# How low can YOU go?



## Marc (Oct 15, 2007)

The temperature in my house right now is a balmy 59 degrees F.  I only have two south facing windows and they're shaded by a large silver maple.  I'm too cheap to turn my heat on, although it is becoming a detriment to the piano practicing I must say.  But it appears that my wallet is winning out.  I'll let it get to 55 I think before I start considering heat and only because I want my beer to ferment properly.

So how cheap (or not) are you when it comes to home heat?

And out of curiosity, what type of heating system do you have?  I have oil burning forced hot air and an oil hot water tank, however I aspire to have a geothermal system in the first house I own (I'm a renter right now).


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Oct 15, 2007)

Well i live with my parents so it is not how low I will go.  They are on vacation so they havent turned on the heat.

I just looked at the temp gauge in the house, and it is 59.2 degrees.  I had my bedroom window open last night.  2 quilts on my bed so I am nice and warm.  I love feeling the crisp cold air on my face, as I sleep.  Maybe Ill close my windows soon.....


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Oct 15, 2007)

I would let the temperature in my place go into the 30s but heat is included with my rent and I have no control of it..My place is heated right now and it's 60 degrees out so I need to open a window..


----------



## Grassi21 (Oct 15, 2007)

Yikes!  It is now 70 degrees in our family room.  I probably wouldn't have turned the gas stove on in the family room if it wasn't for the baby.  The gas stove in our family room is ventless.  We have another large gas vented heater in the basement.  Unfortunately our place has electric heat and water heater.  We will be updating these systems in the spring.  But that gas stove does a great job at heating the main room we spend time in.


----------



## nelsapbm (Oct 15, 2007)

We havent turned our heat on yet.....we've been using the wood stove to heat up the house when we're home. Probably once we get into consistent cold, freezing nights and temps in the 40s, we'll turn the dang heat on.


----------



## roark (Oct 15, 2007)

I typically keep it about 58-62 during the winter. Haven't turned it on yet....


----------



## severine (Oct 15, 2007)

I think the lowest I can be "comfortable" at is around 65.  My parents always turned the heat off during the day in our home and my bedroom on the 2nd floor was always _freezing_, IMHO.  I don't want to be that way.  We do turn the gas furnace off entirely from about May 1st on (just turned it back on last night).  I've found that now that we have kids, the part of the year the furnace stays off is getting shorter and shorter.  Can't freeze out the babies, after all.

BTW, we have a really old gas furnace (pilot lights!) that is entirely inefficient.  Hot water baseboard heaters.  Costs us way too much to heat this apartment for the space there is but it's not our house.


----------



## marcski (Oct 15, 2007)

Just got home from work its still a balmy 69 in here.  NO HEAT yet for sure.  Damn, I had the AC going last week still...it was crazy here.  I'll let it get down to the low 60's before the heat goes on.  Like others have said, I have the baby (16 months now) so can't let it get down too low.  We have gas, forced hot air, which is extremely expensive.  My january-march bills are like a 2nd mortgage the last couple of years.  I should probably do the balanced billing option, but I still enjoy the low bills this time of year and in spring before the ac goes on.


----------



## snoseek (Oct 15, 2007)

Last january- march averaged 100 dollars a week in my rental, thats with the annoying plastic on the windows and temp in low 60's. It will be someone elses problem this winter. I used to like oil heat... not so much these days.


----------



## skidbump (Oct 15, 2007)

My bedrooms are upstairs and for all intents and purposes has no heat "electric" .The temps have been in the high 40 on some nites last winter.We have a mattress heater for when we first go to bed and the 2 comforters are good for about 30 below"at least thats what the ad said" . My heat downstairs is oil with baseboard and i have 2 pellet stoves ,1 in basement for when temps go below single digits or really damp winter days and 1 in living room.I burn about 2.5 tons a yr.My heating cost for oil was about 600 last yr "full yr" and pellets were about same


----------



## Greg (Oct 15, 2007)

We usually set the thermostat for around 66 or 67. I could probably go lower, but the kids and wife take precedent. We used heat only at night a few nights so far. I still haven't lit the pilot on the gas fireplace yet. I do enjoy passing out on the couch when I fire that up. We have propane/force air heat. Our electric bill is only marginally lower in the winter months because the fans still need to blow the warm air, despite the A/C unit not running. We do the budget plan on the propane to spread the cost out across the entire year.


----------



## hammer (Oct 15, 2007)

Since no people are at home during the day, I have the thermostats set to 55 degrees in the daytime.  In the evenings and mornings, the temp's up to 68, and in the night it's set back to 66.  When it's really cold, we put the gas fireplace in the family room on to make it a little toasty in there.  I would be fine with 66 during prime time but the rest of the family would not...

My son's room in the attic has to be a little warmer in the day (62 or so) to keep his pet tortoise from getting too frosty (we also have a few heat lamps going).  Since the heat doesn't reach up there all that well, we have to turn on the supplemental electric baseboards.

We have forced air gas heat...had a high efficiency furnace installed when we added the family room and kitchen extension a few years ago.  Prices are high but I pay on the annual installment plan so it's spread out.  My electric bills are also just as bad in the winter...between running the fan and the electric heat in the attic, there's no savings.


----------



## wa-loaf (Oct 15, 2007)

We used to let it get down to about 55. With the kids it's low 60s. My wife turned the heat on (to 64) this morning after it dipped to 60. We have the original asbestos wrapped snowman oil furnaces in the basement and steam heat. Steam heat rocks, but the furnaces need to get replaced soon.


----------



## Bumpsis (Oct 15, 2007)

Our winter thermostat settings are at about 62 for mornings and evenings. During the day it's programmed for about 58. During the night, down to 55.
I usually don't turn on the furnce until the outside high temps consistently stay in the 40's.

We're of northern/eastern eurpean roots and we like it cold, plus our house seems to have no real insulation, so heating it is like burning money. We actually scheduled a contractor to take care of that - that's our effort to reduce our carbon footprint.

Our kids like it the cooler temps as well. I actually really look forward to sleeping in really cold room under a super warm down cover. It the only way I can get some really deep sleep. It's like cold weather camping but the mattres is much better.


----------



## Marc (Oct 15, 2007)

I go without in the summer as well, so my electric bill goes up with the use of the blower and furnace in the winter.

Actually, having a waterbed is a wonderful thing from a heating/ac persecutive as well as an ergonomic one, I've discovered.  In the summer, the bed acts as a big heat sink, since I leave the heaters off, making sleeping in hot weather much more bearable.  In the winter, I keep the water around 85, and it looses very little heat and so takes very little to maintain that temperature being surrounded by thick polyurethane foam on three sides and my down comforter on the fourth, and boy does it make sleeping wonderful.

As an amendment to what I said earlier about wanting geothermal heat in my first house, I'd also like to rely on woodstoves and will hopefully have enough land to cut heating wood from (if you have hard wooded land with average New England growing conditions, you can take about a cord/acre/year and sustain what you have).  About five acres would do it for me, depending on the size of my house, of course.


----------



## severine (Oct 15, 2007)

It's funny so many of you are talking about setting back the temp during the day.  We have a setback thermostat and found that when we did this, we actually spent more $ than when we kept it at the same temp all the time.  And that's comparing the setback winter (cheaper rate) to the next winter when we kept the temp always at 67/68 degrees (when it cost more $ for natural gas).


----------



## Marc (Oct 15, 2007)

severine said:


> It's funny so many of you are talking about setting back the temp during the day.  We have a setback thermostat and found that when we did this, we actually spent more $ than when we kept it at the same temp all the time.  And that's comparing the setback winter (cheaper rate) to the next winter when we kept the temp always at 67/68 degrees (when it cost more $ for natural gas).



And who can explain this phenomenon correctly to Marc Engineer and earn a gold star?

:dunce:


----------



## wa-loaf (Oct 15, 2007)

Marc said:


> As an amendment to what I said earlier about wanting geothermal heat in my first house, I'd also like to rely on woodstoves and will hopefully have enough land to cut heating wood from (if you have hard wooded land with average New England growing conditions, you can take about a cord/acre/year and sustain what you have).  About five acres would do it for me, depending on the size of my house, of course.



Have you checked out Masonry Heaters? We want to put one in when we build a house. You need an open floor plan, but you'll only burn 3 cords instead of the five.


----------



## ALLSKIING (Oct 15, 2007)

In the winter I keep the heat on 65 and use the fireplace. I have not used the heat or the fireplace yet since its 68 inside. We have oil heat through baseboards.


----------



## wa-loaf (Oct 15, 2007)

Marc said:


> And who can explain this phenomenon correctly to Marc Engineer and earn a gold star?
> 
> :dunce:



I takes more energy to bring the temp back up, than to maintain the higher temp?


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Oct 15, 2007)

Marc said:


> And who can explain this phenomenon correctly to Marc Engineer and earn a gold star?
> 
> :dunce:



The furnace is run a little here, a little there to keep a constant.  Rather than letting it slack off for the day, then having to work real hard when the time comes to kick it up to the high temp.

Just like a steady foot on the accelerator will yield better gas mileage than someone who stomps on it, then lets off, then stomps on it.....


----------



## Marc (Oct 15, 2007)

wa-loaf said:


> Have you checked out Masonry Heaters? We want to put one in when we build a house. You need an open floor plan, but you'll only burn 3 cords instead of the five.



I've seen those installed in homes before.  Wouldn't be an option in the house I'll probably end up in (long story) however I do like the idea.  I'd be wary of cracking in that much masonry though, and I've also read you need to use wood with high surface area to mass ratio because they're meant to burn hot and quick, which would mean a lot of splitting.  The other drawback is how long they take to heat up, since with a large amount of thermal mass in the form of masonry comes a large amount of thermal inertia.  I'd see inconveniences with January thaws and early frosts or early spring.

A lot of woodstove installations use similar principles, for instance, my parents' woodstove sits on a large brick hearth which extends floor to ceiling behind the stove.  This also provides a large thermal inertia and continues to radiate long after the fire in the stove has died out.


----------



## ccskier (Oct 15, 2007)

You are all crazy.  I keep my house at 70 year round.  Central A/C set at 72-74 in the summer.  Heat on at 68-70 all winter.  We have gas forced hot air.  Wife and baby are home during the day so we never get a break.  I personally keep the window cracked and fan going in bedroom year round.  Maybe, I could save a few buck.  The ironic thing is that I just paid my gas bill before checking the AZ, last months bill was $30.  Looked at last Jan/Feb when baby was first born, $335- that hurts.


----------



## snoseek (Oct 15, 2007)

Is a passive solar heating design feasible in new england anyone know?


----------



## severine (Oct 16, 2007)

Marc said:


> And who can explain this phenomenon correctly to Marc Engineer and earn a gold star?
> 
> :dunce:



To be fair, I understood the _why_ of how a consistent temp is more energy-efficient... It just always surprises me how many people are suckered into the mentality that you'll save a few bucks by turning down the heat during the day.  Every store I can think of sells those programmable thermostats as a way to save money.  But it never works out that way and once you think about it, you understand why.  We just went the further mile of spending two winters testing it in the field to _see_ the anticipated results. 

That said, we now also do the budget pay plan for natural gas.  And even though natural gas has gone up significantly over the last few years, our bills keep dwindling.  I haven't totally figured out why as the set-back thermostat experiment was 6 years ago and a couple years before we decided to do the budget plan.  The plan is re-evaluated every May and adjusted accordingly by Yankee Gas.  2 years ago, we were paying $155/month.  Last year was $145/month.  This year?  $135/month.  I've been home more in the last 10 months than I was in the 5 years preceding that and I've done a heck of a lot more cooking, too (gas stove).  The only thing I can think of that's significant is I used to take 1 very hot shower every day for about 10-15 minutes and now, with 2 kids and no free time, I'm down to 2-3 showers a week.


----------



## severine (Oct 16, 2007)

snoseek said:


> Is a passive solar heating design feasible in new england anyone know?


My hippy friends (as Brian calls them) seem to think not.  You have to have a really good southern exposure and enough sunny days, from what I understand, having no _real_ knowledge on the subject, of course.  But one of my friends was telling me about her very green neighbor who has such a system on his house and while he's not off the grid, he only pays $25/month for electric.  He _may_ be heating his house with that as her house (built around the same time) had electric heat, too.


----------



## snoseek (Oct 16, 2007)

severine said:


> My hippy friends (as Brian calls them) seem to think not.  You have to have a really good southern exposure and enough sunny days, from what I understand, having no _real_ knowledge on the subject, of course.  But one of my friends was telling me about her very green neighbor who has such a system on his house and while he's not off the grid, he only pays $25/month for electric.  He _may_ be heating his house with that as her house (built around the same time) had electric heat, too.



From what i understand most houses in the old days were built with heating from the sun in mind, and in the last 40 years contracters stopped doing this. If you have a good southern exposure, then its as simple as a couple big windows to let in the sun, a large maybe stone surface to heat and hold the warmth, and a overhang that keeps the high angle summer sun rays out so you don't sweat your A$$ off in july. there is other stuff like radiant floor heating systems, but i don't know too much other than it involves the sun. question is is there enough sun in new england, i think maybe yes.


www.motherearthnews.com    is a pretty interesting hippy read that always seems to have info on this kind of stuff, but they always use examples of hippies somewhere in the desert. any vermont hippies want to chime in?


----------



## severine (Oct 16, 2007)

Unfortunately, it's even longer ago than 40 years when they started getting away from southern exposures.  Our house (which, granted, is a 3 family house that was built as a 2 family house) has all of 2 south-facing windows in the apartment.  One is in the bathroom, the other in the bedroom.  Now, even though it's poorly designed, you can tell a difference on sunny days in the bedroom (which also has a west facing window).  Quite a bit of heat will build up and actually stay in that room, in spite of the draftiness.  But I'm wandering... what I'm trying to say is that I don't think the thoughtfulness for taking advantage of the sun and natural heating/cooling has been around for quite some time now.  Which is a real shame.

That neighbor of which I spoke?  I think he has some solar panels to help out.


----------



## snoseek (Oct 16, 2007)

I think they can use solar panels to heat water for use and for radiant floor heating. My girlfriend is a "green" designer, but is away right now. She knows a real real lot about this stuff, i only pick up about 1/2% by overhearing her conversations while thumbing through the latest issue of powder.


----------



## hammer (Oct 16, 2007)

Marc said:


> And who can explain this phenomenon correctly to Marc Engineer and earn a gold star?
> 
> :dunce:


Actually, I'd like to read the explanation...from a simple energy/heat transfer perspective, I'd think that you would want to keep the temperature at as low of a level as possible.  Yes, it will take some time to heat the house back up at the end of the day, but would the additional time the heater is running be more than what it would have run to maintain the higher temperature throughout the day?

I wonder if this would be a good experiment for the Mythbusters folks to do...


----------



## Marc (Oct 16, 2007)

hammer said:


> Actually, I'd like to read the explanation...from a simple energy/heat transfer perspective, I'd think that you would want to keep the temperature at as low of a level as possible.  Yes, it will take some time to heat the house back up at the end of the day, but would the additional time the heater is running be more than what it would have run to maintain the higher temperature throughout the day?
> 
> I wonder if this would be a good experiment for the Mythbusters folks to do...



Well, the problem is it is a much more complicated an issue than it seems at face value and greatly depends on the house's geometry, insulation, windows, exposure, heat generation and distribution system, thermostat location, zone layouts, etc.

However, the basic concept for a house that requires greater energy to raise to a certain temperature after cooling vs maintaining a certain temperature is this:

The rate at which heat transfers through your walls, windows, roof, foundation, and gaps in construction depends on the temperature gradient across the wall or barrier (inside vs outisde temperature).  In the situation where one maintains a higher arbitrary temperature throughout the day, the cycle time of the heat can be such that the heat has a chance to distribute more evenly throughout the house in between periods of heat generation.

So if your house loses X units of energy per hour at H temperature and Y units of energy per hour at L temperature, and your house lost energy uniformly across all surfaces, X would naturally be greater than Y.

Letting your house lower to temp L during the day requires 12Y energy to maintain L (assuming a 12 hour period) and 12X to maintain H.  The energy to raise the house from L to H we'll say is D+ units of energy, which, according to the wisdom of lowering your heat, would be more or less conserved by allowing your house to lower to L (in that period, no heating is required, the savings we'll call D-).  So this wisdom leads to the assumption that the total energy savings i s 12X - 12Y = S units savings.

Where this can be a fallacy is the process of increasing the temperature of ones house can be more (sometimes much more) inefficient that maintaining a temperature.  So much so that the energy to raise the internal temperature D is not only more than D-, but more than even S plus D-.  The reasons for this inefficieny come from the factors I mentioned above... uneven heat distribution and house geomtery and environmental factors lead to hotspots throughout the house encountered only when increasing the houses internal temperature and not as drastic when simply maintaining it.  These hotspots occur and persist, and are areas where lots of energy is lost while other parts of the house, most notably where the thermostat is located, is still waiting for the heat to be distributed there.  So in certain cases, it can be more economical to let your house cool in the day and heat back up when it is populated again in the evening, and other times its not.

The real kicker is the only way to find out is to experiment, and even that can be misleading because of independent variables very hard to control (temperature, humidity, wind and solar radiance).

Everyone got that?


----------



## bvibert (Oct 16, 2007)

y=mx+b?


----------



## hammer (Oct 16, 2007)

Marc said:


> Well, the problem is it is a much more complicated an issue than it seems at face value and greatly depends on the house's geometry, insulation, windows, exposure, heat generation and distribution system, thermostat location, zone layouts, etc.
> 
> However, the basic concept for a house that requires greater energy to raise to a certain temperature after cooling vs maintaining a certain temperature is this:
> 
> ...


After carefully reading this, the answer is "it depends".

I still think Mythbusters ought to do an experiment on this.

IIRC there was an episode where they checked whether it was better to leave flourescent lights on or to shut them off...the end result was that you should shut the lights off.  The extra energy to turn the bulb on was only enough to make a difference if you kept the lights on for about 20-30 seconds or so.


----------



## Marc (Oct 16, 2007)

hammer said:


> After carefully reading this, the answer is "it depends".
> 
> I still think Mythbusters ought to do an experiment on this.
> 
> IIRC there was an episode where they checked whether it was better to leave flourescent lights on or to shut them off...the end result was that you should shut the lights off.  The extra energy to turn the bulb on was only enough to make a difference if you kept the lights on for about 20-30 seconds or so.



Even if Mythbusters were to do an experiment, it wouldn't mean anything for your house, unless you lived in the one they used for their experiment.

And most of the stuff the Mythbusters test, btw, can be conclusively answered to a high degree of certainty just by talking to the right knowledgable experts.  That wouldn't make for entertaining TV, however.


----------



## marcski (Oct 16, 2007)

I think the most energy efficient heating these days is radiant floor heating....especially if you're building new construction.  While the initial cost is more, once the house is at temp, it costs very little to heat, plus, makes the toes nice and toasty.

Also, wood stoves are nice, add ambiance and all, (and yes, I'm a slight pyro and totally enjoy them, although, we only have a fireplace, which I do use in the winter), they are not very ecologically friendly.  Besides cutting back trees, they add lots of soot into the environment....and you get those low lying "clouds of smoke" in the valleys during cold months.


----------



## Marc (Oct 16, 2007)

marcski said:


> I think the most energy efficient heating these days is radiant floor heating....especially if you're building new construction.  While the initial cost is more, once the house is at temp, it costs very little to heat, plus, makes the toes nice and toasty.
> 
> Also, wood stoves are nice, add ambiance and all, (and yes, I'm a slight pyro and totally enjoy them, although, we only have a fireplace, which I do use in the winter), they are not very ecologically friendly.  Besides cutting back trees, they add lots of soot into the environment....and you get those low lying "clouds of smoke" in the valleys during cold months.



Actually, newer woodstoves burn very efficiently, and do not emit a lot of carbon (soot), particularly the newer stoves incorporating catalytic converters.  Only during start up do they tend to burn incompletely and inefficiently.

If you practice the selective or perpetual yield method of woodcutting, you only take from the land what can be regenerated in the following season (like I mentioned, about 1 cord/acre/year) and take only either the older, mature trees whose growth has slowed considerably or the irrepairably damaged trees or timber (dead fall, broken canopies, etc).

In this way, when you burn them and produce CO2, you are not producing much more that would have been released over time in the decay and composting of the tree were it to fall where it was cut, and the new growth replacing the vacated space and the CO2 absorbed will give the net addition of more or less zero to the atmosphere.

So if done correcty, burning wood in an efficient stove or furnace is remarkably envirnomentally friendly.


----------



## marcski (Oct 16, 2007)

Marc said:


> Actually, newer woodstoves burn very efficiently, and do not emit a lot of carbon (soot), particularly the newer stoves incorporating catalytic converters.  Only during start up do they tend to burn incompletely and inefficiently.
> 
> If you practice the selective or perpetual yield method of woodcutting, you only take from the land what can be regenerated in the following season (like I mentioned, about 1 cord/acre/year) and take only either the older, mature trees whose growth has slowed considerably or the irrepairably damaged trees or timber (dead fall, broken canopies, etc).
> 
> ...


 
Yes, my bro has a very nice newer wood stove with the catalytic converter, and if you're going to use the wood stove as your primary heating source, you're going to need a few cords each winter.  But I won't argue with you Marc as I'm sure you have more scientific knowledge regarding these things...and you might mistake me for a gopher and try to blow me up!


----------



## Marc (Oct 16, 2007)

Yep, depending on the size, layout and insulation of your house... my folks use a woodstove as their primary winter heat source and burn about three - five cords/winter.  I've cut wood with my old man for years on his 5-6 acre wood lot, and theres more hardwood there now then he started taking wood off the land near thirty years ago.

Basswood in particular likes to grow up in a vacated coniferous space it seems, and grows fast!

The last several winters, I've helped cut only dead or dying trees and just that is plenty to keep going for a whole winter.

I tried to land that last big white oak we cut on top of a gopher hole, but missed.  Varmint.


----------



## Marc (Oct 16, 2007)

Actually it was probably a woodchuck hole.


----------



## tjf67 (Oct 16, 2007)

Marc said:


> Well, the problem is it is a much more complicated an issue than it seems at face value and greatly depends on the house's geometry, insulation, windows, exposure, heat generation and distribution system, thermostat location, zone layouts, etc.
> 
> However, the basic concept for a house that requires greater energy to raise to a certain temperature after cooling vs maintaining a certain temperature is this:
> 
> ...



Yeah turn the heat down during the day and at night and you will save money.


----------



## marcski (Oct 16, 2007)

So what about my point of radiant floor heating, Marc, isn't it the most energy efficient these days?


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Oct 16, 2007)

So do I get a gold star or not Marc?  I tried reading your responce, but only got lost.


----------



## Marc (Oct 16, 2007)

marcski said:


> So what about my point of radiant floor heating, Marc, isn't it the most energy efficient these days?



In my opinion, yes, in floor heating is the best means of energy distribution in that it can be carefully controlled when installed, and generally creates a gradient such that higher temperatures are obtained near the floor, closer to where it is desirable. Also, lower water temperatures are required decreasing transport losses.  All these characteristics, assuming the system is well designed, would lead me to believe it creates fewer losses than radiant baseboard, steam, forced hot air or radiator distribution does.



Hawkshot99 said:


> So do I get a gold star or not Marc?  I tried reading your responce, but only got lost.



Yes.  At least you were thinking about it.  For that you get a gold star, obtainable by making koreshot fall over at the next AZ outting, with me present and looking on.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Oct 16, 2007)

Marc said:


> Yes.  At least you were thinking about it.  For that you get a gold star, obtainable by making koreshot fall over at the next AZ outting, with me present and looking on.



Are you crazy!tuck in siberia!?  From everything I have heard he is a crazy Russian.  I dont want to end up s


----------



## Rushski (Oct 19, 2007)

When it warmed up outside a couple days ago, my house was actually quite a bit cooler to my wife's chagrin.  My house is pretty tight so it keeps it cool or warm depending on what is done inside - heating or cooking.

Usually keep it around 62 or so in the Winter, except for our main bathroom which we keep at a much warmer 64.

We have electric radiant heating in the ceiling, which can get fairly expensive.  It actually works better than people would think and with NH give a solid discount if another heating source is available helps to probably keep my heating cheaper than oil or gas.  Of course using the wood stove helps that matter...


----------



## bvibert (Oct 19, 2007)

I was wishing I hadn't taken the AC unit out of the bedroom window already last night.  It was down right warm and muggy in there!   I'm ready for the cold to come back.... please????


----------



## marcski (Oct 19, 2007)

bvibert said:


> I was wishing I hadn't taken the AC unit out of the bedroom window already last night.  It was down right warm and muggy in there!   I'm ready for the cold to come back.... please????



Yeah, I had to turn my AC on last night too..after trying to goto bed without it...I finally succumbed around midnight after having to change my t-shirt from sweating it up. (even with the ceiling fan going).


----------



## awf170 (Oct 30, 2007)

Still going strong.  Anyone else?  It is 31 degrees outside but yet it is still 75 in here.  I can't even imagine how high the heat is in the unit below me.  Last night was actually the first night I didn't keep the window open.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Oct 30, 2007)

Still have not turned on the heat, but have closed the windows finally.


----------



## Marc (Oct 30, 2007)

Hawkshot99 said:


> Still have not turned on the heat, but have closed the windows finally.



Same here, no heat yet.  Except for this past weekend when Meredith was here.

Last night it was a toasty 54 degrees F in my house.  Good sleeping weather.


----------



## roark (Oct 30, 2007)

Company necessitiated the dialing up of the thermostat yesterday. 



Wimps.


----------



## Marc (Oct 30, 2007)

I caved and turned my thermostat to 60, so I don't kill off all the yeast in my batch of porter.

I'm disgusted with myself.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Oct 30, 2007)

I went into work today and the temp was around 50.  I cranked on the heat there.   Felt nice, mostly because I dont pay the heating bill.:lol:


----------



## ccskier (Oct 30, 2007)

Had a scare this morning.  Woke up, noticed it was chilly, took shower came downstairs, heat busted.  How was 59.  Thought system had crapped out, luckily it was a few hundred instead of 4k.


----------



## Terry (Nov 3, 2007)

I guess I am a wimp. I like it warm in the house. I don't like to have to bundle up at night in the house! We keep it at 68 - 70 when we are up, turn it down to about 64 at night. Have a wood hot air furnace that is thermostatically controlled. I have already paid for the winters heat in advance and plan to use it as needed. I also have oil heat for a backup if needed. I will run the oil in the spring and fall because the wood furnace gets to hot on days when it warms up during the day.


----------



## marcski (Nov 6, 2007)

Yeah, I had to (felt guilty with the baby, she is almost 17 months now) turn it on Sunday morning.  It got down to 59.


----------



## Marc (Nov 7, 2007)

marcski said:


> Yeah, I had to (felt guilty with the baby, she is almost 17 months now) turn it on Sunday morning.  It got down to 59.



Yeah, same thing happened to me, except instead of a baby it was 5 gallons of homemade beer.  Mines holding steady at 60F now.


----------



## marcski (Nov 7, 2007)

Marc said:


> Yeah, same thing happened to me, except instead of a baby it was 5 gallons of homemade beer.  Mines holding steady at 60F now.



Is there a difference?


----------



## MRGisevil (Nov 7, 2007)

We filled our oil tank less than halfway (100gallons) on Saturday and it cost $294.00. I have a feeling that we will be seeing just how low we can go this winter. That, or ye olde x-mas bonus goes to a pellet stove.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Nov 7, 2007)

marcski said:


> Is there a difference?



One is loved....:razz:


----------



## marcski (Nov 7, 2007)

Hawkshot99 said:


> One is loved....:razz:



Hey my baby is loved too!  (As evidenced by my finally turning the heat on!)


----------



## Marc (Nov 8, 2007)

MRGisevil said:


> We filled our oil tank less than halfway (100gallons) on Saturday and it cost $294.00. I have a feeling that we will be seeing just how low we can go this winter. That, or ye olde x-mas bonus goes to a pellet stove.



Well, a pellet stove, while nice to have, might not be a big cost savings.  The price of pellets and cord wood has already started to rise with the increased demand.


----------



## MRGisevil (Nov 8, 2007)

Marc said:


> Well, a pellet stove, while nice to have, might not be a big cost savings.  The price of pellets and cord wood has already started to rise with the increased demand.



 thanks for the heads up


----------



## wa-loaf (Nov 8, 2007)

MRGisevil said:


> thanks for the heads up



Give Mass Save a call. I don't know what kind of house and insulation you have, but that's the best place to start saving money. They come in and do an energy audit and tell you where you biggest problems in heat loss are. We got $3000 worth of insulation put into the house and the state gave us back $1500. You can probably get discounts for new windows too.


----------



## MRGisevil (Nov 8, 2007)

Great, thanks for the input!!


----------



## hammer (Nov 8, 2007)

I should check my Keyspan bill...Natural Gas prices for Keyspan customers may actually be *down *this season:

http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2007/09/18/heating_with_gas_likely_to_cost_less/


----------

