User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 1:22:47 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm not sure how to convince you, but heat lost is heat lost. Your argument isn't factually true. Don't trust me? I can send you the email address of my two thermodynamics professors.  I honestly don't care what your professors say. I went to college and had professors as well, don't make the mistake in putting too much value in their opinions.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 1:24:44 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure how to convince you, but heat lost is heat lost. Your argument isn't factually true. Don't trust me? I can send you the email address of my two thermodynamics professors. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Except that isn't the whole story. "Reheating" your house isn't just heating the air. The things in your house have all have a temperature. The walls, the floor, your mattress etc etc. When you bring a house from a cold temp up to a much warmer temp, you will notice that your heating system has to run through many cycles in fast succession. The air will come up to temp and it will shut off. The air will drop quickly again and it will need to heat cycle again. This will happen several times, with longer and longer periods of time between cycles, as the air slowly heats up all the materials within your house. The counter argument is that keeping all those things at their "normal" temp, not just the air, is more efficient than reheating them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 1:24:55 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure how to convince you, but heat lost is heat lost. Your argument isn't factually true. Don't trust me? I can send you the email address of my two thermodynamics professors. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Except that isn't the whole story. "Reheating" your house isn't just heating the air. The things in your house have all have a temperature. The walls, the floor, your mattress etc etc. When you bring a house from a cold temp up to a much warmer temp, you will notice that your heating system has to run through many cycles in fast succession. The air will come up to temp and it will shut off. The air will drop quickly again and it will need to heat cycle again. This will happen several times, with longer and longer periods of time between cycles, as the air slowly heats up all the materials within your house. The counter argument is that keeping all those things at their "normal" temp, not just the air, is more efficient than reheating them. The greater the differential between the interior of your home and the ambient outdoor temperature, the more efficiently your windows, walls, and roof act as a heat exchanger, therefore the greater the heat loss will be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 1:25:12 PM EDT
[#4]
Modern heat pump work below 0F and are the most efficient way of heating your house.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 1:26:03 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
I just moved to Idaho. Night time temps have been well below freezing. The house is fairly well insulated. Heating is via electricity, there's no gas in this house. I normally keep the inside temps at 73 degrees; at night, I turn it down to 60 and have electric heaters in each bedroom to save money. Is this correct? It seems that it could go either way, since I now run the house heater for a long time to get the inside temps up. So: do I save money by heating the house from 65 to 73 every morning, or should I leave the house temperature at 73? You will save money by finding the source of where you're losing heat and fixing that. You shouldn't be dropping 8*F overnight, especially if you're using space heaters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 1:26:22 PM EDT
[#6]
You need a parlor stove....that uses nut coal
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 1:27:38 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Correct, lost heat is lost heat. In all the materials in your house. It has to be either maintained, or regained. There is no way around that. I honestly don't care what your professors say. I went to college and had professors as well, don't make the mistake in putting too much value in their opinions. Consider this, do you use more energy to keep your house at 82 or 72 degrees in the winter? Obviously, 82 takes more energy, right? Why? Because of that formula. Just HOLDING it at a higher temperature costs more energy. That's proof that more energy is lost at higher inside temps. You are paying for that energy. There's a lot of junk science out there, so you can read up on it and calculate it yourself! You can believe what you want, even it it's not true! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 1:28:31 PM EDT
[#8]
Last year my wife thought heating with wood was free, and we ran the house at 78-80 all winter, or she whined.
This fall she helped split (stood outside and ran hydraulic splitter handle) nearly all our wood... and now she says 70 is just fine! 
 Attached FileDaughter and grandpa got in on some of the fun too! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 1:30:08 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
60F inside... LOL why even have heat? My heat pump is set to 71 during the day 69 at night. Fuck being cold cause you're a bean counter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 1:30:11 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Modern heat pump work below 0F and are the most efficient way of heating your house. The actual gas cost [sans add on's] is $5 a month for a 50 gallon NG water heater and usually around $45-50 a month to heat the house with a 95+ NG furnace in the winter. Even in the ''polar vortex'' last winter my highest bill was $140 or so. I live in an older house, not big but decently insulated on top. Electricity use is WAY more then the gas use and cost. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 1:30:55 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, do the calculation yourself. There's no magic there. Consider this, do you use more energy to keep your house at 82 or 72 degrees in the winter? Obviously, 82 takes more energy, right? Why? Because of that formula. Just HOLDING it at a higher temperature costs more energy. That's proof that more energy is lost at higher inside temps. You are paying for that energy. There's a lot of junk science out there, so you can read up on it and calculate it yourself! You can believe what you want, even it it's not true! The question we are debating, is, is letting the temperature drop below what you want it to be a few hours later, more efficient than just holding what you want all the time. The answer to that question has to consider ALL the things that need to be at the desired temperature. Not just the air. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 1:33:50 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I set mine where I feel comfy and leave it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 1:35:20 PM EDT
[#13]
I don’t know what’s correct, but I leave mine at 60 all day and let the fireplace rip. It is set to go to 65 from 10-midnight, then to 60, then to 68 from 4:30am to 8:30 while work/school showers go down.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 1:40:27 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You absolutely save money by turning down the heat at night and when you leave the house. The thermodynamics of it is: - heat lost to the outside is a function of the temp difference between in and outside temps - the closer your inside temp is to the outside, the less heat is lost Even power companies used to say "set the thermostat and don't change it", but they are 100% wrong. Your thermostat reads temp of air at the stat. Where the temp of the surfaces is what makes you comfortable. It’s where most of your heat load is. Human comfort and energy efficiency is a lot more complicated than that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 1:41:18 PM EDT
[#15]
Since this started out an Idaho thread...
In northern Idaho (Ponderay, to be exact) a company called Lignetics uses heat and pressure only (no wax or chemicals) to manufacture synthetic logs from sawdust. If the log breaks, they throw the pieces into watermelon boxes. Two of those boxes weigh 4,000 pounds, and Lignetics charges $100 for them...you haul. You have to be very careful burning them in a woodstove...they expand and burn very hot. I was warned several times about people cracking their stoves and/or burning down their house trying to bank them. Not a good all-night fuel, but if you don't mind tossing a fresh log in every hour or two it's an excellent way to supplement while you're home and awake. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 1:46:07 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Since this started out an Idaho thread... In northern Idaho (Ponderay, to be exact) a company called Lignetics uses heat and pressure only (no wax or chemicals) to manufacture synthetic logs from sawdust. If the log breaks, they throw the pieces into watermelon boxes. Two of those boxes weigh 4,000 pounds, and Lignetics charges $100 for them...you haul. You have to be very careful burning them in a woodstove...they expand and burn very hot. I was warned several times about people cracking their stoves and/or burning down their house trying to bank them. Not a good all-night fuel, but if you don't mind tossing a fresh log in every hour or two it's an excellent way to supplement while you're home and awake. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 1:49:49 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
not inefficient. Just expensive Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Electric heating is horribly inefficient. Love our nat gas.  
At turning electricity into heat. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 1:54:36 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure how to convince you, but heat lost is heat lost. Your argument isn't factually true. Don't trust me? I can send you the email address of my two thermodynamics professors. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Except that isn't the whole story. "Reheating" your house isn't just heating the air. The things in your house have all have a temperature. The walls, the floor, your mattress etc etc. When you bring a house from a cold temp up to a much warmer temp, you will notice that your heating system has to run through many cycles in fast succession. The air will come up to temp and it will shut off. The air will drop quickly again and it will need to heat cycle again. This will happen several times, with longer and longer periods of time between cycles, as the air slowly heats up all the materials within your house. The counter argument is that keeping all those things at their "normal" temp, not just the air, is more efficient than reheating them. If it didn't, thermal optics wouldn't work. If you let everything cool to the same temperature it will take much longer to heat, than if you only let the air cool for a short bit, and allow things with more thermal mass to stay warmer longer. Same reason freezers are more effective and cycle less when full than almost empty. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 1:55:54 PM EDT
[#19]
We keep our heat at 60-64° in the winter. We have a great collection of jackets.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 1:56:32 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Heat lost might be heat lost but it's not all lost until everything reaches the same temperature, and everything takes in and releases heat and different rates. If it didn't, thermal optics wouldn't work. If you let everything cool to the same temperature it will take much longer to heat, than if you only let the air cool for a short bit, and allow things with more thermal mass to stay warmer longer. Same reason freezers are more effective and cycle less when full than almost empty. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Except that isn't the whole story. "Reheating" your house isn't just heating the air. The things in your house have all have a temperature. The walls, the floor, your mattress etc etc. When you bring a house from a cold temp up to a much warmer temp, you will notice that your heating system has to run through many cycles in fast succession. The air will come up to temp and it will shut off. The air will drop quickly again and it will need to heat cycle again. This will happen several times, with longer and longer periods of time between cycles, as the air slowly heats up all the materials within your house. The counter argument is that keeping all those things at their "normal" temp, not just the air, is more efficient than reheating them. If it didn't, thermal optics wouldn't work. If you let everything cool to the same temperature it will take much longer to heat, than if you only let the air cool for a short bit, and allow things with more thermal mass to stay warmer longer. Same reason freezers are more effective and cycle less when full than almost empty. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 2:00:35 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Same reason freezers are more effective and cycle less when full than almost empty. So I guess if we extrapolated that, one could save some money on their heating bill by packing their living space with junk. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 2:01:26 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
I just moved to Idaho. Night time temps have been well below freezing. The house is fairly well insulated. Heating is via electricity, there's no gas in this house. I normally keep the inside temps at 73 degrees; at night, I turn it down to 60 and have electric heaters in each bedroom to save money. Is this correct? It seems that it could go either way, since I now run the house heater for a long time to get the inside temps up. So: do I save money by heating the house from 65 to 73 every morning, or should I leave the house temperature at 73? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 2:08:52 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No it isn't. Idaho sucks. Quote HistoryQuoted: No it isn't. Idaho sucks. Quoted: Where in idaho? Fall river electric in eastern idaho is around 7.7cents per kwh. Pretty cheap. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 2:09:24 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You absolutely save money by turning down the heat at night and when you leave the house. The thermodynamics of it is: - heat lost to the outside is a function of the temp difference between in and outside temps - the closer your inside temp is to the outside, the less heat is lost Even power companies used to say "set the thermostat and don't change it", but they are 100% wrong. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 2:12:21 PM EDT
[#25]
In my first apartment I used the electric heat for the first winter because I was worried the natural gas heat would get expensive, (I was young and dumb)
. Anyways between the heat, the electric water heater, the electric stove, and all the shit (Dishwasher, tv, etc) I had a $300 electric bill. Started using the gas heat and my apartment was plenty warm, I programmed the thermostat to be 65 when I was home and drop to 60 when I wasn't home, or was sleeping, My electric bill was never over $130 ever again. It was just a standing wall unit natural gas heater that was about the size of an old high school locker.
New apartment is baseboard boiler heat and is included with the rent along with hot water (which is cheaper), I have to crack windows because it never falls below 75 even when I turn the thermostat down, the GF loves it. I just moved and got my first electric bill: $6 for 1/3 of the month, I'm thinking I'm gonna like the electricity bills in this new place... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 2:16:23 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah I never knew that until a few years ago. A an empty freezer is a lot more costly to run than one packed with stuff, due to the loss via air space. So I guess if we extrapolated that, one could save some money on their heating bill by packing their living space with junk. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Same reason freezers are more effective and cycle less when full than almost empty. So I guess if we extrapolated that, one could save some money on their heating bill by packing their living space with junk.
I think that's one thing people forget when talking about temperature, is it has speed and direction as well as how we perceive it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 2:20:15 PM EDT
[#27]
Heat pump. Scheduled 68 day, 65 night, tstat starts the warming process about an hour before we get up.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 2:22:21 PM EDT
[#28]
In Texas its a moist cold, Electric heat doesn't remove the humidity in the air like Gas heat. The result is your house can be 73 degrees and your still feeling cold. A dehumidifier works really well with electric heat for this problem.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 2:25:04 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Stop being a 13'er... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 2:25:08 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: At the point of use, electric heating is far more efficient than gas heating, but it's usually more expensive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 2:26:53 PM EDT
[#31]
I don't run any heat at night. I try to run my heat pump full on in the warmest part of the day when efficiency is up to 2X of running at night, then shut off by about 8pm. The house acts like a reservoir. In the summer I crank the AC at night, and reduce run time during the heat of the day. I like to sleep in the cooler temps, so its no sacrifice to run different temps day and night. A gas fireplace in my main living space that I can stoke in the morning helps in the winter, and also covers power outages.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 2:33:07 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Correct, electric is more "efficient" in the use of fuel, but it is not as economically efficient as just about all other fuel choices. resistance heating is 100% efficient hurrr durrrr!!!! Efficieny as In how many BTU’s do I recieve per unit of currency I spend. Wtf would someone bring up electrical theory? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 2:34:39 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No it isn't. Idaho sucks. Rates for all 50 states |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 2:43:46 PM EDT
[#34]
Nice. WV #11 jus out of the top 10 cheapest.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 2:50:56 PM EDT
[#35]
My thermostat is set to 68 during day. An at 9pm to 6 am, drops to 66F.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 2:55:35 PM EDT
[#36]
It actually depends on the wattage used by the portable heaters. 4 1500 watt heaters is 6kw per hour.
Say 8 hours. Google say Idaho average electricity rate is about 8.7 cents per KW/h Looks like about $1.50 a night per heater (again, depending on wattage of heaters) Check your wattage on your heater and compare. Then, if you're going to stay a while, get some forced air ducting connected to a fireplace. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 3:06:42 PM EDT
[#37]
Winter time - 68 during the day, 64 at night with lots of heavy blankets (I get my best sleep ever this time of year - I'm a hot sleeper, and a cold room is heaven).
In the summer, I go 70 during the day and 68 at night. Heat pump (I have no gas line run to the house), and 2015 construction. It's very well insulated and sealed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 3:10:21 PM EDT
[#38]
In my little part of Idaho, 99.9% of home owners use either a wood or pellet stove for heat be it primary or secondary. There is no NG available in this area and electric heat is cost prohibitive.
I have a wood stove in addition to that I use a Toyotami laser 73 diesel stove. I've a 275 gallon tank outside the house, the Toyo is set to light up if the temperature in the house drops below 60. It will heat up to 68 before shutting down. I filled the diesel tank when I bought the house 5 years ago, I just ran out two weeks ago. So for a couple of days I used my Corona 23 DK Kerosene heater. My electicity is provided by Inland power. Summer bill is $43.68 average per month. Winter time with the heat trace, and heat bulb in the well shack, the two acquarium heaters I use in water buckets in the chicken coop, the Lectro kennel pad and heated water bowl in the kennel, my average electric bill is about $80. To switch to electric heat would jump it to $ 300 or so per month. Right now, replacing an inefficient wood stove with an epa approved one you can get a 40% tax refund of it's cost on the year of purchase, 20% off tax refund for each of the next three years, maximum refund $5000. In plain English getting a new stove can be free. You might have to get a little creative in order to make it happen, but it's worth considering. Click me |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 3:28:39 PM EDT
[#39]
Winter: 60 from 10pm to 545am, 65 all other hours
Summer: 74 all hours of the day Nevada has insanely cheap electricity and vas is decently priced. We have gas heater and water heater. During the winter anything above 65 is just too damn hot for us. During the summer anything above 75 is too damn hot. This will be the first winter we will spend in this house, but all summer our highest bill was like $130. Also both my wife and i work from home, 3 monitors each. So we probably use more electricity than the average house. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 3:30:21 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
I just moved to Idaho. Night time temps have been well below freezing. The house is fairly well insulated. Heating is via electricity, there's no gas in this house. I normally keep the inside temps at 73 degrees; at night, I turn it down to 60 and have electric heaters in each bedroom to save money. Is this correct? It seems that it could go either way, since I now run the house heater for a long time to get the inside temps up. So: do I save money by heating the house from 65 to 73 every morning, or should I leave the house temperature at 73? Bill for the better though. Get one, use the calendar feature and save big bucks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 3:34:10 PM EDT
[#41]
Thankfully I found one of what seems to be nine apartments in Vermont that has radiant head, so I don't get charged for it. Yay free heat!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 3:45:52 PM EDT
[#42]
My apartment was set at 74, and will stay there until spring.
Natural gas heating and stove is awesome. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 3:48:28 PM EDT
[#43]
If you wear t-shirts and boxers all the time rather than long sleeve shirts and pants or PJs, you don't deserve heat.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 3:49:27 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not just junk, but the most dense junk you can find since it will retain temperature longer.
I think that's one thing people forget when talking about temperature, is it has speed and direction as well as how we perceive it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 3:55:43 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I explained it above, but you can look up the equations: Q=hA(T2-T1) See that "T2-T1"? That's the temp difference between in and outside. The higher the difference, the higher the heat transferred to the outside (Q in the equation above). It's that straightforward. The closer your inside and outside temps are, the less heat lost to the outside. That heat being transferred is supplied by your furnace or baseboard heaters. Money. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Do you have some actual science that you could share with the class that shows it's work or is this just personal opinion? Q=hA(T2-T1) See that "T2-T1"? That's the temp difference between in and outside. The higher the difference, the higher the heat transferred to the outside (Q in the equation above). It's that straightforward. The closer your inside and outside temps are, the less heat lost to the outside. That heat being transferred is supplied by your furnace or baseboard heaters. Money. Is the problem a simple air temp one, or are other masses involved? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 3:56:24 PM EDT
[#46]
I set the heater at 71deg, and then open the windows and let the cool crisp air in.
Best of both worlds!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 4:02:45 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You don’t know that. Your thermostat reads temp of air at the stat. Where the temp of the surfaces is what makes you comfortable. It’s where most of your heat load is. Human comfort and energy efficiency is a lot more complicated than that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 4:03:37 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I could save lots and lots of money by keeping my house at 50F. Not arguing that holding a higher temperature isn't more costly than holding a lower temperature. It is more costly. The question we are debating, is, is letting the temperature drop below what you want it to be a few hours later, more efficient than just holding what you want all the time. The answer to that question has to consider ALL the things that need to be at the desired temperature. Not just the air. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Well, do the calculation yourself. There's no magic there. Consider this, do you use more energy to keep your house at 82 or 72 degrees in the winter? Obviously, 82 takes more energy, right? Why? Because of that formula. Just HOLDING it at a higher temperature costs more energy. That's proof that more energy is lost at higher inside temps. You are paying for that energy. There's a lot of junk science out there, so you can read up on it and calculate it yourself! You can believe what you want, even it it's not true! The question we are debating, is, is letting the temperature drop below what you want it to be a few hours later, more efficient than just holding what you want all the time. The answer to that question has to consider ALL the things that need to be at the desired temperature. Not just the air. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 4:06:00 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What is “h” and how might it affect your statement? Is the problem a simple air temp one, or are other masses involved? Thermal mass is a different discussion, but a house packed with furniture, or a log home, or a fridge full of beer heats up slower than an empty one. It also cools down slower, by the way. That's why it doesn't matter how full or empty your house (or fridge) is. Heat lost is heat lost. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2019 4:06:10 PM EDT
[#50]
Pretty sure I've only turned on the heat 3 or 4 nights in the past year. I do use a little space heater in the shower room.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
