> I've read that it's always more efficient to turn heating off when you're not home and then turn it back on when you return.
50 years ago this was _always_ the case, but condensing boilers and especially heat pumps muddy the waters a little. Condensing boilers can be close to 100% efficient (vs ~70-80% for ye olde gas boilers), but generally only at a fairly specific operating temperature, which may be lower than you'd need to get a rapid rise in temperature. Heatpumps are >100% efficient (that is for every joule of electricity you put in they move more than one joule), but are even more fussy about operating temperature.
The answer now is going to be a solid 'it depends', based on behaviour of the heating system, outside temp, desired inside temp, insulation...
> Condensing boilers can be close to 100% efficient (vs ~70-80% for ye olde gas boilers)
So you save up to 30% of the gas while heating your home nearly 24 hours a day, instead of saving 67% of the gas by using it only for the ~8 hours that you're home and not under a duvet?
The math might work out for those who work from home, but I mean in the standard case with an hour's commute (round-trip), an 8-hour work day, and a 30-minute lunch break (9.5h gone, 7h sleep -> 7.5h during which the apartment should be warm if you run no errands). Of course, you'd schedule it to start before you get home, but it can also stop a bit before going to bed
I've been hearing both arguments for years and while it's exceedingly convenient to believe the condensing boiler story and just heat 24/7 to always come home in luxurious warmth, nobody ever does the math. You're one of the few people who even mention what the alleged savings are in the first place
We have a condensing boiler, chosen by my landlord so I'm no expert but I looked into it because we pay the bills in the end. The device's manual lists the efficiency as 88% ƞ4 at 60°C return water temperature, called high-temperature operation, and 98% ƞ4 at 30°C return temperature. It also gets tested yearly by a professional (Schornsteinfeger I think they call it here) and produces two efficiency measurements. Just looked up the record again: the mechanic handwrote "min" and "max" with them, so I presume that the "max" one is where the system operates at maximum capacity (minimum efficiency, then?), where the efficiency is 98%. At the "min" setting, the efficiency is shown as 106% (iirc some older measurement techniques don't include the condensation efficiency gain in the percentage, that's how it goes above 100%, or so I read when I looked it up a few years ago). For that difference, please correct me if I'm overlooking something but using a low heat for 24h/day makes no mathematical sense to me
Yeah, this only works with quite well-insulated houses, where they're very little heat loss (the system will then spend most of its time off _anyway_, as it has reached desired temperature).
50 years ago this was _always_ the case, but condensing boilers and especially heat pumps muddy the waters a little. Condensing boilers can be close to 100% efficient (vs ~70-80% for ye olde gas boilers), but generally only at a fairly specific operating temperature, which may be lower than you'd need to get a rapid rise in temperature. Heatpumps are >100% efficient (that is for every joule of electricity you put in they move more than one joule), but are even more fussy about operating temperature.
The answer now is going to be a solid 'it depends', based on behaviour of the heating system, outside temp, desired inside temp, insulation...