Is it worth getting insulation in coal-fueled house?

Cianos

Hey folks,
My mum is considering getting the attic insulated as a first step towards improving the efficiency of the house. The house is warmed by coal.

I was wondering whether this is a wise move in a coal fueled house for the following reason. When the fire is lit to heat the house (because the weather is cold enough), the fire will always be kept going until everyone goes to bed. So, the fire will burn through coal at the same rate whether the house is insulated or not, because obviously coal fires don't have a thermostat to control the amount of fuel being used.

So while the house would feel warmer to us because of the insulation, the fire is just going to be kept going for the same amount of time anyway. We'll enjoy a warmer house but probably won't be saving much at the end of the day.

The only times I was thinking the insulation would be economically beneficial would be that it would increase the amount of days in the year where it'd be considered not cold enough to light the fire. But not by much.

Am I totally wrong here? And what would you suggest as being the first step towards improving efficiency in a coal burning house?

Thanks

antoinolachtnai

You would need less fuel on a cold day (presumably she uses more coal on cold days).

Reducing the number of days a fire is needed by 20 would result in a big reduction in the fuel bill. If you could reduce from 24 weeks to 20 weeks, all other things being equal, that would be 16 percent, which is probably a few hundred euros a year.

Having an enclosed stove instead of the fire might improve the efficiency of the fire. The problem is that a lot of the heat ends up going up the chimney. I don't know much about this to be honest.

Really though, heating with coal is pretty expensive when you add it up for a year or two.

In any house, blocking up the draughts is always the cheapest way to keep the heat in. however, with a fire, you need a certain amount of ventilation in the room with the fireplace to allow the fire to draw.

bbam

Cianos wrote: »

Am I totally wrong here?

Partially wrong anyway...

Better insulation will indeed reduce the number of days the fire is needed.. which is a saving
Then the days it is needed less of a fire will heat the house to the same temperature, another saving. It will retain the heat longer after the fire goes out..not a saving but more comfortable.

Why not have a BER cert completed and it wil help you understand the state of play and what would give the best bang for buck...

Cianos

If the insulation was effective enough that it would reduce the number of weeks that a fire is felt needed then yeah I think the savings would be at least a couple hundred per year just there. But in the case of keeping the fire going, once the fire is lit, in terms of habit it's just the thing to do to keep it going then, ie once it burns down low more coal is added not according to how hot or cold the house is, but just to keep the fire going. So in that sense I don't know how effective it'd be in practice to make the first investment to be insulating the attic.

DublinDilbert

Cianos wrote: »

If the insulation was effective enough that it would reduce the number of weeks that a fire is felt needed then yeah I think the savings would be at least a couple hundred per year just there. But in the case of keeping the fire going, once the fire is lit, in terms of habit it's just the thing to do to keep it going then, ie once it burns down low more coal is added not according to how hot or cold the house is, but just to keep the fire going. So in that sense I don't know how effective it'd be in practice to make the first investment to be insulating the attic.

Its always worth getting insulation. If there's no insulation in the attic, they will notice a massive difference.

They are going to have to change their attitude to the way they use the coal also, if they want to reduce their heating bill.