[Closed] heating - traditional radiator vs UFH

Using electricity from the grid is never a cheap way to heat your house.  We put air source heat pumps running underfloor heating into some of our buildings and the bills have been enormous lets just say - around three times what we would have expected if it was just gas.

I was thinking about it just for the kitchen extension.

I thought all the gumpf about heating the floor rather than the air meant it doesn't need to run as hot as traditional radiators, and therefore offset the higher kwh cost?  Or is that marketing bs?

Simple physics says you are pumping amount of energy into a space and it is pretty much 100% heat. When I did the back of an envelope calcs for our extension it didn't seem like a good idea so I dinntd bother. Can't say I miss it. Yes it would.be nice to have warm floors but we don't actually have the heating on that much inbthe rest if the house so I can't see ufh changing that habit

We have electric ufh here in London in the hall and lounge and wet under slate for all the downstairs in Ireland. If it were up to me I’d rip the electric out and put rads back in. The wet is a bit better though.

I have wet underfloor heating in the kitchen and living room.

It is meant to be very efficient, as it spread the heat evenly across the room and avoids "hot spots" and draughts. It runs at a much lower temperature than normal rads and it has a huge surface area in comparison.

However, it doesn't heat up a cold room as quick as rads do, in winter it really needs to be left on low all the time. Does free up a lot of wall space.

I moved in with the woman I later married to find the house had heated ceilings. To make it better it seemed to be heated elements bonded into plasterboard panels and if anything moved then the connection broke and no heat.

If she was called Louise then i would have been forewarned.

I thought all the gumpf about heating the floor rather than the air meant it doesn’t need to run as hot as traditional radiators, and therefore offset the higher kwh cost? Or is that marketing bs?

Marketing bs

It is meant to be very efficient, as it spread the heat evenly across the room and avoids “hot spots” and draughts. It runs at a much lower temperature than normal rads and it has a huge surface area in comparison.

And again.

All electric heating is 100% efficient and modern boilers not far off. But electricity is 4-5 times the price of gas per kWh and so your bills will always be higher.

I advise on heating for a living. Avoid all types of electric heating at all costs is my advice, even modern storage heating costs a fortune.

All electric heating is 100% efficient and modern boilers not far off. But electricity is 4-5 times the price of gas per kWh and so your bills will always be higher.

Did you read my post? I was referring to a wet system.

The "prime mover" is the same as traditional rads but the heat is spread about the room evenly. Surely that has to be more efficient?

Gobuchul I don't see how it can be more efficient. Heat in = heat out etc.

Does the heat from radiators magically disappear somehow in ways that it wouldn't with underfoor?

How does the heating system stop draughts?

I get that it may be better spread from the floor, but in the same room there will still be air currents and cold spots by windows etc

Cynic-al - lower flow temperatures for UFH mean that a boiler can operate at a higher efficiency, so not entirely bullshit but having said that compared with a modern condensing boiler and properly designed and controlled radiator system I shouldn't think it would make much difference 🤔

We’ve got 2500ft of wet ufh. 8 zones of control. It’s brilliant. Feels very luxurious, but it’s not reactive and i seriously doubt its cheaper to run. That said last winter we had some substantial amounts of insulation missing.

Exactly - the difference is elec v gas.

Wet (gas fired) is going to be same efficiency.

Electric is going to be very slightly greater efficiency...at a MAHOOOOSIVE cost