Suppliers of skirting board heating systems are claiming some impressive savings in running costs over traditional radiators. Does anybody know if such savings are likley? Am I right in thinking that savings are achieved by getting away with setting a lower room temperature ie 19 degrees instead of 21oC?

If a room needs a certain amount of heat, it doesn't make any difference how it is delivered, everything else being equal.

Also, a blanket statement like "19 instead of 21 will save 10%" is also misleading. It depends what the design conditions are: if the
outside design temperature is -20C (like here in Montreal) the difference between 19 and 21 is more like 5% - but things like airleakage also are a complicating factor. The only way to really know what the savings are by turning down the thermostat are to run some heat loss calculations. Heating system cycle times are also affected by setpoint temperature and it could be that
lowering the thermostat causes short cycling and therefore less efficient operation of the heating device - which may negate any
potential savings that were envisaged. This is especially true where boilers are typically greatly oversized so rarely run at their
peak efficiency.

Paul in Montreal.

Fun, I sort of agree but that is for comfort. For energy saving and reducing heat losses then the coldest part of the room is the very worst place to site a heat source. Would you put a radiator on top of the window sill? Certainly skirting heating cannot reasonably claim to save energy in my way of looking at it.

( PS - do you fancy doing me a consultation for a proposed new house?)

If you have a drafty cold spot in a room then you might be tempted to turn up the thermostat to a higher level than you would if you had sited the heat source to eliminate drafts and cold spots e.g. by putting a radiator under a single glazed, sash window. This is the logic I've used when deciding on radiator positions where you have single glazed windows in a room, which have to be retained in a conservation area.

I understand your thinking Tony and it stands to reason that the higher the temperature adjacent to the window, the greater the losses through that window will be. However I still think the best approach is to site the heat source to give the most comfortable distribution of heat (e.g. under the window) and then tackle any heat loss problems separately, such as by reducing draughts, installing secondary/double glazing etc.

I'm currently sat in a single glazed office next to the window, which is fine in the summer. However, if our radiators were only positioned on the opposite wall (some 9 or 10m away) , then in winter I don't think it would actually be possible to make me warm enough next to the window without baking the people on the other side of the office next to the radiators.

My office is a fairly extreme example, and in a newer, highly insulated building with better airtightness the location becomes far less important as losses are much lower and the temperature differences much less.