On 30 Dec 2005 09:06:26 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm, jim rozen
quickly quoth:

In article Gndtf.30$uv.5@trnddc06, Ivan Vegvary says...

My propane supplier said that I should have gone with a "tankless" heater
instead of the ordinary (heavy duty) tank type water heater. Claims the
savings would be tremendous by not keeping 50 gallons hot, on tap 24/7.

Unless I'm missing something here, it doesn't cost anything to keep
50 gallons of water hot. Any losses from the tank to the surrounding
area will show up as heat in the area where the tank is. And seeing
as that's the idea of the radiant heat in the first place (to
actually heat the building) I can't see where the 'tremendous'
savings would come from.

Does this guy want to sell you a tankless heater, by any chance?
:^)

No doubt. One of the things that irks me (more than the 4,000+ s/f
home sizes nowadays) is their penchant for putting in the conveniences
like recirculating hot water to make instant tap water available.
They often don't insulate the hot water pipes, either. What a waste!
Some idiot shown on This Old House did it "for convenience" a decade
ago and it has become a national energy-wasting nightmare. sigh

Tankless heaters are nice, but the last time I looked at specs, even
the residential models were fairly expensive and couldn't handle the
flow for a shower or bathtub. The commercial models were in the
thousands of dollars.


------------------------------------------
Do the voices in my head bother you?
------------------------------------------
http://diversify.com Full-Service Web Development