machines need to be kept running, as long as they are regularly serviced, so its better to keep them running at a low temperature rather than switching it off completely, especially for a long period during the summer months, to avoid a build up of debris.

Commercial aircraft will change flight crews many times, but the same plane will normally be kept running, subject of course to routine checks and refuelling.

I once lived next door to the chief engineer at Heathrow, whose son became a flight engineer on Concorde, and one of my old friends was a pilot in the RAF, who used to keep me well briefed about maintenance issues and engine care.

It’s recommended you switch your CH boiler on twice a month during the summer months for a few minutes at a low temperature, but if it also heats the water, turn the thermostat down and leave the boiler switched on.

The purpose of running a heating system periodically for a short time during the summer months is to prevent the pump and valves from sticking. Heating systems used to be quite dirty due to iron oxides produced by corrosion of radiators. Nowadays, it is usual to add corrosion inhibitor when the system is commissioned and to top this up occasionally to maintain protection. If the system is drained fresh inhibitor will be needed unless the system water is collected and reused. If draining a radiator produces any black deposit, this is a sure sign that there is not enough corrosion inhibitor in the system.

It is also common to have a magnetic trap (usually incorrectly referred to as a filter) to remove iron oxides from the circulating water. Many modern heating systems incorporate a timer that will run the pump occasionally when the system is not in use and my boiler which is over 20 years old has this feature.

Incentives exist but I don’t believe they are enough: https://www.which.co.uk/news/2021/10/5000-heat-pump-grants-revealed-in-new-boiler-upgrade-scheme/

Only reasonably well-off people will be able to afford a heat pump and take advantage of the (limited) grant money. Just as only similar people can afford a new electric car. The incentives should be aimed at those less well off people who need help to reduce their energy bills by, for example, improving the insulation of their homes.

At present, the cost of running a heat pump is likely to be significantly higher than a gas boiler due to the unit cost difference so a big capital outlay – heat pump installation and probable expensive changes to the heating system – plus maybe twice the running cost, so is not an incentive to change on financial grounds.

Should we subsidise better-off people who could probably find the whole money needed? Or use the £450 million to improve the lot of more deserving people?

Watch the following:

YouTube.com – This is why heat pumps may NOT be the future.

Many people are already using heat pumps because they have no access to mains gas or oil. As Em has pointed out, it’s cheaper to use a heat pump than electricity, certainly at current prices. It will be interesting to find out more about the costs of using mains gas and heat pumps in typical UK homes.

The presenter largely ignores the reason why there are targets to phase out use of fossil fuels. I wonder if he is aware that like petrol and diesel cars, gas boilers emit nitrogen dioxide and contribute to poor air quality in our cities, affecting those who live and work there.

As Beryl pointed out earlier: “To do nothing is no longer an option.”

Love him or hate him, I agree with him on 2 points, (1) gas prices will continue to rise until they are on a par with electricity. (2) £16k installation costs minus £6K govt grant is still more than the average consumer would be prepared to pay, even if he could well afford it, when you end up paying more than you used to pay for your gas usage.

I would certainly invest in one of his battery heated suits, as long as that also includes PJ’s for night trips to the bathroom in a house without heat 🙁

Hydrogen boilers seems to be the best way forward.

The UK seems a very poor adopter of heat pumps, rather than “ many people are using heat pumps”, according to Greenpeace https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/resources/briefing-uk-poor-record-on-heat-pumps/ Maybe we look at the capital and running costs compared to keeping our existing gas boilers and don’t want to pay more than we need.

Of course those who only have electricity would benefit from lower running costs, but Coefficients of Performance are lower in cold weather when you need heating most. And the payback is likely to be unattractive when you consider the capital cost of a whole heating system.

If Statista is to be believed the vast majority of UK homes use gas for heating https://www.statista.com/statistics/426988/united-kingdom-uk-heating-methods/ so the scope for converting electric users seems very low.

We still need to deal with the question of where all the green energy will come from if we want to convert over 90% of homes on oil and gas to heat pumps.

Hydrogen boilers will probably rely on hydrogen produced by electrolysis from water, using electricity, so an expensive fuel. But, if there is sufficient unwanted electricity off-peak – i.e. cheaper – then storing the energy as hydrogen would make sense. Therefore keeping conventional heating systems with a gas boiler that can run on hydrogen also makes sense, in new and existing housing. It would also make use of an established distribution system, saving substantially on additional electricity wires.

An alternative power source as well alongside battery electric vehicles, overcoming the vast raw material issues associated with batteries and removing the problem of long and inconvenient charging times.

“That video on heat pump technology is not objective or unbiased” is, of course, true.But some of the points raised are quite valid and should be considered. Many comments made in Convos are “biased” in the sense they express one particular point of view.

I suspect if some commenters were asked to write a full article on a particular topic they would present a far more balanced contribution than is made in a relatively brief comment. Nevertheless, a series of such comments taken collectively should allow a reader with an open mind to reach a better informed view of the topic.

I wrote: “Many people are already using heat pumps because they have no access to mains gas or oil.”

Malcolm wrote: “The UK seems a very poor adopter of heat pumps, rather than “ many people are using heat pumps”, according to Greenpeace https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/resources/briefing-uk-poor-record-on-heat-pumps/”

My point was specifically about heat pumps being more economical than electric heating for those without access to mains gas and what I wrote was misrepresented by selective quotation.

It was not intended to misrepresent what was said. Simply that a relatively small proportion of people are using heat pumps. For example: “However, currently less than a quarter of a million of the UK’s 29 million homes have heat pumps. In 2019, 27,000 were installed – compared to the 100,000 additional homes connected to the gas network and the 1.7 million replacement boilers installed.28 May 2021“.https://energysavingtrust.org.uk/the-future-of-heating-in-the-uk-heat-pumps-or-hydrogen/

I wonder just how many of the small proportion of people who use electric heating have the money needed to purchase a heat pump installation. I guess a fair proportion are also in rented accommodation where the option does not exist.

What is important, I think, is to see heat pumps in the overall home heating solutions and the costs involved.

As Em indicates there are a number of factors to consider, some artificial and some real. Debate should revolve around such factors. We buy gas on the world markets at costs partly determined by supply and demand (in my view). The same probably applies to electricity. I expect electricity from wind and solar to be considerably cheaper than that from gas – the fuel is free – but may be wrong; I’d like to see the figures. I expect nuclear to be far more expensive because of the capital cost of the plant involved; but what does it really cost? Tidal energy would be similarly at a high capital cost but again, free fuel.

The future is undoubtedly electric if we are going to minimise emissions. But that is likely to be expensive energy and we will have to get used to paying substantially more to heat our homes and to cook. Heat pumps will inevitably become a much larger source of heating to minimise energy costs but how will we afford their purchase and installation?

I think the right place to start is to minimise our energy use. That both keeps personal costs down and reduces the considerable extra generating plant and infrastructure required. Insulation – loft and walls, double or triple glazing – draught-proofing, need addressing in poorer quality housing. New housing needs much higher control of energy-saving measures under building regulation legislation. These are areas where subsidies should be directed, rather than heat pumps.

A simple apology would have sufficed.

I certainly agree that improved insulation and heat capture would improve our housing stock and save energy for the country and the owners. I am less convinced with your argument on installation. The fact is that to install the heating pump system one has to practically rip out everything and start again -that in a country where most houses have radiators and boilers heating the house and the water. This revolution is a challenge for any society. There is also the suggestion (I’m not sure how true it is, but it has certainly been said) that the regular heat pump does not do a very good job of heating the house and its water. It relies on noisy compressors and refrigerants, to say nothing of the extended pipe work and necessary extra heating outlets in the building. Heat pumps are being promoted as the holy grail of climate saving and thus alternatives are not being developed in the same way.
I agree that energy costs are high and likely to increase exponentially. We have to use energy and pay for it. The only interesting bit is not the cost of relative forms of energy but their effect on the planet. Sadly, burning gas is bad even though it makes the best form of heating we have ever had. Hydrogen hovers on the horizon but somehow no one seems convinced enough to develop it, either for motoring or heating.
I don’t see the next heat revolution as being one of mass destruction and re-installation. Yet, evolution will not be enough to stop global warming. It would make a lot of sense to adapt our current heating at the heat source and leave the house and its plumbing alone.

Vynor Hill says: Today 09:37

I certainly agree that improved insulation and heat capture would improve our housing stock and save energy for the country and the owners. I am less convinced with your argument on installation. The fact is that to install the heating pump system one has to practically rip out everything and start again

It didn’t with us, Vynor. Wen we were finding an air con system for the house we chose a recommended chap who took two days to install a system for the entire floor. There was no ripping out, because we kept the LPG boiler as a backup.

The air con system is simply a heat pump which is completely reversible. On hot summer days it functions as an air conditioner, using the external heap pump to vent excess heat to the outside. In winter, when we need quick heat for the upstairs, it reverses, heating the air by compressing the cold air outside.

Now, this is all about warming or cooling the house; we don’t use it to heat water, so we’ll need someone with knowledge of a heat pump who does use it to heat water to comment. But from our experience, we wouldn’t be without it, now.

How do you distribute the warmed (or cooled) air to individual rooms and achieve preset temperatures?

Sorry I’ve messed up the icon again, but it is me. The last post should have ended with a question mark.

Many thanks Em. That is comprehensive and very interesting.

I had one of these I inherited in my last house, back in 1978. It required a fan to push air to the ducts, but by the time I got it , it was down right dangerous and a fire risk to the property. The air was quite dry and could be a little dusty. There was also a smell of hot rubber! It was basically another form of a central heat source and a distribution system. Putting an electric fan heater in there would have been expensive in energy use. We are discussing heat pumps because they use a different form of heat gathering, but, unless someone corrects me, they need to be in the room they are heating and so need to populate the outside and inside of the house in numbers to reach each room.

Thanks Vynor Hill, that’s correct, the system does have a fan that distributes the warm air throughout the property. Sounds perhaps as if the system you inherited had not undergone regular maintenance. There are certainly fewer heating engineers qualified to service and maintain warm air heating systems of this type and I wonder whether consumers have difficulty finding someone to undertake annual servicing. But otherwise the simplicity, efficiency and low running costs of the system are worth noting when compared to a conventional boiler and radiators.

We specifically wanted a front-loading oven with at least two shelves rather than a top loading appliance. With a little research we found a superb oven manufactured by Tower, front loading, three shelves, integral rotisserie and easy to operate. Despite its small size the three shelves easily provide enough capacity for cooking meals for a family of four and of course air-frying provides wonderfully crisp foods.

Like you, we no longer use our full size oven and are delighted with the energy savings.

I would encourage others to consider an oven of this type if it meets their needs.

I considered buying an air fryer some time ago but changed my mind.

My concern was that they would release greasy steam that I didn’t want in my newish kitchen. Have either of you found this to be a problem?

Hi Alfa, no, not at all. Our airfryer is essentially a mini-oven which sits below some kitchen cupboards (but with adequate space to ventilate in accordance with the Manufacturers instructions).

It does release some steam, but very minimally, which is hardly noticeable and definitely not greasy. We have been using ours since January and there are no signs of any greasy deposits on the underside of the cupboards or the cupboard doors or the ceiling.

Chrirag I believe has one of the top loading airfryers, similar in appearance to a chip fryer, whereas we wanted an oven to use as a direct replacement for our main oven, essentially to reduce our energy bills. It made no sense heating a couple of pasties in a full size oven. Our main criteria was it should be front loading, for ease of use and have at least two shelves for cooking multiple items. We eventually decided on a Tower oven, front loading, with three shelves. Situated on the worktop, it’s no longer necessary to bend down which we especially like and its much easier to check on food while cooking.

Our electricity usage has dropped significantly since using the oven.

That’s good to know Wingman.

We noticed a difference in energy usage when we upgraded our outside lights. We held back for quite a while as they were not powerful enough, but new ones are brighter, smaller and we are pleased with them.

Alfa, I assume you upgraded from halogen to LED outside lights?

Yes. When we first looked they were huge to get comparable light.

LED technology has certainly come a long way. Pleased to hear you were able to upgrade to something with is more energy efficient and provides a comparable light output.