BristolUK

Knot really.

Mr Bean

Our energy star gaff is roughly 3K² ft. Enbridge for heat, hot water and cooking normally in winter $60/month. Electricity bi-monthly $200. Water bi-monthly $160.

Hope this helps.

dbd33

I heated a house using only wood for several winters. It took about four cords a winter, about half of that was delivered, the other half I cut myself either from my lot or from neighbouring farms when the wind brought a tree down or similar.

It was nowhere near free. At that time a cord split and delivered was $300. Wood that came from our lot needed fetching, that's diesel for the tractor, cutting, that's petrol and sharpening for the chainsaw and splitting, no cost there except time. One can argue that a sculpted body like this would be expensive at a gym and it's free if it comes from axe work but that's a lot of unbilled hours. I soon found that coming home to a cord in the driveway and a bill was the sensible course; there's still labour in sticking it in the bucket, driving it around the back and stacking it.

Having tried heating with wood, oil, natural gas, propane, baseboard heaters and geothermal. I'd choose a propane or natural gas furnace backing up a woodstove, wouldn't baulk at an oil furnace if it was there and working and wouldn't touch baseboard heaters or geothermal with yours.

cjones

If you're spunking up that much every month, you maybe want to consider getting yourself off into the bush for some of that free wood...

scrubbedexpat133

Does anyone have an Instant water heater?

The place Im renting now has a tank and no way of adjusting the temp and when its on or off. - not much I can do here but wanting to buy my own place soon as my PR comes through (soon hopefully )

Our Bill is on average 120 in the summer and 220 in the winter - 3 bed semi built mid 90's everything on electric

Animal

I don't but we are very likely having one put in very soon to replace our electric water heater/tank. A tank just feels so archaic compared to combi boiler type systems in the UK and the 'on demand' systems seem to be new here.

The fitter who came round to measure up/cost said they are very good and will definitley save on my current costs ($240/ month) for electric - which is cant not do really.

dbd33

What do you do when the power's out? If you have a tank there will be hot, or warm, water for a day or so; long enough for most power failures.

Animal

It's a fair point but I think the savings over the months without a power outage would outway the pain without warm water for a couple of days.

I'm on a well so wouldn't get anything if there was a power outage anyway and any warm water I did need I'd put on the BBQ to heat up

Thinking about this (as i've only been in the house for a few months) I'm guessing there is a pump for the hotwater as the tank is in the basement so wouldn't get any hot water anyway as it wouldn't pump to the bathrooms / kitchen etc.

Time to spend a few grand on a generator.....

scrubbedexpat133

I looked online and they are a lot cheaper in the US so you might want to consider that. If you dont mind roughly how much was the fitting???

Animal

He quoted $380 including any additional pipe/duct work that was required.

scrubbedexpat133

Thanks

colchar

I just wanted to point out that turning the heat off entirely is not saving you money and is probably costing you more. When the heat is off and the house cools down it takes more to get the house back up to a comfortable temperature than it would to leave it on and keep the house at a reasonably comfortable temperature (or maybe just below that) the entire time. Think of it like driving in the city vs. driving on the highway - city driving uses more fuel per mile because of all the starting and stopping whereas highway driving uses less fuel per mile because the vehicle is cruising along at a reasonably constant speed. The same principle applies to the way in which you use your heating - keeping it at a reasonably constant temperature will cost less than the constant cooling off and heating back up.

iaink

Eh?

Theres no logic in that as far as I can see. If you are not there then there is no point maintining a comfortable temperature. let is cool down then heat it up again when you return.

Plot temperature vs time, the theretical total energy used is the area under the line.

Animal

A quick google found these which I'd agree with (not that I'd disagree with Newton !).



'Newton's Law of Cooling states that the rate of change of the temperature of an object is proportional to the difference between its own temperature and the ambient temperature'. In other words, maintaining a comfortable temperature 24/7 involves greater heat loss than just heating your house when you are a] home and b] moving around rather than in bed.

----------

Houses lose heat simply because they are hotter than the outside air. The greater the difference in temperature the faster the house loses heat energy.

Turning the heating off - at night, say - results in the temperature inside falling as heat is lost to the outside but the rate at which heat is lost decreases as the inside temperature falls - less heat is lost as the house cools down. If the house were allowed to cool down to the outside temperature it would stop losing heat to it.

Keeping the heating on constantly simply results in maximum heat loss from the house to the environment - this heat loss has to be made good (to maintain the internal temperature) by running the boiler more frequently.

Put simply; houses lose most heat when they are hottest. Keeping houses warm all the time is more expensive than allowing them to cool periodically.

ArthurBrit

There is logic there.

This is one of the features used in higher efficient furnaces.
Traditionally the motor inside the furnace would kick in at 100% until the thermostat reached it's target (for example 70) then the motor would switch off and only power up again when the temperature dropped to (68 for example).

The newer furnaces have some level of smarts to them where by it adjusts the power to the motor so in the summer the motor may run at 20% but never switches off, in the winter it runs at 80% constantly rather than the start/stop method.

I don't have any data to suggest one method is more efficient than the other though but there are enough variable frequency drives/soft start devices out there in the industrial world to keep power consumption down and it is ultimately the same theory behind it.