Sudinfo: false heating advice from a pseudo-expert to NOT save energy!

[izentrop]

Maybe it's a bad translation from English

Caution, turn off your radiator heating while you are away can increase your energy bill!

https://www.lesecransdeparis.fr/attenti ... -denergie/

[Christophe]

So stop making excuses for them!!

Heating does not mean boiler even in English and the bullshit of the article is clear and clear: you must leave the heating in all your rooms…

A fabric of bullshit! Fortunately for these journalists that this kind of bullshit is not criminally punishable...

[Remundo]

confusing power and energy, a great classic...

What consumes ENERGY is the thermal gradient that you leave between your home and the outside, MULTIPLIED by the time that you impose this gradient.

If you want to lower your bill, you can play on both: namely
1) use unheated parts in protection of the heated part (the gradient is DeltaTemperature / Distance)
2) lower the setpoint of the heated room (eg to 18°C ​​instead of 22°C
3) turn off the heating when no one is enjoying it.

So it is true that when the house is cooled, when you put the heating back on, you have a peak in POWER to bring it back up to temperature, which can last, say, 1 hour maximum.

But it doesn't last as long as 10 a.m. when the heating was off at zero power.

On the other hand for the electrical network, it is potentially a delicate practice because it pulls more power if everyone returning from work has this practice. But for gas, hydrocarbon or wood heaters, no problem.

[Christophe]

That's Remundo... the covid has taken its toll...

[phil59]

So it is true that when the house is cooled, when you put the heating back on, you have a peak in POWER to bring it back up to temperature, which can last, say, 1 hour maximum.

Not 1 hour max, much more.

When in winter, you leave your house without heating (and even then I programmed 1/4 hour around 22 p.m., and 1/4 hour around 5 a.m., one week, with a 52 kWh boiler, it actually took 10 minutes for the radiators are hot, but a few hours to heat the house, like 2-3 hours to start getting in the +- 20°, but a full day for everything to recover, like a plate in the cupboard, etc...
The inertia is quite large.

And I put the boiler not at 60°, but at 80°.

So, yes, it consumes significantly less over the week in total, that's for sure, but the problem is to bring back the right TP, and the comfort felt.

You talk about difference in tp inside and outside...
Yes, that's what I was thinking, an unoccupied room in front of an occupied room, it's not the cold wall outside, this room absorbs that, but shouldn't we heat the inhabited room more?

I don't know, I think so, but much less than heating the unoccupied room a little.

These are questions I ask myself.

[Christophe]

phil re-read my example of the car...3 times if necessary...because obviously it doesn't fit!

You too are confusing energy and power...

There is no scenario where leaving the heating on (which keeps the temperature delta high) would ultimately result in less consumption on your bill...!

It's just that the boiler will run more when the temperature rises, so what? Is the power of your boiler a problem?

We pay for energy, not power!

This would be a problem if peak power would be billed, which is NOT currently the case...BUT it could come sooner than you think with the Linky!

Reminder: a total or partial withdrawal

power = energy / duration
energy = power * duration

[Exnihiloest]

...
There is no scenario where leaving the heating on (which keeps the temperature delta high) would ultimately result in less consumption on your bill...!
...

Exact. This idea that many have, related to an idea of ​​thermal inertia, is simply a scientific aberration.
The less the temperature difference between the outside and the inside, the less you consume. So in any case, it is advantageous to heat less or not to heat at all when you are not there. The rise in temperature will not cause more consumption than what we would have consumed if it had been maintained, it is quite the opposite.
This error in reasoning is astonishing. Everyone would however agree to say that if we leave for ten years, it would be in our interest not to heat up. So for what shorter absence time should the heating be on? Do the math. None.

[Exnihiloest]

 
Ah, I hadn't seen that it was a Belgian story ("sudinfo.be"). Everything is explained !

[sicetaitsimple]

phil re-read my example of the car...3 times if necessary...because obviously it doesn't fit!

I do not wish to create a controversy, because I agree on the substance.
But the example of the 180-->120-->180 car really doesn't seem to speak to me, precisely because there is almost no inertia, in a few seconds (in one direction) or tens of seconds (in the another), we find ourselves in a perfectly stable state with no difference in comfort for the passengers.
Which is obviously false in the case of a home whose temperature settings are changed or whose heating is cut off, totally or partially, for a few days.

[Christophe]

...
There is no scenario where leaving the heating on (which keeps the temperature delta high) would ultimately result in less consumption on your bill...!
...

Exact. This idea that many have, related to an idea of ​​thermal inertia, is simply a scientific aberration.
The less the temperature difference between the outside and the inside, the less you consume. So in any case, it is advantageous to heat less or not to heat at all when you are not there. The rise in temperature will not cause more consumption than what we would have consumed if it had been maintained, it is quite the opposite.
This error in reasoning is astonishing. Everyone would however agree to say that if we leave for ten years, it would be in our interest not to heat up. So for what shorter absence time should the heating be on? Do the math. None.

You see you can to agree with a dangerous "conspirator" !!