Why is it less efficient to turn off a home furnace than to leave it on???

Page 3 of 4  
Chris J... wrote in message ...

This question comes up year after year.
Standard efficiency fossil fuel fired furnaces run more efficiently if they are allowed to run continuously. The more on-off cycles, the lower the efficiency.
The old ASHRAE standard gas furnace was specifically limited to 80% efficiency when operated continuously. Frequent on-off cycles could lower efficiencies into the 50-60% range. That means if you run an old ASHRAE standard furnace continuously, about 20% of the heat went up the chimney; if you ran it intermittantly, as much as 50% could go up the chimney.
Read the label on the furnace, e.g. my older gas furnaces all were rated at 125,000 btu input, 100,000 btu output. That is interpreted as "Sufficient 1000 btu/cubic foot gas was piped to the furnace to generate 125,000 btu/hour, but 25,000 went up the chimney when tested while operating continuously in a testing lab."
When compared to losses to the outside incurred if leaving the thermostat at constant setpoint, If you let the house cool while you're gone for the day, then run the furnace hard to heat it up, you will reduce energy losses to the outside during the cool period, and reduce energy losses up the chimmney due to frequent on-off cycles while the furnace is heating the house back to the original set point.
I have never seen the efficiency curves for air conditioners, heat pumps or the High Efficiency, Forced Draft fossil fuel furnaces. I am certain that the pleasant-voiced, soft-spoken, "people-persons" who staff those customer query centers have never seen any efficiency curves of any kind.
Regards Old Al
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
oldal4865 wrote:

> continuously. The more on-off cycles, the lower

I might agree with that statement if furnaces were capable of running continuously while adding heat into a house at the same rate the heat is leaving that house.
I like the "bucket of water with a small hole in it" theory. Once the level of water (temp of a house) reaches a comfortable level, the faucet (furnace) need only add water (heat) to the bucket (house) at the rate water (heat) is draining out the small hole in the bottom (leaving the house via walls, windows, etc).
So when we start with an empty bucket, we need to add water at a very high rate to get the water level where we want it. Once the level is where we want it, we need to add water at a much slower rate (the rate at which water is leaking out the small hole in the bottom) to maintain the desired water level.
Most natural-gas-fired furnaces I know of heat a home at a constant (higher) rate. They don't allow us to reduce their heat output to a rate consistent with the rate at which heat is leaving our homes. To compensate, these furnaces cycle on and off. Over a long period of time this has the effect of adding heat at a much lower overall "rate". Cycling this type of furnace uses more energy since you must heat up the burner to maximum temperature on every cycle. This inefficiency occurs only once in a furnace that can run continuously and operate at a level where it is simply keeping pace with the rate heat is leaving a house.
Automotive heaters are a good example of this. They allow us to control the blower speed, which lets us control the rate at which we are heating the vehicle cabin. We can better match the rate heat is entering the vehicle cabin to the rate at which heat is leaving the cabin.
mikey.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The bucket is a good analogy, since the water will run out the hole at a higher rate when the water level is higher. This is how heat loss works -- more differential between the inside and the outside will result in a higher heat flow/loss.

Actually, you should think of it more like placing your bucket under your tap and turning the tap either fully on or fully off. You will need to cycle the tap on less frequently when the bucket's water level is lower.

This isn't an efficiency loss, since the burner resides inside the house. Only heat that is lost out the chimney is wasted -- heating the burner itself is merely part of heating the thermal mass of the house itself.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As a blanket statement, the "few" and the utility are wrong or misrepresenting the facts. If, after an extended setback period, your system needs to resort to resistive electric heating, that'll really crank up the expense. Otherwise, it's just a matter of being able to recover temp in time, and, for efficiency, the slower the better with the burner on full-time.
If a whole neighborhood (i.e. lots of houses) have had a major setback, and will all be in recovery-mode for some time, that can impact the gas main pressure, or power-distribution system (for heat-pumps.) IOW, if only you do it, it just cuts into their bottom-line. If lots of people, they may have to increase investment.
To make it clear to the physical-science-challenged, consider an analogy: a water-barrel with a tap at the bottom, which is cracked open. Say that you either keep it filled with a make-up water-supply, or, in the morning, change the fill controls such that the barrel is allowed to drop to half-full and maintained there, then filled again per clock setting in the evening. Can't make it much simpler.
HTH, John
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

From the US Department of Energy:
"A common misconception associated with thermostats is that a furnace works harder than normal to warm the space back to a comfortable temperature after the thermostat has been set back, resulting in little or no savings. This misconception has been dispelled by years of research and numerous studies. The fuel required to reheat a building to a comfortable temperature is roughly equal to the fuel saved as the building drops to the lower temperature. You save fuel between the time that the temperature stabilizes at the lower level and the next time heat is needed. So, the longer your house remains at the lower temperature, the more energy you save.
"Another misconception is that the higher you raise a thermostat, the more heat the furnace will put out, or that the house will warm up faster if the thermostat is raised higher. Furnaces put out the same amount of heat no matter how high the thermostat is set— The variable is how long it must stay on to reach the set temperature.
"In the winter, significant savings can be obtained by manually or automatically reducing your thermostat's temperature setting for as little as four hours per day. These savings can be attributed to a building's heat loss in the winter, which depends greatly on the difference between the inside and outside temperatures. For example, if you set the temperature back on your thermostat for an entire night, your energy savings will be substantial. By turning your thermostat back 10° to 15° for 8 hours, you can save about 5% to 15% a year on your heating bill—a savings of as much as 1% for each degree if the setback period is eight hours long. The percentage of savings from setback is greater for buildings in milder climates than for those in more severe climates. In the summer, you can achieve similar savings by keeping the indoor temperature a bit higher when you're away than you do when you're at home."
http://www.eere.energy.gov/erec/factsheets/thermo.html
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 21:03:04 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@xxoptonline.net (Tom Miller) wrote:

That's what i always figured, until I listened to the gas company! Thanks for posting this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think I'll call them up again and ask them why they disagree with the department of energy!

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

here, but I think there's something rather contradictory (big surprise coming from the government, eh?) in that energy department statement. Let's read that DOE statement very carefully and see if it's just me being the retarded guy:
"... The fuel required to reheat a building to a comfortable temperature is roughly equal to the fuel saved as the building drops to the lower temperature. ..."
OK, so you're using up pretty much the exact amount of fuel you saved setting the thermostat back, right? Call me silly, but that doesn;t constitute "savings" in homeowner terms. Or maybe the DOE was just speaking in government-spending terms, but ...
"You save fuel between the time that the temperature stabilizes at the lower level and the next time heat is needed."
No shit. It's when you get to that "next time heat is needed" point that the savings wheels start coming off the wagon, no?
"So, the longer your house remains at the lower temperature, the more energy you save."
No shit, again. And as long as you're willing to freeze your ass off, you'll save a bundle. It's when you start actually wanting to get warm that you will -- by the DOE's own admission -- start using up that savings. Unless maybe you want to freeze your ass off the entire winter.
Not only that, but the DOE seems to fail to answer the original question posted of exactly *how* turning up the thermostat when you're sick of saving all this fuel and money and make your furnace actually *produce heat* wouldn't mean additional wear and tear (aka "working harder") than had it been left to maintain confortable room temperature.
I'd love to discuss the issue further right now, but the turnip truck just pulled up to to put me back on it.
AJS
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't see any contradictions in there.

Let's assume that you set your thermostat to a lower temperature for an 8 hour period every night. Your house takes 2 hours to cool down to the lower temperature, so for that time period, you aren't saving anything. However, the next 6 hours at the lower temp are pure savings.

No. In the example above, you have turned down the thermostat for 8 hours, but it only takes 2 of those hour's savings to reheat the house. The net savings is 6 hours of lower furnace usage.

No, just for the hours when I am in bed or out of the house.

The furnace doesn't "work harder" -- it produces the same amount of heat for every minute that it is turned on. Setting back the thermostat results in less wear and tear, since the furnace is running for fewer minutes every day.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ah, yes -- but a lot is in that "it depends" gray area, no? How low of a "lower temperature" are you talking about, exactly, and going from what current temp to what lower temp? According to a new post by Chris J, his house takes two whole days to drop something like 10-15 degrees. So if he's only losing a fraction of 1 degree of heat per hour, how many hours will it take him to see a huge amount of "pure savings" according to your scenario? And if his assertions are correct, it would take his house more than a day to go from 68 (his daytime stat setting) to 64 (his night stat setting). At any given point in the day, his house will still be pretty warm -- which really, is pretty much the ideal everyone strives for anyway: a warm house that doesn;t have to suck up a lot of fuel to get and stay that way.

True. But in Chris' original post, he spoke of turning the system off for an entire day. Math makes my brain hurt, so how many hours' savings are left when reheating a house left to cool for 24 hours, not 8?

True again. But in a 24-hour period of no heat as stated by Chris, how many of those hours do you plan on spending in bed or out of the house? Might be able to get away with it for a day, maybe, but beyond that I'd imagine you'd need to be either severely depressed or have a girlfriend with an apartment she's spending her own money to heat. ;)

Which I think harkens back to Chris' original question of, if room is left to cool for 24 hours, wouldn't the furnace by nature of having to reheat a LOT of degrees at once be subjected to more wear and tear (aka "work harder," altho we've long established furnaces don't work harder, just longer) than one that was not turned off at all and left to maintain the current room/house temp.
And this, for those who may be new here, is why I'm the retarded guy ;)
AJS
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You get the same savings for each degree the inside of your walls are cooler, given that it's still cooler outside, regardless of outside temperature otherwise, or how long it takes your house to cool down.
As the house cools, you save at a higher and higher rate.
As it warms, you save at a lower and lower rate.
The heat you pay for leaves the house at a rate proportional to the temperate difference between inside and outside. Any time at all spent at a cooler inside temperature reduces the total amout of paid heat you have to buy by that much.
One consequence is that if your house takes a long time to cool down, you have to leave the furnace off for a long time to save much.
You never lose money though.
Exception: if you heat with a heat pump, you save even more than with straight heat, so long as emergency heat doesn't come on when you want to heat up the house again, and so long as the pump doesn't go into defrost mode at the reduced inside temperature.
--
Ron Hardin
snipped-for-privacy@mindspring.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

One thing to be careful about here -- the temperature drop isn't linear. It will drop faster at first, and then progressively slower as the inside and outside temperatures get closer to each other.

If it takes more than a day to drop from the daytime temp setting down to the nighttime setting, then the setback isn't going to help very much at all. On the other hand, my house takes about 2 hours to drop down to the lower temp, so I really can expect 6 hours worth of savings.

I am assuming that his 24 hour test was just that -- an experiment. The only time you would turn the heat off for that long would be if you weren't planning on being in the house at all (and it wasn't so cold outside as to cause pipes to freeze).

No -- if you measure the total furnace runtime, you will find it is less, not more over the entire period. In the case of turning the furnace off for 24 hours, you should measure how long the furnace needed to run over a two day period. It will be less time than if you just left the temperature at the higher setting for those two days.
Let's go back to your "bucket of water with a hole in the bottom" analogy, since it works well. At a lower water level, water is lost at a slower rate than it would be if the water level was right at the top. All of the "cooling off" and "reheating" is just changing the water level in the bucket. What really counts is how much water leaked out of the hole over a one day (or one month period). For every minute that I have a lower water level in the bucket, that is one minute where the water is leaking at a slower rate -- that is where my savings come from.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
news:nowhon-

If the thermostat is turned down for periods, the heat loss total will be less. The total run time to supply the needed heat will be less, so "wear and tear" will be less.
Bob
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(Tom Miller)

Of course they disagree; their SELLING gas; the more you use the higher their income!
--
George Eberhardt
(732)224-8988
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:04:57 -0500, "George Eberhardt"

That's a point.. I also do know that the electric company, due to considerations of peak loads, does not like cooling to be turned off in the daytime then turned on in the evenings.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Duh, the gas company SELLS GAS.
-Jack
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

This is a very interesting topic. At least *part* of the question is probably the non-linear facet of heat-transfer problems. Not to mention delay times and heat-sink questions.
The obvious abuses, turning the heat off when one leaves and cranking the thermostat up to 90 when you return, are easily explained -- the furnace doesn't have separate 90-degree and 72-degree flavors of 'hot'. It's pretty much binary -- on/off at whatever its capacity is until the set point is reached.
The question is whether it takes more energy, in a non-linear world, to maintain 60 degrees for 8 hrs, and then raise the temperature to 72, or warm a 45-degree space to 72. As a posted notice in my old workplace had it, "the real world is not parallel, uniform, or without friction."
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
When does a car consume more gas: Getting to 70 mph or maintaining 70 mph?
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not a question that can be answered, at least stated as it is -- there just isn't enough information. How long to accelerate to that speed? What weight of vehicle? What drag coefficients (including aerodynamic drag coeeficient)? How long do we cruise at 70 mph?
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
edee em wrote:

A totally different question, but one that might help here.
Not too many years ago Shell Oil sponsored mileage competition. Many colleges competed. At the time most cars were getting 25 mpg or less they managed to squeeze out around 50-70. They used all kinds of tricks that real drivers could not easily use.
One trick was to use a engine designed to run at a single power output. They were optimized to run at only one setting, no throttle. They would start the motor, accelerate to a given speed and turn the motor off. When it slowed to a pre-determined speed, they would repeat the process.
This resulted in higher mileage than a steady speed.
You car will not work this way because of the engine design, but even today a similar idea is used by some/all hybrids. The gas/diesel engine may only run at one speed, driving the car and charging the batteries, or some variation of that idea.
--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Points taken, but all info I have heard re fuel consumption is that it takes more fuel to get the car up to speed as opposed to keeping it there. I think that is why you see higher mpg at highway than you do in city driving.
I offered this as an analogy. My furnace will consume more fuel to get my house to 72 than it will to keep it there. I don't believe there is any kind of regulator that would inject gas at slower rates when ramping up, so it would be in the "floored" position until the thermostat shut it down. How long would it take to get to 72? I don't know and I don't want to find out, although, that is probably the best solution to this query: try a month of turning off the furnace and a month of turning the temp down. Then you can check the bills at the end of the month. Kind of think the best months would be Jan and Feb (equally cold).

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.