Question:
> Looking for any information and/or experiences with tankless water > heaters, the Aquastar in particular that anyone may have had. Do they > provide enough hot water? Any problems? Used on-grid or with a solar > electric powered system?
Aquastar no, Paloma and Myson yes. You could NEVER get me back to tank type again for anything other than a passive solar heat storage. Of the two I prefer the Myson. — BulkMailers and Email address compilers may purchase this email address for $25000.00 for use in their products. Anyone selling this email address or utilizing this email address for any commercial usage without a license from ShadowMAC is in violation of private property rights and violators WILL be be invoiced for usage. Selling what you do not own is THEFT of private property!!! This is domain policy.
Response:
Looking for any information and/or experiences with tankless water heaters, the Aquastar in particular that anyone may have had. Do they provide enough hot water? Any problems? Used on-grid or with a solar electric powered system? — Solar and Wind for remote power since 1979 http://www.windsun.com http://www.solar-electric.com (online store)
Response:
> Looking for any information and/or experiences with tankless water > heaters, the Aquastar in particular that anyone may have had. Do they > provide enough hot water? Any problems? Used on-grid or with a solar > electric powered system?
I’m using a Myson on propane and haven’t had problems with demand, unless I’m trying to draw a bath and shower at the same time. Overall it works great, takes up little space and comes with a direct vent package. I planned to use it as a backup system, though I may try something different. The Myson is in my basement, and the piping for the solar panels would have to travel at least 38 feet to get to it, which might incur efficiency penalties greater than I would like to suffer. Will Stewart
Response:
> > Looking for any information and/or experiences with tankless water > heaters, the Aquastar in particular that anyone may have had. Do they > provide enough hot water? Any problems? Used on-grid or with a solar > electric powered system? > I’m using a Myson on propane and haven’t had problems with demand, > unless I’m trying to draw a bath and shower at the same time. Overall > it works great, takes up little space and comes with a direct vent > package. I planned to use it as a backup system, though I may try > something different. The Myson is in my basement, and the piping for > the solar panels would have to travel at least 38 feet to get to it, > which might incur efficiency penalties greater than I would like to > suffer.
Hmmm, 38 feet of piping from solar ELECTRIC panels??? Now that I would LOVE to see <G> I think someone may have mixed up solar eletric panels with solar thermal panels :_) — BulkMailers and Email address compilers may purchase this individual email address for $25000.00 for use in their products. Anyone selling this email address or utilizing this email address for any commercial usage without a license from ShadowMAC is in violation of private property rights and violators WILL be be invoiced for usage. Selling what you do not own is THEFT of private property!!! This is domain policy. http://shadowmac.org/license_schedule.html
Response:
I have been considering making a solar array (heliostat type) but unfortunately, the distance to my heliostat unless I cut some trees will be about 200 ft.. 
Will I be able to insulate good enough to have water still hot enough to do anything by the time it gets to my house (assuming that I have a temp of 220 deg. at the heliostat)? Carl – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Looking for any information and/or experiences with tankless water > heaters, the Aquastar in particular that anyone may have had. Do they > provide enough hot water? Any problems? Used on-grid or with a solar > electric powered system? > I’m using a Myson on propane and haven’t had problems with demand, > unless I’m trying to draw a bath and shower at the same time. Overall > it works great, takes up little space and comes with a direct vent > package. I planned to use it as a backup system, though I may try > something different. The Myson is in my basement, and the piping for > the solar panels would have to travel at least 38 feet to get to it, > which might incur efficiency penalties greater than I would like to > suffer. > Will Stewart
Response:
> > I’m using a Myson on propane and haven’t had problems with demand, > unless I’m trying to draw a bath and shower at the same time. Overall > it works great, takes up little space and comes with a direct vent > package. I planned to use it as a backup system, though I may try > something different. The Myson is in my basement, and the piping for > the solar panels would have to travel at least 38 feet to get to it, > which might incur efficiency penalties greater than I would like to > suffer. > Hmmm, 38 feet of piping from solar ELECTRIC panels??? Now that I would > LOVE to see <G> > I think someone may have mixed up solar eletric panels with solar > thermal panels :_)
Yes, it seems _you_ have. As I stated, the Myson would be used as a backup, which strongly implies solar hot water heating. Flat plate solar thermal collectors are referred to as solar panels, as are PV modules. Will
Response:
How much did your myson cost? Does it use less gas than a conventional waterheater? I am building a house, and am wondering about buying an instant on wter heater, if it will save gas.. Carl – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > I’m using a Myson on propane and haven’t had problems with demand, > > unless I’m trying to draw a bath and shower at the same time. Overall > > it works great, takes up little space and comes with a direct vent > > package. I planned to use it as a backup system, though I may try > > something different. The Myson is in my basement, and the piping for > > the solar panels would have to travel at least 38 feet to get to it, > > which might incur efficiency penalties greater than I would like to > > suffer. > Hmmm, 38 feet of piping from solar ELECTRIC panels??? Now that I would > LOVE to see <G> > I think someone may have mixed up solar eletric panels with solar > thermal panels :_) > Yes, it seems _you_ have. As I stated, the Myson would be used as a > backup, which strongly implies solar hot water heating. Flat plate > solar thermal collectors are referred to as solar panels, as are PV > modules. > Will
Response:
> How much did your myson cost?
Depends on the capacity of hot water you need to supply, and also depends on how hot you need the water… there are several different sizes of most any brand of tankless water heater, so cost varies… however I can give you a range of current pricing on some… also will depend on if you are using household air to burn with or air from the outside via direct vent kits. Myson $685 to $750 Paloma $550 to $1395 (IMHO the best) AquaStar/Bosch $360 to $995 > Does it use less gas than a conventional waterheater?
Hell yes. Just the fact that it does not waste energy by keeping a tank of water hot is a savings right there. > I am building a house, and am wondering about buying an instant on wter heater, > if it will save gas..
The answer is a definate yes. I will say that you need to figure out your water usage and buy in accordance to those needs, get too large a model and the water heater may not sense the need for water from a small tap, get too small a model and you will find that it will be unable to generate enough hot water for your needs. BUT, once you know your needs and buy a decent one (or more depending on your water needs and plumbing) then you are guaranteed that you will be wasting a lot less gas to get hot water, and it sure is nice to be able to take as long a hot shower as you need <G> If later on you find that you are using more hot water than you were when you initially set up, no big deal, just put two in series with one preheating the water and the other getting the water to the temp you need for your expanded needs, and walla again you are still saving compared to tank type of water heaters. The only instance that tank types of water heaters can be better, is if you are planning on installing any of several water heating or preheating alternatives, like solar heating, outdoor wood boilers and such, but then again those are used more for heating the building and not so much for sinks and such. For me, I have two tankless water heaters, each one supplying a different area, which means shorter plumbing from the heater to the outlets, and faster response to hot water needs, and lastly hotter water as it travels shorter distances which gives it less time and area to cool. — BulkMailers and Email address compilers may purchase this individual email address for $25000.00 for use in their products. Anyone selling this email address or utilizing this email address for any commercial usage without a license from ShadowMAC is in violation of private property rights and violators WILL be be invoiced for usage. Selling what you do not own is THEFT of private property!!! This is domain policy. http://shadowmac.org/license_schedule.html
Response:
>Myson $685 to $750 >Paloma $550 to $1395 (IMHO the best) >AquaStar/Bosch $360 to $995
Do any of these have a variable heat output and temperature control, or do they just fire up at the one heat input setting when they detect water flow? Is there any difference between the heating capacity of them between propane and natural gas? Thanks! ComputerSmiths Consulting, Inc. www.compusmiths.com
Response:
> >Myson $685 to $750 >Paloma $550 to $1395 (IMHO the best) >AquaStar/Bosch $360 to $995 > Do any of these have a variable heat output and temperature control, > or do they just fire up at the one heat input setting when they detect > water flow?
The Myson provides an adjustment to vary the output temperature, and can accept ‘pre-warmed’ water, such as would be available with solar thermal during low-insolation or high-demand. > Is there any difference between the heating capacity of them between > propane and natural gas?
From http://www.soundgt.com/costcomparison.html "Propane – 90,000 Btu/gal Natural gas -100,000 Btu/therm" Make _sure_ you acquire a heater that has propane orifices if you decide to use propane. Will
Response:
> How much did your myson cost?
About $700 including freight. > Does it use less gas than a conventional waterheater?
Went from an all-electric house, so it would be difficult to make a comparison. > I am building a house, and am wondering about buying an instant on wter heater, > if it will save gas..
Considering that you would have 0% standby losses, the answer would be yes. It would be great as a backup to future solar thermal, if the unit you purchase enables this, as the Myson claims to. Will
Response:
I am considering getting a tankless water heater for a new house we are planning. Unfortunately, they may not be as efficient as some might think. According to the book Comsumer Guide to Home Energy Savings by A. Wilson and J Morrill, a high efficiency gas-fired water storage type heater will use $145/yr of gas. The on-demand gas water heater will use $140/yr of gas. Other sources have informed me that keeping the pilot light going on both types of water heaters is actually where most of the gas use comes from. I have noticed on our current gas water-storage heater that it usually only turns on when someone turns on the hot water tap. I emailed an AquaStar rep a few months back. It sounds like they are working on a pilot-less version of the AquaStar. I was informed they would send me the product literature for this new model, but I have yet to receive anything. Given the pilot-light-use story, getting two on-demand heaters would be much less efficient than buying one large storage-type gas water heater. Douglas Stockman – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> How much did your myson cost? > Depends on the capacity of hot water you need to supply, and also > depends on how hot you need the water… there are several different > sizes of most any brand of tankless water heater, so cost varies… > however I can give you a range of current pricing on some… also will > depend on if you are using household air to burn with or air from the > outside via direct vent kits. > Myson $685 to $750 > Paloma $550 to $1395 (IMHO the best) > AquaStar/Bosch $360 to $995 > Does it use less gas than a conventional waterheater? > Hell yes. > Just the fact that it does not waste energy by keeping a tank of water > hot is a savings right there. > I am building a house, and am wondering about buying an instant on wter > heater, > if it will save gas.. > The answer is a definate yes. > I will say that you need to figure out your water usage and buy in > accordance to those needs, get too large a model and the water heater may > not sense the need for water from a small tap, get too small a model and > you will find that it will be unable to generate enough hot water for your > needs. BUT, once you know your needs and buy a decent one (or more > depending on your water needs and plumbing) then you are guaranteed that > you will be wasting a lot less gas to get hot water, and it sure is nice > to be able to take as long a hot shower as you need <G> > If later on you find that you are using more hot water than you were > when you initially set up, no big deal, just put two in series with one > preheating the water and the other getting the water to the temp you need > for your expanded needs, and walla again you are still saving compared to > tank type of water heaters. > The only instance that tank types of water heaters can be better, is if > you are planning on installing any of several water heating or preheating > alternatives, like solar heating, outdoor wood boilers and such, but then > again those are used more for heating the building and not so much for > sinks and such. > For me, I have two tankless water heaters, each one supplying a > different area, which means shorter plumbing from the heater to the > outlets, and faster response to hot water needs, and lastly hotter water > as it travels shorter distances which gives it less time and area to cool. > — > BulkMailers and Email address compilers may purchase this > individual email address for $25000.00 for use in their > products. Anyone selling this email address or utilizing > this email address for any commercial usage without a > license from ShadowMAC is in violation of private property > rights and violators WILL be be invoiced for usage. > Selling what you do not own is THEFT of private property!!! > This is domain policy. > http://shadowmac.org/license_schedule.html
Response:
>The Myson provides an adjustment to vary the output temperature, and can >accept ‘pre-warmed’ water, such as would be available with solar thermal >during low-insolation or high-demand.
This is probably closer to what I’m looking for, anyone know a decent solar contractor in eastern Mass? I really need someone with equipment and installation experience, rather than trying to develop it on my own… Thanks! ComputerSmiths Consulting, Inc. www.compusmiths.com
Response:
>> Is there any difference between the heating capacity of them between > propane and natural gas? >From http://www.soundgt.com/costcomparison.html >"Propane – 90,000 Btu/gal > Natural gas -100,000 Btu/therm"
Yes, but is the BTU output fixed, or are there different ratings for NG and propane? >Make _sure_ you acquire a heater that has propane orifices if you decide >to use propane.
Thanks, I knew that. You wouldn’t believe what it takes to put NG and propane in the same generator housing in MA, much less the same building… 8*| ComputerSmiths Consulting, Inc. www.compusmiths.com
Response:
> This is probably closer to what I’m looking for, anyone know a decent > solar contractor in eastern Mass? I really need someone with > equipment and installation experience, rather than trying to develop > it on my own…
Check the Yellow Pages, online or paper for contractors. Ask for their last three customers as references. Check the references, noting when the work took place, which will give you an idea if there were any jobs in between that the contractor chose not to mention. Will
Response:
> I am considering getting a tankless water heater for a new house we are > planning. Unfortunately, they may not be as efficient as some might think. > According to the book Comsumer Guide to Home Energy Savings by A. Wilson and > J Morrill, a high efficiency gas-fired water storage type heater will use > $145/yr of gas. The on-demand gas water heater will use $140/yr of gas. > Other sources have informed me that keeping the pilot light going on both > types of water heaters is actually where most of the gas use comes from. I > have noticed on our current gas water-storage heater that it usually only > turns on when someone turns on the hot water tap. I emailed an AquaStar rep > a few months back. It sounds like they are working on a pilot-less version > of the AquaStar. I was informed they would send me the product literature > for this new model, but I have yet to receive anything. Given the > pilot-light-use story, getting two on-demand heaters would be much less > efficient than buying one large storage-type gas water heater.
Baloney. I agree that pilots use fuel, BUT they do NOT use that much… the majority of wasted fuel comes from keeping a tank full of water at a constant hot temp. I am sorry I do not have the figures on hand, but I do remember when I had these up for a few months and did the calcs based on how much fuel was used to accomplish the same water heating (and that did not figure in the extra longer showers I was taking, enjoying the ability to take one for as long as I wanted), what resulted for my usage in a 6 month period was about a $35.00 savings… now how can I be taking LONGER showers and paying LESS in propane usage UNLESS it is more efficient! What I would like to know is who sponsored the book you read, as I highly suspect you need to follow a money trail, as it sounds a lot like that waste of taxpayers money…. EnergyStar… EnergyStar is something which only supports the more energy eating appliances by major corporations and does not even LIST the high efficiency ones, yet purports to be about energy saving appliances. in fact, I will copy the latest boondoggle (and lying) EnergyStar related report below to illustrate what I mean… The Bern Clothes Washer Study In 1997, The U.S. Department of Energy conducted a remarkable study to determine the imact of new clothes washer technology in a real- world setting. In tiny Bern, Kansas (pop. 204), DOE carefully monitored energy and water consumption of 103 clothes washers over two months to gather a baseline of information about resource consumption. Then, each of these clothes washers was replaced by a high-efficiency ENERGY STAR washer provided by Maytag. Energy and water use data was then collected for an additional three months. In all, the study encompassed more than 20,000 loads of laundry and nearly 70 tons of washing. The results show dramatic decreases in water and energy use using the new washers. Average water consumption fell from 41.5 gallons per load in the first part of the study to 25.8 gallons per load in the second part of the study- a savings of 38%. The energy consumption, including washer energy and hot water heating, fell 58%. Finally, the moisture content of clothes fell 7%, meaning less energy is consumed by the clothes dryer – which improves overall savings even more. Finally, extensive satisfaction data was collected from the study participants which indicates that the cleaning performance of the new washers was generally superior to the original machines that they replaced. Ok, below is a comparison with several models of clothes washers, with their related water and energy usage…. look at where the Maytag is, and Maytag received the highest effiency rating from EnergyStar… as shown in the above copy of the report they tout… brand water used energy Asko 14 gallons 200KWH Creda 17 gallons 200KWH Stabor 21 gallons 200KWH Maytag 25.8 gallons much higher than the others Stabor and Maytag are both made in the USA. Then there is another fact that they do not accurately portray… that all three of the top three washers spin dry so that water content left in the clothes is between 3% to 8%, compare that to EnergyStar’s highly rated Maytag which only fell 7% from their previous water content figure… Yup, sure looks like they know what they are talking about when they talk so knowledgably about clothes washers to me… NOT!!!!! So check their sources on claims like the one you read about, before giving them any credence, as they are probably paid for by the very companies who are trying to show that tank types are not as wasteful that everyone knows they are… they are just pulling a Clinton as far as I am concerned. Enjoy! PS. For those who may be interested… I own Asko dish and clothes washers <G> — BulkMailers and Email address compilers may purchase this individual email address for $25000.00 for use in their products. Anyone selling this email address or utilizing this email address for any commercial usage without a license from ShadowMAC is in violation of private property rights and violators WILL be be invoiced for usage. Selling what you do not own is THEFT of private property!!! This is domain policy. http://shadowmac.org/license_schedule.html
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->brand water used energy >Asko 14 gallons 200KWH >Creda 17 gallons 200KWH >Stabor 21 gallons 200KWH >Maytag 25.8 gallons much higher than the others >Stabor and Maytag are both made in the USA. > Then there is another fact that they do not accurately portray… that >all three of the top three washers spin dry so that water content left in >the clothes is between 3% to 8%, compare that to EnergyStar’s highly rated >Maytag which only fell 7% from their previous water content figure… > Actually, the results they got are probably perfectly accurate. If we > all changed out our old washers for new ones every year or so we would > probably save water and electricity. Sure, we’d be idiots, but we’d > be saving water and electricity. > Basically, I agree, they used a horrible way of doing their > calculations.
NO! You did not get it. They did this stating that the model they used was THE EFFICIENT washer, when there were at the SAME TIME models and brands MUCH MORE EFFICIENT… Look at the EnergyStar site, read into their listings and see how they BIAS the hell out of things towards Maytag and Amana and a couple of others, and that no other brands (american made or not) are worth bothering themselves about, so HOW in the hell can they represent themselves as something pushing for and supporting highly efficient appliances when they are OBVIOUSLY pushing some agenda. That report was not about efficiency, it was a sales brocure for Maytag appliances, and it was severely misrepresented by the DOE and EnergyStar. — BulkMailers and Email address compilers may purchase this individual email address for $25000.00 for use in their products. Anyone selling this email address or utilizing this email address for any commercial usage without a license from ShadowMAC is in violation of private property rights and violators WILL be be invoiced for usage. Selling what you do not own is THEFT of private property!!! This is domain policy. http://shadowmac.org/license_schedule.html
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Ok, below is a comparison with several models of clothes washers, with >their related water and energy usage…. look at where the Maytag is, and >Maytag received the highest effiency rating from EnergyStar… as shown in >the above copy of the report they tout… >brand water used energy >Asko 14 gallons 200KWH >Creda 17 gallons 200KWH >Stabor 21 gallons 200KWH >Maytag 25.8 gallons much higher than the others >Stabor and Maytag are both made in the USA. > Then there is another fact that they do not accurately portray… that >all three of the top three washers spin dry so that water content left in >the clothes is between 3% to 8%, compare that to EnergyStar’s highly rated >Maytag which only fell 7% from their previous water content figure…
Actually, the results they got are probably perfectly accurate. If we all changed out our old washers for new ones every year or so we would probably save water and electricity. Sure, we’d be idiots, but we’d be saving water and electricity. Basically, I agree, they used a horrible way of doing their calculations.
Response:
I too have wondered about the movites of the Energystar ratings. I suppose it’s good that the government has finally managed to impress some level of regulation on giant industrial corporations, for they have managed to force efficiency requirements for applicances. Yet it’s true that there are more efficient models available, but these aren’t mentioned. I’ve just finished reading "The Heat Is On" by Ross Gelbspan. He observes, quite correctly I think, that governments will not be able to require greater efficiency from cars or applicances because, in essence, they have been purchased by gigantic corporate interests. A case in point would be stagnant CAFE standards and suburban assault vehicles, when it’s quite easy to produce vehicles that can get much greater fuel economy without making them into lawnmowers. I suppose my point is–is there any hope of breaking this stalemate?
Response:
>The suggestion is, if you preheat the water a standard tank water >heater is better, even considering losses, than a tankless water >heater. [For a well-insulated tank] > The reason is that there is a simple method to reduce heat >losses in a tank water heater, but there is no simple method to >control BTU output on a tankless water heater.
My ideal situation would be a large solar-heated tank as a pre-heater, with a dual-fuel NG/propane tankless heater following it, with variable heat input so the final hot water output temperature is constant. I wonder if you could put several under-powered tankless heaters in series, each with a simple thermostatic control, to get the effect of a single variable output heater… ComputerSmiths Consulting, Inc. www.compusmiths.com
Response:
about small engines.. yes they do, one of the reasons is that in theirs infinate? wisdom the govt allowed the oil industry to put Benzine in gas to replace Lead.. which , when burnt is MUCH more toxic.. unless you have a catalytic converter on your engine.. which most, if not all small engines do NOT…. Carl – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > x-no-archive: yes >> A case in >point would be stagnant CAFE standards and suburban assault vehicles, > Well a few things come to mind > 1) people like big trucks > 2) OPEC does not wield the power it used to so CAFE is not the > burning issue it used to be > 3) I hear small engines ( lawn mowers, snow blowers and marine > engines) put out more noxious pollution than the auto fleet( I’m not > sure on this one. I’m not tallking about C02, but rather NO, CO and > O3) > 4) energy efficient vehicles will be used when they match the > performance of current vehicles. I’d say the Toyota Prius is the car > to watch > — > Vs lbh pna ernq guvf lbh ernyyl bhtug gb trg bhg zber
Response:
I am not sure if all tankless heaters do, but I know some of them, modulate the gas flow to control the water temperature they put out. The "S" series Aquastar will modulate down to no input if your preheated water is hot enough.
Response:
>about small engines.. yes they do, one of the reasons is that in theirs >infinate? wisdom the govt allowed the oil industry to put Benzine in gas >to replace Lead.. which , when burnt is MUCH more toxic.. unless you have >a catalytic converter on your engine.. >which most, if not all small engines do NOT….
The Briggs & Stratton WWWebsite seems to think that they will start to have to put catalytic converters on small engines in the near future, which will significantly increase the cost… ComputerSmiths Consulting, Inc. www.compusmiths.com
Response:
> The suggestion is, if you preheat the water a standard tank water > heater is better, even considering losses, than a tankless water > heater. The reason is that there is a simple method to reduce heat > losses in a tank water heater, but there is no simple method to > control BTU output on a tankless water heater.
Not so. I would think that the Myson should be just right for that, or so retailers like Jade Mountain say in their listing. True most will just up the temp at full bore, but I would think that one would perform properly for preheated water. — BulkMailers and Email address compilers may purchase this individual email address for $25000.00 for use in their products. Anyone selling this email address or utilizing this email address for any commercial usage without a license from ShadowMAC is in violation of private property rights and violators WILL be be invoiced for usage. Selling what you do not own is THEFT of private property!!! This is domain policy. http://shadowmac.org/license_schedule.html
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->x-no-archive: yes >So, with these assumptions, about 2.2 kwh is used to keep the water >hot, and about 3.3kwh is used to heat up the water. The amount you can >save with the tankles heater is the 2.2 kwh >Looking over the calculation it occurs to me that a tankless water >heater, without regulation for inlet water temperature might not be >the ideal way to go if you use solar preheat >The virtue of a tank heater is it heats the water into the tank, and >no hotter. The detriment is that it looses heat through its wall >The detriment of a tankless water heater is that it heats water at a >constant burn rate,depending on volume used, no matter what the inlet >temperature. The virtue is that there is no tank heat losses. >To remove, or minimize the detriment of the tank water heater you can >add more insulation. The calculation for loads was done at r10,~3 >inches of insulation. Double the insulation (~6") and you cut losses >in half. Quadruple the inoculation (~12") and you cut losses to 1/4. >With the thicker insulation you now have ~0.55 kwh used for heat >losses, and 3.3 kwh for heating by 50 degrees. >Now, if we use solar, or wood stove, preheat, we can reduce the 50 >degrees to 25 and cut the 3.3 kwh down to 1.65 kwh. Alas there is no >corresponding energy reduction in the tankless water heater. >Now total usage looks like (for the heavily insulated tank) > losses heating total > insulated tank water heater 0.55 1.65 2.2 > tankless water heater 0 3.3 3.3 >The suggestion is, if you preheat the water a standard tank water >heater is better, even considering losses, than a tankless water >heater. The reason is that there is a simple method to reduce heat >losses in a tank water heater, but there is no simple method to >control BTU output on a tankless water heater. >– >Vs lbh pna ernq guvf lbh ernyyl bhtug gb trg bhg zber
These calculations are all nice, but it seems to me that if the water heater is not in the basement but in the living area (no, not the living room, more like in a closet or utility space) then the energy used to keep the water in a tank heated simply contributes to the overall heating of the house. In hot months this is probably of no benefit, but for those who live in cool areas the hot months are few and the energy waste is small. In my small home, I ran an experiment with turning the hot water tank off overnight, but then the air temperature dropped low enough that the furnace ran at night, which it otherwise doesn’t do. Net effect: no energy savings from turning off the hot water tank and no energy savings for changing to a tankless system, other than for a few months during the summer. I don’t think a few months of savings during the summer would be enough to pay for the cost of a tankless system, especially since the furnace would run more in the winter and so would wear out faster. – Dayton —
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.