DIYbanter - View Single Post

wrote:
A friend of mine has a vacation house in upstate NY that he uses maybe
3 days out of every 2 or 3 weeks. It currently has an oil fired
boiler that needs to be replaced that supplies hot water heat and also
serves as the water heater. Nat gas is not available. So, here are
the options:

1 - Replace with another boiler that will do both, lowest install cost

2 - Replace with a boiler and seperate oil fired hot water heater,
highest install cost

3 - Replace with a boiler and seperate electric water heater

Question is, which of these do you think is the best option?

The biggest apparent disadvantage with #1 is that during the warm
months, when the boiler is not generating heat, this type of water
heater is supposed to be the least efficient. However, with his
limited usage model, this may not make that much difference. Also, he
could turn the boiler off when he leaves in warm weather, turn it on
again when he arrives, thereby keeping it from running to maintain hot
water during 2 week periods when no one is there.

With either option 2 or 3, he could turn off the water heater when he
leaves and then turn it on again when he arrives all year long. But
if he did that, it would most likely mean that he would have to go with
option 2, because otherwise it will take quite a while to get hot
water.

More options:
4 - Standard hot water heat boiler. Add a *zone* to heat a hot water
storage tank.

5 - Switch to propane. Might be a favorable idea if the oil tank is
underground and the current removal procedures are not onerous yet.
Eventually they will be, cost a friend of mine $20,000 to *retire* his
underground tank.

If it twere me, I'd go with option 1 because of the limited use. The
newer boilers heat the water almost instantly. Two houses ago I had a
newer oil fired furnace and could shower forever without running out of
hot water.