Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
40 gal just not enough: Replacing water heater for 2400 sq home. Family of 2 adults + 2 children
Re: 40 gal just not enough: Replacing water heater for 2400 sq home.
On 2008-04-09, hallerb@aol,com <hallerb@aol,com > wrote:
> note it appears in homes that use more water, the typical 2 adults and
> 2 teenagers savings are less, probably because the standard tank
> spends more time heating water and less time standing by. this is a
> new wrinkle on the tank vs tankless discussion
Actually, it doesn't say the savings are less, it says the efficiency
improvement is less. Standby losses are basically independent of
usage. The greater the usage, the smaller the fraction of total costs
attributable to standby losses.
So if you are trying to calculate a payback period, and if the
incremental efficiency of the tank and tankless are the same, then
usage doesn't matter. All you need to do is figure out how much more
expensive the tankless is, and how your savings from standby losses
are.
Cheers, Wayne
On 2008-04-09, hallerb@aol,com <hallerb@aol,com > wrote:
> note it appears in homes that use more water, the typical 2 adults and
> 2 teenagers savings are less, probably because the standard tank
> spends more time heating water and less time standing by. this is a
> new wrinkle on the tank vs tankless discussion
Actually, it doesn't say the savings are less, it says the efficiency
improvement is less. Standby losses are basically independent of
usage. The greater the usage, the smaller the fraction of total costs
attributable to standby losses.
So if you are trying to calculate a payback period, and if the
incremental efficiency of the tank and tankless are the same, then
usage doesn't matter. All you need to do is figure out how much more
expensive the tankless is, and how your savings from standby losses
are.
Cheers, Wayne
Re: 40 gal just not enough: Replacing water heater for 2400 sq home.
On Apr 9, 11:11 am, Wayne Whitney <whit...@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
> On 2008-04-09, hall...@aol,com <hall...@aol,com > wrote:
>
> > note it appears in homes that use more water, the typical 2 adults and
> > 2 teenagers savings are less, probably because the standard tank
> > spends more time heating water and less time standing by. this is a
> > new wrinkle on the tank vs tankless discussion
>
> Actually, it doesn't say the savings are less, it says the efficiency
> improvement is less. Standby losses are basically independent of
> usage. The greater the usage, the smaller the fraction of total costs
> attributable to standby losses.
>
> So if you are trying to calculate a payback period, and if the
> incremental efficiency of the tank and tankless are the same, then
> usage doesn't matter. All you need to do is figure out how much more
> expensive the tankless is, and how your savings from standby losses
> are.
>
> Cheers, Wayne
Yes, I was going to point that out too. Sure, in percentage terms,
the more hot water you use, the less in percentage terms you will save
on your energy bill. That's because the big difference is the
standby loss, which is independent of the amount of water used.
However, in dollars saved in gas saved per year from standy losses,
it's still going to be the same amount of money saved, which is what
you need to look at.
Also, am I the only one that thinks it odd that if a tankless has a
pilot light it would negate the entire energy savings compared to a
regular water heater? The regular water heater has a pilot light too
and I would think the overall impact of a pilot light might be a
couple %.
On Apr 9, 11:11 am, Wayne Whitney <whit...@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
> On 2008-04-09, hall...@aol,com <hall...@aol,com > wrote:
>
> > note it appears in homes that use more water, the typical 2 adults and
> > 2 teenagers savings are less, probably because the standard tank
> > spends more time heating water and less time standing by. this is a
> > new wrinkle on the tank vs tankless discussion
>
> Actually, it doesn't say the savings are less, it says the efficiency
> improvement is less. Standby losses are basically independent of
> usage. The greater the usage, the smaller the fraction of total costs
> attributable to standby losses.
>
> So if you are trying to calculate a payback period, and if the
> incremental efficiency of the tank and tankless are the same, then
> usage doesn't matter. All you need to do is figure out how much more
> expensive the tankless is, and how your savings from standby losses
> are.
>
> Cheers, Wayne
Yes, I was going to point that out too. Sure, in percentage terms,
the more hot water you use, the less in percentage terms you will save
on your energy bill. That's because the big difference is the
standby loss, which is independent of the amount of water used.
However, in dollars saved in gas saved per year from standy losses,
it's still going to be the same amount of money saved, which is what
you need to look at.
Also, am I the only one that thinks it odd that if a tankless has a
pilot light it would negate the entire energy savings compared to a
regular water heater? The regular water heater has a pilot light too
and I would think the overall impact of a pilot light might be a
couple %.
Re: 40 gal just not enough: Replacing water heater for 2400 sq home.
On 2008-04-09, trader4@optonline,net <trader4@optonline,net > wrote:
> Also, am I the only one that thinks it odd that if a tankless has a
> pilot light it would negate the entire energy savings compared to a
> regular water heater? The regular water heater has a pilot light
> too and I would think the overall impact of a pilot light might be a
> couple %.
The pilot light on a tank, though, heats the tank water, so it isn't
waste. While on a tankless, it is pretty much a waste. Anyway, it's
pretty moot, as pilot light tankless is fairly old technology, just
like non-modulating tankless.
Cheers, Wayne
On 2008-04-09, trader4@optonline,net <trader4@optonline,net > wrote:
> Also, am I the only one that thinks it odd that if a tankless has a
> pilot light it would negate the entire energy savings compared to a
> regular water heater? The regular water heater has a pilot light
> too and I would think the overall impact of a pilot light might be a
> couple %.
The pilot light on a tank, though, heats the tank water, so it isn't
waste. While on a tankless, it is pretty much a waste. Anyway, it's
pretty moot, as pilot light tankless is fairly old technology, just
like non-modulating tankless.
Cheers, Wayne
Re: 40 gal just not enough: Replacing water heater for 2400 sq home.
On Apr 9, 2:30 pm, trad...@optonline,net wrote:
> On Apr 9, 11:11 am, Wayne Whitney <whit...@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2008-04-09, hall...@aol,com <hall...@aol,com > wrote:
>
> > > note it appears in homes that use more water, the typical 2 adults and
> > > 2 teenagers savings are less, probably because the standard tank
> > > spends more time heating water and less time standing by. this is a
> > > new wrinkle on the tank vs tankless discussion
>
> > Actually, it doesn't say the savings are less, it says the efficiency
> > improvement is less. Standby losses are basically independent of
> > usage. The greater the usage, the smaller the fraction of total costs
> > attributable to standby losses.
>
> > So if you are trying to calculate a payback period, and if the
> > incremental efficiency of the tank and tankless are the same, then
> > usage doesn't matter. All you need to do is figure out how much more
> > expensive the tankless is, and how your savings from standby losses
> > are.
>
> > Cheers, Wayne
>
> Yes, I was going to point that out too. Sure, in percentage terms,
> the more hot water you use, the less in percentage terms you will save
> on your energy bill. That's because the big difference is the
> standby loss, which is independent of the amount of water used.
> However, in dollars saved in gas saved per year from standy losses,
> it's still going to be the same amount of money saved, which is what
> you need to look at.
>
> Also, am I the only one that thinks it odd that if a tankless has a
> pilot light it would negate the entire energy savings compared to a
> regular water heater? The regular water heater has a pilot light too
> and I would think the overall impact of a pilot light might be a
> couple %.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
My 5 yr old tankless is battery ignition- 2 d cells. A pilot light I
think is long gone. There were even 5 years ago Hydro generator
pilots, the water runs, turns a blade, it turns a generator. But even
tank that are pilotless cant get above 70 Energy Factor wheras
tankless start at 82. Energy factor is the cost. The best tank I have
seen is 70 EF so $0.30 is wasted, the cheapest Tankless is 82 EF so
only 18% is wasted, and Takagi goes to 94 EF, go figure, its all in
the math. Pilot lights are the wrong way to go.
On Apr 9, 2:30 pm, trad...@optonline,net wrote:
> On Apr 9, 11:11 am, Wayne Whitney <whit...@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2008-04-09, hall...@aol,com <hall...@aol,com > wrote:
>
> > > note it appears in homes that use more water, the typical 2 adults and
> > > 2 teenagers savings are less, probably because the standard tank
> > > spends more time heating water and less time standing by. this is a
> > > new wrinkle on the tank vs tankless discussion
>
> > Actually, it doesn't say the savings are less, it says the efficiency
> > improvement is less. Standby losses are basically independent of
> > usage. The greater the usage, the smaller the fraction of total costs
> > attributable to standby losses.
>
> > So if you are trying to calculate a payback period, and if the
> > incremental efficiency of the tank and tankless are the same, then
> > usage doesn't matter. All you need to do is figure out how much more
> > expensive the tankless is, and how your savings from standby losses
> > are.
>
> > Cheers, Wayne
>
> Yes, I was going to point that out too. Sure, in percentage terms,
> the more hot water you use, the less in percentage terms you will save
> on your energy bill. That's because the big difference is the
> standby loss, which is independent of the amount of water used.
> However, in dollars saved in gas saved per year from standy losses,
> it's still going to be the same amount of money saved, which is what
> you need to look at.
>
> Also, am I the only one that thinks it odd that if a tankless has a
> pilot light it would negate the entire energy savings compared to a
> regular water heater? The regular water heater has a pilot light too
> and I would think the overall impact of a pilot light might be a
> couple %.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
My 5 yr old tankless is battery ignition- 2 d cells. A pilot light I
think is long gone. There were even 5 years ago Hydro generator
pilots, the water runs, turns a blade, it turns a generator. But even
tank that are pilotless cant get above 70 Energy Factor wheras
tankless start at 82. Energy factor is the cost. The best tank I have
seen is 70 EF so $0.30 is wasted, the cheapest Tankless is 82 EF so
only 18% is wasted, and Takagi goes to 94 EF, go figure, its all in
the math. Pilot lights are the wrong way to go.
Re: 40 gal just not enough: Replacing water heater for 2400 sq home.
On Apr 9, 2:30 pm, trad...@optonline,net wrote:
> On Apr 9, 11:11 am, Wayne Whitney <whit...@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2008-04-09, hall...@aol,com <hall...@aol,com > wrote:
>
> > > note it appears in homes that use more water, the typical 2 adults and
> > > 2 teenagers savings are less, probably because the standard tank
> > > spends more time heating water and less time standing by. this is a
> > > new wrinkle on the tank vs tankless discussion
>
> > Actually, it doesn't say the savings are less, it says the efficiency
> > improvement is less. Standby losses are basically independent of
> > usage. The greater the usage, the smaller the fraction of total costs
> > attributable to standby losses.
>
> > So if you are trying to calculate a payback period, and if the
> > incremental efficiency of the tank and tankless are the same, then
> > usage doesn't matter. All you need to do is figure out how much more
> > expensive the tankless is, and how your savings from standby losses
> > are.
>
> > Cheers, Wayne
>
> Yes, I was going to point that out too. Sure, in percentage terms,
> the more hot water you use, the less in percentage terms you will save
> on your energy bill. That's because the big difference is the
> standby loss, which is independent of the amount of water used.
> However, in dollars saved in gas saved per year from standy losses,
> it's still going to be the same amount of money saved, which is what
> you need to look at.
>
> Also, am I the only one that thinks it odd that if a tankless has a
> pilot light it would negate the entire energy savings compared to a
> regular water heater? The regular water heater has a pilot light too
> and I would think the overall impact of a pilot light might be a
> couple %.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am now at a tank location, my last summers gas bills are double and
more than at the tankless location, 9 vs 12$ a month. Same gas dryer,
same gas cooking. So Tankless saves me 13 or so a month at TODAYS gas
prices. Wait 5 years. my payback is 5 years and less and declining as
prices increase. Tankless-pilotless, work and outlast tank , which
looose 1-3 % efficency every year due to scale.
On Apr 9, 2:30 pm, trad...@optonline,net wrote:
> On Apr 9, 11:11 am, Wayne Whitney <whit...@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2008-04-09, hall...@aol,com <hall...@aol,com > wrote:
>
> > > note it appears in homes that use more water, the typical 2 adults and
> > > 2 teenagers savings are less, probably because the standard tank
> > > spends more time heating water and less time standing by. this is a
> > > new wrinkle on the tank vs tankless discussion
>
> > Actually, it doesn't say the savings are less, it says the efficiency
> > improvement is less. Standby losses are basically independent of
> > usage. The greater the usage, the smaller the fraction of total costs
> > attributable to standby losses.
>
> > So if you are trying to calculate a payback period, and if the
> > incremental efficiency of the tank and tankless are the same, then
> > usage doesn't matter. All you need to do is figure out how much more
> > expensive the tankless is, and how your savings from standby losses
> > are.
>
> > Cheers, Wayne
>
> Yes, I was going to point that out too. Sure, in percentage terms,
> the more hot water you use, the less in percentage terms you will save
> on your energy bill. That's because the big difference is the
> standby loss, which is independent of the amount of water used.
> However, in dollars saved in gas saved per year from standy losses,
> it's still going to be the same amount of money saved, which is what
> you need to look at.
>
> Also, am I the only one that thinks it odd that if a tankless has a
> pilot light it would negate the entire energy savings compared to a
> regular water heater? The regular water heater has a pilot light too
> and I would think the overall impact of a pilot light might be a
> couple %.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am now at a tank location, my last summers gas bills are double and
more than at the tankless location, 9 vs 12$ a month. Same gas dryer,
same gas cooking. So Tankless saves me 13 or so a month at TODAYS gas
prices. Wait 5 years. my payback is 5 years and less and declining as
prices increase. Tankless-pilotless, work and outlast tank , which
looose 1-3 % efficency every year due to scale.
Re: 40 gal just not enough: Replacing water heater for 2400 sq home.
On Apr 9, 2:55 pm, ransley <Mark Rans...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> On Apr 9, 2:30 pm, trad...@optonline,net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 9, 11:11 am, Wayne Whitney <whit...@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> > > On 2008-04-09, hall...@aol,com <hall...@aol,com > wrote:
>
> > > > note it appears in homes that use more water, the typical 2 adults and
> > > > 2 teenagers savings are less, probably because the standard tank
> > > > spends more time heating water and less time standing by. this is a
> > > > new wrinkle on the tank vs tankless discussion
>
> > > Actually, it doesn't say the savings are less, it says the efficiency
> > > improvement is less. Standby losses are basically independent of
> > > usage. The greater the usage, the smaller the fraction of total costs
> > > attributable to standby losses.
>
> > > So if you are trying to calculate a payback period, and if the
> > > incremental efficiency of the tank and tankless are the same, then
> > > usage doesn't matter. All you need to do is figure out how much more
> > > expensive the tankless is, and how your savings from standby losses
> > > are.
>
> > > Cheers, Wayne
>
> > Yes, I was going to point that out too. Sure, in percentage terms,
> > the more hot water you use, the less in percentage terms you will save
> > on your energy bill. That's because the big difference is the
> > standby loss, which is independent of the amount of water used.
> > However, in dollars saved in gas saved per year from standy losses,
> > it's still going to be the same amount of money saved, which is what
> > you need to look at.
>
> > Also, am I the only one that thinks it odd that if a tankless has a
> > pilot light it would negate the entire energy savings compared to a
> > regular water heater? The regular water heater has a pilot light too
> > and I would think the overall impact of a pilot light might be a
> > couple %.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I am now at a tank location, my last summers gas bills are double and
> more than at the tankless location, 9 vs 12$ a month. Same gas dryer,
> same gas cooking. So Tankless saves me 13 or so a month at TODAYS gas
> prices. Wait 5 years. my payback is 5 years and less and declining as
> prices increase. Tankless-pilotless, work and outlast tank , which
> looose 1-3 % efficency every year due to scale.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I should have stated 9 vs 22 -23 a month
On Apr 9, 2:55 pm, ransley <Mark Rans...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> On Apr 9, 2:30 pm, trad...@optonline,net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 9, 11:11 am, Wayne Whitney <whit...@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> > > On 2008-04-09, hall...@aol,com <hall...@aol,com > wrote:
>
> > > > note it appears in homes that use more water, the typical 2 adults and
> > > > 2 teenagers savings are less, probably because the standard tank
> > > > spends more time heating water and less time standing by. this is a
> > > > new wrinkle on the tank vs tankless discussion
>
> > > Actually, it doesn't say the savings are less, it says the efficiency
> > > improvement is less. Standby losses are basically independent of
> > > usage. The greater the usage, the smaller the fraction of total costs
> > > attributable to standby losses.
>
> > > So if you are trying to calculate a payback period, and if the
> > > incremental efficiency of the tank and tankless are the same, then
> > > usage doesn't matter. All you need to do is figure out how much more
> > > expensive the tankless is, and how your savings from standby losses
> > > are.
>
> > > Cheers, Wayne
>
> > Yes, I was going to point that out too. Sure, in percentage terms,
> > the more hot water you use, the less in percentage terms you will save
> > on your energy bill. That's because the big difference is the
> > standby loss, which is independent of the amount of water used.
> > However, in dollars saved in gas saved per year from standy losses,
> > it's still going to be the same amount of money saved, which is what
> > you need to look at.
>
> > Also, am I the only one that thinks it odd that if a tankless has a
> > pilot light it would negate the entire energy savings compared to a
> > regular water heater? The regular water heater has a pilot light too
> > and I would think the overall impact of a pilot light might be a
> > couple %.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I am now at a tank location, my last summers gas bills are double and
> more than at the tankless location, 9 vs 12$ a month. Same gas dryer,
> same gas cooking. So Tankless saves me 13 or so a month at TODAYS gas
> prices. Wait 5 years. my payback is 5 years and less and declining as
> prices increase. Tankless-pilotless, work and outlast tank , which
> looose 1-3 % efficency every year due to scale.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I should have stated 9 vs 22 -23 a month
Re: 40 gal just not enough: Replacing water heater for 2400 sq home.
On Apr 9, 2:30 pm, trad...@optonline,net wrote:
> On Apr 9, 11:11 am, Wayne Whitney <whit...@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2008-04-09, hall...@aol,com <hall...@aol,com > wrote:
>
> > > note it appears in homes that use more water, the typical 2 adults and
> > > 2 teenagers savings are less, probably because the standard tank
> > > spends more time heating water and less time standing by. this is a
> > > new wrinkle on the tank vs tankless discussion
>
> > Actually, it doesn't say the savings are less, it says the efficiency
> > improvement is less. Standby losses are basically independent of
> > usage. The greater the usage, the smaller the fraction of total costs
> > attributable to standby losses.
>
> > So if you are trying to calculate a payback period, and if the
> > incremental efficiency of the tank and tankless are the same, then
> > usage doesn't matter. All you need to do is figure out how much more
> > expensive the tankless is, and how your savings from standby losses
> > are.
>
> > Cheers, Wayne
>
> Yes, I was going to point that out too. Sure, in percentage terms,
> the more hot water you use, the less in percentage terms you will save
> on your energy bill. That's because the big difference is the
> standby loss, which is independent of the amount of water used.
> However, in dollars saved in gas saved per year from standy losses,
> it's still going to be the same amount of money saved, which is what
> you need to look at.
>
> Also, am I the only one that thinks it odd that if a tankless has a
> pilot light it would negate the entire energy savings compared to a
> regular water heater? The regular water heater has a pilot light too
> and I would think the overall impact of a pilot light might be a
> couple %.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think all tankless are non pilot now. Mine was 5 years ago its 2 d
cell, its battery ignition, and hydro gen was offered then.
On Apr 9, 2:30 pm, trad...@optonline,net wrote:
> On Apr 9, 11:11 am, Wayne Whitney <whit...@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2008-04-09, hall...@aol,com <hall...@aol,com > wrote:
>
> > > note it appears in homes that use more water, the typical 2 adults and
> > > 2 teenagers savings are less, probably because the standard tank
> > > spends more time heating water and less time standing by. this is a
> > > new wrinkle on the tank vs tankless discussion
>
> > Actually, it doesn't say the savings are less, it says the efficiency
> > improvement is less. Standby losses are basically independent of
> > usage. The greater the usage, the smaller the fraction of total costs
> > attributable to standby losses.
>
> > So if you are trying to calculate a payback period, and if the
> > incremental efficiency of the tank and tankless are the same, then
> > usage doesn't matter. All you need to do is figure out how much more
> > expensive the tankless is, and how your savings from standby losses
> > are.
>
> > Cheers, Wayne
>
> Yes, I was going to point that out too. Sure, in percentage terms,
> the more hot water you use, the less in percentage terms you will save
> on your energy bill. That's because the big difference is the
> standby loss, which is independent of the amount of water used.
> However, in dollars saved in gas saved per year from standy losses,
> it's still going to be the same amount of money saved, which is what
> you need to look at.
>
> Also, am I the only one that thinks it odd that if a tankless has a
> pilot light it would negate the entire energy savings compared to a
> regular water heater? The regular water heater has a pilot light too
> and I would think the overall impact of a pilot light might be a
> couple %.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think all tankless are non pilot now. Mine was 5 years ago its 2 d
cell, its battery ignition, and hydro gen was offered then.
Re: 40 gal just not enough: Replacing water heater for 2400 sq home. Family of 2 adults + 2 children
On Apr 8, 9:37 am, "S. Barker" <ichasetra...@coldmail,com > wrote:
> BUT, can you get 140 - 160 degree water out of it?
>
> I thought not. It doesn't matter if the junk mf's are FREE to run if you
> can't get what you need out of them.
>
> s
>
> "ransley" <Mark Rans...@yahoo,com > wrote in message
>
> news:c71781bf-81d8-4b3b-851a-52294eb6af89@m71g2000hse.googlegroups,com ...
>
> The only bullship is your knowledge, at my previous location I
> installed a $500 Bosch ng tankless, my bill went from 20 to no more
> than 10$ in summer, that includes gas dryer and stove, my payback is 4
> years, where I am now is Ng Tank and last summers gas bill is back to
> no less than 22 with gas stove and dyer. Tank Ng are only near 60%
> efficent even with an 82$ efficent burner.
Only and idiot would want 140-160f, do you have yours to 140? I bet not
On Apr 8, 9:37 am, "S. Barker" <ichasetra...@coldmail,com > wrote:
> BUT, can you get 140 - 160 degree water out of it?
>
> I thought not. It doesn't matter if the junk mf's are FREE to run if you
> can't get what you need out of them.
>
> s
>
> "ransley" <Mark Rans...@yahoo,com > wrote in message
>
> news:c71781bf-81d8-4b3b-851a-52294eb6af89@m71g2000hse.googlegroups,com ...
>
> The only bullship is your knowledge, at my previous location I
> installed a $500 Bosch ng tankless, my bill went from 20 to no more
> than 10$ in summer, that includes gas dryer and stove, my payback is 4
> years, where I am now is Ng Tank and last summers gas bill is back to
> no less than 22 with gas stove and dyer. Tank Ng are only near 60%
> efficent even with an 82$ efficent burner.
Only and idiot would want 140-160f, do you have yours to 140? I bet not
Re: 40 gal just not enough: Replacing water heater for 2400 sq home. Family of 2 adults + 2 children
Yes, i do. Would i make a point out of it if i didn't do it?
s
"ransley" <Mark_Ransley@yahoo,com > wrote in message
news:2756b17a-579e-4b6a-8f90-faaf49b86843@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups,com ...
Only and idiot would want 140-160f, do you have yours to 140? I bet not
Yes, i do. Would i make a point out of it if i didn't do it?
s
"ransley" <Mark_Ransley@yahoo,com > wrote in message
news:2756b17a-579e-4b6a-8f90-faaf49b86843@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups,com ...
Only and idiot would want 140-160f, do you have yours to 140? I bet not
Re: 40 gal just not enough: Replacing water heater for 2400 sq home. Family of 2 adults + 2 children
I think that's a false comparison. The only time the burner or heater runs,
is to replace lost heat. Heat lost from the tank. That's lost through one of
several ways. Depending if it's gas or electric or fuel oil source,
different methods of heat loss.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www .lds.org
.
"Bill" <bargerw@bellsouth,net > wrote in message
news:E1uKj.32856$vr3.15042@bignews2.bellsouth,net ...
Just ask yourself, do you keep your auto running in the driveway so it will
be warm when you get in it?
I think that's a false comparison. The only time the burner or heater runs,
is to replace lost heat. Heat lost from the tank. That's lost through one of
several ways. Depending if it's gas or electric or fuel oil source,
different methods of heat loss.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www .lds.org
.
"Bill" <bargerw@bellsouth,net > wrote in message
news:E1uKj.32856$vr3.15042@bignews2.bellsouth,net ...
Just ask yourself, do you keep your auto running in the driveway so it will
be warm when you get in it?
Re: 40 gal just not enough: Replacing water heater for 2400 sq home. Family of 2 adults + 2 children
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 14:50:30 -0400, "Bill" <bargerw@bellsouth,net >
wrote:
>Tankless is the way to go.
>Just ask yourself, do you keep your auto running in the driveway so it will
>be warm when you get in it?
>
>They say tankless is 80% more efficient than an electric tank.
>That one is more expensive, but it recoupes in cost in two to three years.
This is totally false. According to the U.S. DOE, the standby losses
of a conventional electric water heater with an EF rating of 0.93 are
331 kWh a year. At $0.10 per kWh, these losses amount to less than
$3.00 per month. And if you live in an area where heating demands
dominate and the tank is located inside a conditioned space, your
actual out-of-pocket expense would be even less.
In addition, if you install a tankless water heater and it results in
excessive strain on the utility's distribution system or adversely
impacts power quality (e.g., flickering lights due to high transient
load), you could be held personally liable for the full cost of any
necessary transformer and line upgrades; a next door neighbour
complaining to the power company about "bad power" could very well
cost you several thousands of dollars.
http :// www .progress-energy,com /custservice/flares/builders/tankless.asp
Cheers,
Paul
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 14:50:30 -0400, "Bill" <bargerw@bellsouth,net >
wrote:
>Tankless is the way to go.
>Just ask yourself, do you keep your auto running in the driveway so it will
>be warm when you get in it?
>
>They say tankless is 80% more efficient than an electric tank.
>That one is more expensive, but it recoupes in cost in two to three years.
This is totally false. According to the U.S. DOE, the standby losses
of a conventional electric water heater with an EF rating of 0.93 are
331 kWh a year. At $0.10 per kWh, these losses amount to less than
$3.00 per month. And if you live in an area where heating demands
dominate and the tank is located inside a conditioned space, your
actual out-of-pocket expense would be even less.
In addition, if you install a tankless water heater and it results in
excessive strain on the utility's distribution system or adversely
impacts power quality (e.g., flickering lights due to high transient
load), you could be held personally liable for the full cost of any
necessary transformer and line upgrades; a next door neighbour
complaining to the power company about "bad power" could very well
cost you several thousands of dollars.
http :// www .progress-energy,com /custservice/flares/builders/tankless.asp
Cheers,
Paul
Re: 40 gal just not enough: Replacing water heater for 2400 sq home. Family of 2 adults + 2 children
On Apr 7, 10:22 pm, Paul M. Eldridge <paul.eldri...@ns.sympatico.ca>
wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 14:50:30 -0400, "Bill" <barg...@bellsouth,net >
> wrote:
>
> >Tankless is the way to go.
> >Just ask yourself, do you keep your auto running in the driveway so it will
> >be warm when you get in it?
>
> >They say tankless is 80% more efficient than an electric tank.
> >That one is more expensive, but it recoupes in cost in two to three years.
>
> This is totally false. According to the U.S. DOE, the standby losses
> of a conventional electric water heater with an EF rating of 0.93 are
> 331 kWh a year. At $0.10 per kWh, these losses amount to less than
> $3.00 per month. And if you live in an area where heating demands
> dominate and the tank is located inside a conditioned space, your
> actual out-of-pocket expense would be even less.
>
> In addition, if you install a tankless water heater and it results in
> excessive strain on the utility's distribution system or adversely
> impacts power quality (e.g., flickering lights due to high transient
> load), you could be held personally liable for the full cost of any
> necessary transformer and line upgrades; a next door neighbour
> complaining to the power company about "bad power" could very well
> cost you several thousands of dollars.
>
> http :// www .progress-energy,com /custservice/flares/builders/tankless.asp
>
> Cheers,
> Paul
Depending on your local rate it could be easily 80% more efficent,
mine was about 75% cheaper converting from electric tank to Ng
tankless. Then again some have cheap hydro and expensive fossile fuel,
and savings could be Zero. Each person has their own unique set of
costs, for some tankless is best, for some that would need large
tankless and major gas work tankless are not worth it.
On Apr 7, 10:22 pm, Paul M. Eldridge <paul.eldri...@ns.sympatico.ca>
wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 14:50:30 -0400, "Bill" <barg...@bellsouth,net >
> wrote:
>
> >Tankless is the way to go.
> >Just ask yourself, do you keep your auto running in the driveway so it will
> >be warm when you get in it?
>
> >They say tankless is 80% more efficient than an electric tank.
> >That one is more expensive, but it recoupes in cost in two to three years.
>
> This is totally false. According to the U.S. DOE, the standby losses
> of a conventional electric water heater with an EF rating of 0.93 are
> 331 kWh a year. At $0.10 per kWh, these losses amount to less than
> $3.00 per month. And if you live in an area where heating demands
> dominate and the tank is located inside a conditioned space, your
> actual out-of-pocket expense would be even less.
>
> In addition, if you install a tankless water heater and it results in
> excessive strain on the utility's distribution system or adversely
> impacts power quality (e.g., flickering lights due to high transient
> load), you could be held personally liable for the full cost of any
> necessary transformer and line upgrades; a next door neighbour
> complaining to the power company about "bad power" could very well
> cost you several thousands of dollars.
>
> http :// www .progress-energy,com /custservice/flares/builders/tankless.asp
>
> Cheers,
> Paul
Depending on your local rate it could be easily 80% more efficent,
mine was about 75% cheaper converting from electric tank to Ng
tankless. Then again some have cheap hydro and expensive fossile fuel,
and savings could be Zero. Each person has their own unique set of
costs, for some tankless is best, for some that would need large
tankless and major gas work tankless are not worth it.
Re: 40 gal just not enough: Replacing water heater for 2400 sq home. Family of 2 adults + 2 children
On Apr 8, 10:03=EF=BF=BDam, ransley <Mark_Rans...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> On Apr 7, 10:22=EF=BF=BDpm, Paul M. Eldridge <paul.eldri...@ns.sympatico.c=
a>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 14:50:30 -0400, "Bill" <barg...@bellsouth,net >
> > wrote:
>
> > >Tankless is the way to go.
> > >Just ask yourself, do you keep your auto running in the driveway so it =
will
> > >be warm when you get in it?
>
> > >They say tankless is 80% more efficient than an electric tank.
> > >That one is more expensive, but it recoupes in cost in two to three yea=
rs.
>
> > This is totally false. =EF=BF=BDAccording to the U.S. DOE, the standby l=
osses
> > of a conventional electric water heater with an EF rating of 0.93 are
> > 331 kWh a year. =EF=BF=BDAt $0.10 per kWh, these losses amount to less t=
han
> > $3.00 per month. =EF=BF=BDAnd if you live in an area where heating deman=
ds
> > dominate and the tank is located inside a conditioned space, your
> > actual out-of-pocket expense would be even less.
>
> > In addition, if you install a tankless water heater and it results in
> > excessive strain on the utility's distribution system or adversely
> > impacts power quality (e.g., flickering lights due to high transient
> > load), you could be held personally liable for the full cost of any
> > necessary transformer and line upgrades; a next door neighbour
> > complaining to the power company about "bad power" could very well
> > cost you several thousands of dollars.
>
> > http :// www .progress-energy,com /custservice/flares/builders/tankless.asp
>
> > Cheers,
> > Paul
>
> Depending on your local rate it could be easily 80% more efficent,
> mine was about 75% cheaper converting from electric tank to Ng
> tankless. Then again some have cheap hydro and expensive fossile fuel,
> and savings could be Zero. Each person has their own unique set of
> costs, for some tankless is best, for some that would need large
> tankless and major gas work tankless are not worth it.- Hide quoted text -=
>
> - Show quoted text -
electric almost always costs more than natural gas to heat water
On Apr 8, 10:03=EF=BF=BDam, ransley <Mark_Rans...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> On Apr 7, 10:22=EF=BF=BDpm, Paul M. Eldridge <paul.eldri...@ns.sympatico.c=
a>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 14:50:30 -0400, "Bill" <barg...@bellsouth,net >
> > wrote:
>
> > >Tankless is the way to go.
> > >Just ask yourself, do you keep your auto running in the driveway so it =
will
> > >be warm when you get in it?
>
> > >They say tankless is 80% more efficient than an electric tank.
> > >That one is more expensive, but it recoupes in cost in two to three yea=
rs.
>
> > This is totally false. =EF=BF=BDAccording to the U.S. DOE, the standby l=
osses
> > of a conventional electric water heater with an EF rating of 0.93 are
> > 331 kWh a year. =EF=BF=BDAt $0.10 per kWh, these losses amount to less t=
han
> > $3.00 per month. =EF=BF=BDAnd if you live in an area where heating deman=
ds
> > dominate and the tank is located inside a conditioned space, your
> > actual out-of-pocket expense would be even less.
>
> > In addition, if you install a tankless water heater and it results in
> > excessive strain on the utility's distribution system or adversely
> > impacts power quality (e.g., flickering lights due to high transient
> > load), you could be held personally liable for the full cost of any
> > necessary transformer and line upgrades; a next door neighbour
> > complaining to the power company about "bad power" could very well
> > cost you several thousands of dollars.
>
> > http :// www .progress-energy,com /custservice/flares/builders/tankless.asp
>
> > Cheers,
> > Paul
>
> Depending on your local rate it could be easily 80% more efficent,
> mine was about 75% cheaper converting from electric tank to Ng
> tankless. Then again some have cheap hydro and expensive fossile fuel,
> and savings could be Zero. Each person has their own unique set of
> costs, for some tankless is best, for some that would need large
> tankless and major gas work tankless are not worth it.- Hide quoted text -=
>
> - Show quoted text -
electric almost always costs more than natural gas to heat water
Re: 40 gal just not enough: Replacing water heater for 2400 sq home. Family of 2 adults + 2 childre
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 07:03:41 -0700 (PDT), ransley
<Mark Ransley@yahoo,com > wrote:
>On Apr 7, 10:22 pm, Paul M. Eldridge <paul.eldri...@ns.sympatico.ca>
>wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 14:50:30 -0400, "Bill" <barg...@bellsouth,net >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Tankless is the way to go.
>> >Just ask yourself, do you keep your auto running in the driveway so it will
>> >be warm when you get in it?
>>
>> >They say tankless is 80% more efficient than an electric tank.
>> >That one is more expensive, but it recoupes in cost in two to three years.
>>
>> This is totally false. According to the U.S. DOE, the standby losses
>> of a conventional electric water heater with an EF rating of 0.93 are
>> 331 kWh a year. At $0.10 per kWh, these losses amount to less than
>> $3.00 per month. And if you live in an area where heating demands
>> dominate and the tank is located inside a conditioned space, your
>> actual out-of-pocket expense would be even less.
>>
>> In addition, if you install a tankless water heater and it results in
>> excessive strain on the utility's distribution system or adversely
>> impacts power quality (e.g., flickering lights due to high transient
>> load), you could be held personally liable for the full cost of any
>> necessary transformer and line upgrades; a next door neighbour
>> complaining to the power company about "bad power" could very well
>> cost you several thousands of dollars.
>>
>> http :// www .progress-energy,com /custservice/flares/builders/tankless.asp
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Paul
>
>Depending on your local rate it could be easily 80% more efficent,
>mine was about 75% cheaper converting from electric tank to Ng
>tankless. Then again some have cheap hydro and expensive fossile fuel,
>and savings could be Zero. Each person has their own unique set of
>costs, for some tankless is best, for some that would need large
>tankless and major gas work tankless are not worth it.
Hi Mark,
We're really speaking of two separate things: efficiency and
cost-effectiveness based upon fuel choice and my comments pertain to
the former. The poster claimed a "tankless is 80% more efficient than
an electric tank" and this statement is categorically false.
As noted above, the standby losses of an electric water heater with an
EF of 0.93 or better are less than 1 kWh/day; at $0.10 per kWh, less
than $3.00 per month and during the winter months the net
out-of-pocket expense would be lower if the tank is located inside a
conditioned space (effectively nil if the home is electrically heated
and potentially net positive if heated with oil now that fuel oil in
many parts of North America is more expensive than electric
resistance).
Cheers,
Paul
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 07:03:41 -0700 (PDT), ransley
<Mark Ransley@yahoo,com > wrote:
>On Apr 7, 10:22 pm, Paul M. Eldridge <paul.eldri...@ns.sympatico.ca>
>wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 14:50:30 -0400, "Bill" <barg...@bellsouth,net >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Tankless is the way to go.
>> >Just ask yourself, do you keep your auto running in the driveway so it will
>> >be warm when you get in it?
>>
>> >They say tankless is 80% more efficient than an electric tank.
>> >That one is more expensive, but it recoupes in cost in two to three years.
>>
>> This is totally false. According to the U.S. DOE, the standby losses
>> of a conventional electric water heater with an EF rating of 0.93 are
>> 331 kWh a year. At $0.10 per kWh, these losses amount to less than
>> $3.00 per month. And if you live in an area where heating demands
>> dominate and the tank is located inside a conditioned space, your
>> actual out-of-pocket expense would be even less.
>>
>> In addition, if you install a tankless water heater and it results in
>> excessive strain on the utility's distribution system or adversely
>> impacts power quality (e.g., flickering lights due to high transient
>> load), you could be held personally liable for the full cost of any
>> necessary transformer and line upgrades; a next door neighbour
>> complaining to the power company about "bad power" could very well
>> cost you several thousands of dollars.
>>
>> http :// www .progress-energy,com /custservice/flares/builders/tankless.asp
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Paul
>
>Depending on your local rate it could be easily 80% more efficent,
>mine was about 75% cheaper converting from electric tank to Ng
>tankless. Then again some have cheap hydro and expensive fossile fuel,
>and savings could be Zero. Each person has their own unique set of
>costs, for some tankless is best, for some that would need large
>tankless and major gas work tankless are not worth it.
Hi Mark,
We're really speaking of two separate things: efficiency and
cost-effectiveness based upon fuel choice and my comments pertain to
the former. The poster claimed a "tankless is 80% more efficient than
an electric tank" and this statement is categorically false.
As noted above, the standby losses of an electric water heater with an
EF of 0.93 or better are less than 1 kWh/day; at $0.10 per kWh, less
than $3.00 per month and during the winter months the net
out-of-pocket expense would be lower if the tank is located inside a
conditioned space (effectively nil if the home is electrically heated
and potentially net positive if heated with oil now that fuel oil in
many parts of North America is more expensive than electric
resistance).
Cheers,
Paul
Re: 40 gal just not enough: Replacing water heater for 2400 sq home. Family of 2 adults + 2 children
On Apr 7, 2:01=EF=BF=BDpm, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail,com > wrote:
> On Apr 7, 1:24 pm, "Thomas G. Marshall"
>
>
>
>
>
> <tgm2tothe10thpo...@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail,com > wrote:
> > Ok, our 40 gal gas water heater is failing. =EF=BF=BDAbout 10 years old,=
which I
> > hear is ok.
>
> > But every time I talk to someone about their 40 gal water heater, they a=
ll
> > complain that they run out of hot water (comparable size homes and kids)=
.
>
> > Bur our builder (and all builder's we spoke to when looking to build)
> > *insist* that 40 gallons is enough.
>
> > But we were always worried about running the wash or dishwasher before
> > showering, or two long showers would result in the 2nd losing water.
> > Complete with those water saving disks etc.
>
> > 1. Is 80 gallons overkill? =EF=BF=BDPerhaps I'm reacting viscerally.
>
> > 2. Am I going to notice a large gas usage increase?
>
> > 3. Are there rules in place limiting the water tank sizes?
>
> > 4. Are there any particular brands to look for or stay away from?
>
> > I'm sorry for the barrage of questions.
>
> Instead of replacing the old with a newer version of the old, you may
> want to look into a tankless water heater instead of keeping that 40+
> gallons of water at ready-to-be-used temperature 24/7/365 when you
> really only need the hot water for _maybe_ an hour a day. =EF=BF=BDThey've=
> been in use around the world for decades, but are just gaining
> momentum in the US.
> Here's one link: =EF=BF=BD http :// www .tanklesswaterheaterguide,com /=EF=BF=
=BDI haven't
> read through that link, but it seemed to hit the high points and will
> give you an overview - from there it's up to you and your finely honed
> Google skills.
>
> R- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
thought we needed watr heatr and researched tankless but was afraid
we'd lose our on demand feature and waitng 4 hot water would b an
issue..mayb ok 4 auxiliary hot water...good luck..sherry
On Apr 7, 2:01=EF=BF=BDpm, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail,com > wrote:
> On Apr 7, 1:24 pm, "Thomas G. Marshall"
>
>
>
>
>
> <tgm2tothe10thpo...@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail,com > wrote:
> > Ok, our 40 gal gas water heater is failing. =EF=BF=BDAbout 10 years old,=
which I
> > hear is ok.
>
> > But every time I talk to someone about their 40 gal water heater, they a=
ll
> > complain that they run out of hot water (comparable size homes and kids)=
.
>
> > Bur our builder (and all builder's we spoke to when looking to build)
> > *insist* that 40 gallons is enough.
>
> > But we were always worried about running the wash or dishwasher before
> > showering, or two long showers would result in the 2nd losing water.
> > Complete with those water saving disks etc.
>
> > 1. Is 80 gallons overkill? =EF=BF=BDPerhaps I'm reacting viscerally.
>
> > 2. Am I going to notice a large gas usage increase?
>
> > 3. Are there rules in place limiting the water tank sizes?
>
> > 4. Are there any particular brands to look for or stay away from?
>
> > I'm sorry for the barrage of questions.
>
> Instead of replacing the old with a newer version of the old, you may
> want to look into a tankless water heater instead of keeping that 40+
> gallons of water at ready-to-be-used temperature 24/7/365 when you
> really only need the hot water for _maybe_ an hour a day. =EF=BF=BDThey've=
> been in use around the world for decades, but are just gaining
> momentum in the US.
> Here's one link: =EF=BF=BD http :// www .tanklesswaterheaterguide,com /=EF=BF=
=BDI haven't
> read through that link, but it seemed to hit the high points and will
> give you an overview - from there it's up to you and your finely honed
> Google skills.
>
> R- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
thought we needed watr heatr and researched tankless but was afraid
we'd lose our on demand feature and waitng 4 hot water would b an
issue..mayb ok 4 auxiliary hot water...good luck..sherry
