Any suggestions between the two?
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
Any suggestions between the two?


Is this a house being built or an older one ? If older, you will have to
have heavy wiring or a gas line ran. Location may be a factor, If it is
very cold in the area, many of the tankless may not heat the water hot
enough for you.

Cost is usually much more for the tankless.

I would say stay with the tank.

On Thu, 08 Aug 2013 14:29:48 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

Any suggestions between the two?

Yes. Pick your poison

http://tanklesswaterheaterguide.com/

Kurt Ullman wrote:
Any suggestions between the two?

Hi,
When I was considering the tankless, the initial cost was VERY high.
We have 4 bathrooms of which one has a Jacuzzi tub. Installing bigger
gas feed line, preparing to mount the unit on the wall, correct unit
sizing, etc. Felt like I was getting into possible headaches. Stayed
with NG gas fired conventional top end model tanks. At least I could
replace tanks twice and some for the cost of tankless install.

On Thursday, August 8, 2013 2:29:48 PM UTC-4, Kurt Ullman wrote:
Any suggestions between the two?

--

America is at that awkward stage. It's too late

to work within the system, but too early to shoot

the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

If you use a lot of hot water I think the tankless will edge out the tanks. But you need to have the gas or electrical supply. Tankless use a lot of energy over a short period requiring big "pipes" to get it to them

I'm sure there were, but I wasn't there to hear them talking.

I'm told it was something like this

Tankless: Hey, you need to lose some water weight.

Tank: Why would I listen to you? You have no substance.

..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 8/8/2013 2:29 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
Any suggestions between the two?

If it were me, I would stick with the conventional tank style water heaters because they CAN supply all the hot water you need, whereas that's still a big question with tankless heaters.

In fact, in a house in the town I grew up in, the builder (who was a plumber by trade) put a ball valve in the basement separating the kitchen and one bathroom from the laundry room and the other bathroom. He installed two 60 gallon hot water tanks and had one to supply each side of the house. He did that because he had three daughters and they were always fighting over the one bathroom in their old house.

I thought that was actually a smart idea because the cost of a water heater isn't that much, AND the two water heaters don't have to be identical. They can be totally different and his system would still work fine. And, the best part of it is, if you ever have to shut one water heater down (to replace the annode rod, for example), then you can open that ball valve and have the heater that's still operational supply water to the whole house until the work is done.

If I were building a house, that's probably the route I'd go.

In article ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

Any suggestions between the two?

I did hours of research on this subject a while back.

Learned tankless is overly complex, still has quirks/idiosyncrasies and
is likely to generate expensive maintenance issues down the road.
Additional gotcha's include the probable need to install a higher
capacity gas line.

Plumbers hype tankless due to their greater initial purchase price,
additional installation and future maintenance/repair income.

(Anyone remember ol' Rube!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rube_Goldberg

Conventional tank type heaters may require a little more space/volume,
but are cheaper, simple, reliable and have an extensive proven track
record. In my book, they're right technology for the job.

Like someone said, do your homework... and if the conclusion is
tankless; do it over again.

Don't just take my word for it, there's a lot on the internet.

Good luck!

Erik

On Thursday, August 8, 2013 11:29:48 AM UTC-7, Kurt Ullman wrote:
Any suggestions between the two?

--

America is at that awkward stage. It's too late

to work within the system, but too early to shoot

the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

I personally don’t trust any manufacturer anymore to provide repair parts for anything they sell.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m

Any suggestions between the two?

Compare them...

1. Initial cost
tankless - high
tank - relatively low

2.Energy use
tankless - high for short time, zero after (except for pilot for gas)
tank - high when recovering, low and intermittent thereafter

3. Volume of hot water
tankless - unlimited & continuous up to rated capacity
tank - limited

4. Cost of operation
Can't say for sure but I'm betting the tankless would be way less.

My only experience with tankless was when my wife & I lived on a sail boat
for ten years. I put in a small LPG tankless so we had hot water for
showers, washing dishes, etc. It worked very well for the entire time,
never a problem. I wouldn't characterize it as "complex"; not much to it
other than a gas valve.

Tankless seem to be more popular in non-US countries; there, it is not
uncommon to only have hot water for the bathroom (none in kitchen, no
clothes washers) and they are frequently installed in or near same.

The most attractive thing about tankless is their lower energy use; the
least attractive, their high initial cost. The lower energy cost is
especially attractive to me now that the LPG bandits are charging us close
to $5.00/gal. for LPG; nevertheless, if I were putting in a new one, I'd
probably go for a tank...a small 30 gallon one (only two of us) with the
best insulation available.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

On Thursday, August 8, 2013 8:30:15 PM UTC-4, nestork wrote:
If it were me, I would stick with the conventional tank style water

heaters because they CAN supply all the hot water you need, whereas

that's still a big question with tankless heaters.



No reason it's a big question. You determine your maximum simultaneous
demand, the lowest incoming water temp, and buy a tankless that is
spec'd to deliver it. They all have that spec, it's not a mystery.






In fact, in a house in the town I grew up in, the builder (who was a

plumber by trade) put a ball valve in the basement separating the

kitchen and one bathroom from the laundry room and the other bathroom.

He installed two 60 gallon hot water tanks and had one to supply each

side of the house. He did that because he had three daughters and they

were always fighting over the one bathroom in their old house.



So, there is a similar sizing problem with the tank type.




I thought that was actually a smart idea because the cost of a water

heater isn't that much, AND the two water heaters don't have to be

identical. They can be totally different and his system would still

work fine. And, the best part of it is, if you ever have to shut one

water heater down (to replace the annode rod, for example), then you can

open that ball valve and have the heater that's still operational

supply water to the whole house until the work is done.



The downside of course is that you have to replace two water heaters
when they reach EOL.




If I were building a house, that's probably the route I'd go.

On Friday, August 9, 2013 7:57:45 AM UTC-4, dadiOH wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message

m



Any suggestions between the two?



Compare them...



1. Initial cost

tankless - high

tank - relatively low



2.Energy use

tankless - high for short time, zero after (except for pilot for gas)

tank - high when recovering, low and intermittent thereafter



3. Volume of hot water

tankless - unlimited & continuous up to rated capacity

tank - limited



4. Cost of operation

Can't say for sure but I'm betting the tankless would be way less.



I don't see why it would be way less. From what I can see, the
biggest energy savings difference comes from the fact that the
tankless eliminates the standby losses coming from the tank type
that has a hot tank of water slowing losing heat 24/7. However,
I have a gas water heater and in the summer, no other gas usage
other than some for limited use of the outside gas grill. In
summer, my gas bill is about $16 a month. So that includes
heating the water I actually use, a little gas grilling, and
whatever the standby losses are. Which means the standy losses
can't amount to very much. If it's $5 a month, it would take
a very long time to recover the higher initial cost of a tankless.
Also, the gas water heater I have is just a basic model with
a pilot light. For a couple hundred more you can get a power vent,
higher efficiency one, that would reduce the standby and operating losses.

So, I'm not convinced the tankless are going to save enough on
energy to make them cost effective.

One other factor to add to the usual list of differences is that
with a tank type if you lose power, you still have a tank of hot
water that can last a couple days of limited use. If you have a
gas tankless, some of them will operate without power, some will
not.

trader4, while full-quoting, wrote:

One other factor to add to the usual list of differences is that
with a tank type if you lose power, you still have a tank of hot
water that can last a couple days of limited use.

??

I have a conventional tank, not power vented, and if I lose power I
still have an unlimited amount of hot water available to me.

Now if they can figure out how to make a natural-gas-powered furnace fan
motor, then we'd have furnaces that would keep our homes warm in the
winter during power outages (those of us that have 30+ year-old furnaces
that require almost no electricity to operate beyond the fan that is...)

For tankless, nobody here mentions incoming water temperature and the
difficulty that tankless has in northern climates in the winter.

The OP (Kurt Ullman) appears to be located in Indianapolis - so it's not
clear to me how he would be affected by incoming water temperatu

http://www.eztankless.com/files/cach...5994d401cc.gif

http://www.eztankless.com/resources/...rature-charts/

Another aspect (that I've just discovered after doing some goog'ling) is
that it seems to be common for tankless heaters to have flow restrictors
on their output (designed to promote more residency-time for the water
inside the unit to be heated) but this has the effect of causing lower
water pressure in the hot-water lines running from the unit to the rest
of the house when hot water is being used anywhere and thus a mixing
imbalance at fixtures like sinks and showers.

Maybe, but there's little difference in economy.

The lifespan of a water heater's tank is largely determined by the amount of thermal shocking it endures, and that's directly related to the sizing of the tank. The larger the tank, the smaller the drop in temperature in the tank when hot water goes out and cold water comes in, so the smaller the thermal shock each time hot water is used. So, by using a 60 gallon tank for one bathroom instead of two, you SHOULD expect to get a much longer lifespan of the tank in that heater. I don't know if it would be double, but it would be much longer than using that one tank for both bathrooms.

So, it's a pretty good overall gameplan in my books.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
Any suggestions between the two?
--


What everyone seems to miss, is that there are three types of tank gas water
heaters. 1 - Conventional vented water heater, cheap with little efficiency.
2 - Power vented water heater, mid-priced, needs no chimney, little gain in
efficiency. 3 - Condensing water heater, highest price, needs no chimney,
very high efficiency.

I have a condensing water heater, it can heat an ice cold tank in 10
minutes, you cannot use the water faster than it can make it, it just sips
gas and dropped my gas bill by $20.00 per month over my old conventional
heater.

On Friday, August 9, 2013 11:23:13 AM UTC-4, nestork wrote:
[_2_ Wrote:

;3104416']

The downside of course is that you have to replace two water heaters

when they reach EOL.





Maybe, but there's little difference in economy.



The lifespan of a water heater's tank is largely determined by the

amount of thermal shocking it endures, and that's directly related to

the sizing of the tank. The larger the tank, the smaller the drop in

temperature in the tank when hot water goes out and cold water comes in,

so the smaller the thermal shock each time hot water is used. So, by

using a 60 gallon tank for one bathroom instead of two, you SHOULD

expect to get a much longer lifespan of the tank in that heater.

Interesting theory, but I suspect it's not true. I don't accept the
idea that thermal shock is the dominant failure mechanism.



I

don't know if it would be double, but it would be much longer than using

that one tank for both bathrooms.



So, it's a pretty good overall gameplan in my books.



If you have any real data that says the above is true, I'm sure
we'd all like to see it.

Before I replaced my old cast iron boiler with two high efficiency boilers I was using A. O. Smith BT-251 Commercial hot water heaters in my building. These things had a 60 gallon tank but a MASSIVE heat exchanger and a huge burner trays section so that the recovery rate was very fast. Each one of these 700 pound water heaters would last me 5 to 7 years, and cost about $2700 and another $300 to $400 for the labour to replace. Over 25 years, I went through about 4 or 5 of them. I know that because I had 4 or 5 spare gas valves and P&T relief valves that I had collected as spare parts by the time I switch over to an indirect fired hot water heater and threw those spare parts away.

With that kind of situation on my hands, you don't think I would have did some digging to find out if I can extend the life of those water heaters?

Thermal shocking IS the predominant factor in determining the lifespan of tank style water heaters. All you need to do is phone any company in your area that replaces water heaters. The whole idea behind properly sizing a tank style water heater is to reduce thermal shocking without selling the customer more water heater than they need.

Or, phone A. O. Smith and talk to their tech support people. Their 1-800 number is 1-800-265-8520 and I think that number works in both Canada and the USA.

It's thermal shocking that causes cracks to form in the powder coating on the inside of the tank, and once those cracks penetrate through the coating (and by that time the annode rod is mostly consumed), the steel tank wall starts to rust AT those crack locations. And, once the tank leaks, that's the end of the heater.

On Friday, August 9, 2013 12:17:01 PM UTC-4, EXT wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message

m...

Any suggestions between the two?

--





What everyone seems to miss, is that there are three types of tank gas water

heaters. 1 - Conventional vented water heater, cheap with little efficiency.

2 - Power vented water heater, mid-priced, needs no chimney, little gain in

efficiency. 3 - Condensing water heater, highest price, needs no chimney,

very high efficiency.



I have a condensing water heater, it can heat an ice cold tank in 10

minutes, you cannot use the water faster than it can make it, it just sips

gas and dropped my gas bill by $20.00 per month over my old conventional

heater.


Virtually all the condensing water heaters are tankless, no? I just
googled and looks like Rheem announced they were making the world's first
tank type condensing unit. And it brags about an energy factor of .80
I'm still betting that it takes one hell of a long
time to recover the cost difference.

A cheapo regular tank type GE water heater that costs $347 at HD has an
energy factor of .59 and an estimated annual operating cost of $309.
Looking at the GE power vent model, it cost $845, has an EF of .67 and
costs an estimated $272 a year to operate. So, it would take 14 years
to recover the extra money it costs for the more energy efficient one.
And that ignores the time value of money, the fact that it may not last
14 years, etc. Everytime I look at water heaters I come to the same
conclusion. The higher efficiency, much higher priced units, don't
have an economic advantage. At least not in my world. Apparently not
in the EPA's world either, because those energy factor numbers and costs
to operate are their numbers.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message m...
Any suggestions between the two?

I got estimates from at least 3 reputable licensed plumbers for both. Estimates for a tank-type were pretty consistent. Estimates for tankless were all over the place, so that alone convinced me to stick with something that everyone knows how to install.

Even with moving it from inside the house to the garage and installing a new roof vent, the total cost was 1/3 that of a whole-house tankless type. And it just plugs into a standard 110 receptacle. Installation was simple and easy to check. Energy rebates for both types had little effect on any of the systems we were looking at.

One plus for whole-house tankless would be it can be mounted on an outside wall and free up room inside if that's important. But then you have all the exterior wall penetrations.

Whole-house tankless would also have required extending gas piping and new 220V wiring. I'm not a big fan of running 220V when there is an alternative. Plus this house has a 50 year old breaker box & wiring which would have required upgrading.

Tank type here is gas, which is a lot cheaper to use than electric around here.

On Saturday, August 10, 2013 4:40:55 AM UTC-4, Guv Bob wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message m...

Any suggestions between the two?



I got estimates from at least 3 reputable licensed plumbers for both. Estimates for a tank-type were pretty consistent. Estimates for tankless were all over the place, so that alone convinced me to stick with something that everyone knows how to install.



Even with moving it from inside the house to the garage and installing a new roof vent, the total cost was 1/3 that of a whole-house tankless type. And it just plugs into a standard 110 receptacle. Installation was simple and easy to check. Energy rebates for both types had little effect on any of the systems we were looking at.



One plus for whole-house tankless would be it can be mounted on an outside wall and free up room inside if that's important. But then you have all the exterior wall penetrations.



Whole-house tankless would also have required extending gas piping and new 220V wiring. I'm not a big fan of running 220V when there is an alternative. Plus this house has a 50 year old breaker box & wiring which would have required upgrading.



I don't see why a gas tankless would need 220V. Nothing there that should
require 220. What does it have? Some electronics, an ignitor, maybe a
draft inducer blower?

But the rest of your experience is consistent with what we've heard
here before. I think for the right application, tankless can make
sense, but it usually doesn't make sense for a replacement of an
existing gas tank unit. And if it's going into new construction, that can greatly reduce the cost of the install.







Tank type here is gas, which is a lot cheaper to use than electric around here.

Electric controlled natural gas tankless won't
work during power cuts. When ice storm 2003 hit,
I was out of power, four days. A hot shower
(old style tanked natural gas WH) sure made
life more comfortable.

..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 8/10/2013 9:24 AM, wrote:


Whole-house tankless would also have required extending gas piping and new 220V wiring. I'm not a big fan of running 220V when there is an alternative. Plus this house has a 50 year old breaker box & wiring which would have required upgrading.



I don't see why a gas tankless would need 220V. Nothing there that should
require 220. What does it have? Some electronics, an ignitor, maybe a
draft inducer blower?

But the rest of your experience is consistent with what we've heard
here before. I think for the right application, tankless can make
sense, but it usually doesn't make sense for a replacement of an
existing gas tank unit. And if it's going into new construction, that can greatly reduce the cost of the install.

during power outages here people have run a garden hose thru the home with a slow flow of hot water to provide enough warmth to prevent freezing.....

tankless are just a bad idea all around. espically if you have teenagers, they can get a endless hot shower that runs up all the utility bills..

endless use of gas to heat the water, water and sewage, and even electric to run the tankless... bigger bills all around

On 8/10/2013 9:30 AM, bob haller wrote:
during power outages here people have run a garden hose thru the home
with a slow flow of hot water to provide enough warmth to prevent
freezing.....

tankless are just a bad idea all around. espically if you have
teenagers, they can get a endless hot shower that runs up all the
utility bills..

endless use of gas to heat the water, water and sewage, and even
electric to run the tankless... bigger bills all around


Me and my late friend GB installed a Bosch natural gas tankless in a
beauty shop. The Bosch has a paddle wheel generator the runs the
electronic igniter and controls. It's the only type of tankless NG water
heater I would purchase for myself because it will work when
the power is out. It supplied plenty of hot water for the beauty shop. ^_^

TDD

On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 10:00:23 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Me and my late friend GB installed a Bosch natural gas tankless in a
beauty shop. The Bosch has a paddle wheel generator the runs the
electronic igniter and controls. It's the only type of tankless NG water
heater I would purchase for myself because it will work when
the power is out. It supplied plenty of hot water for the beauty shop. ^_^

TDD

.... a micro-turbine - water flow demand ignites the gas. Know of a few
installed. The tankless just needs gas.

On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 07:30:14 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

tankless are just a bad idea all around. espically if you have teenagers, they can get a endless hot shower that runs up all the utility bills..


Bull!

endless use of gas to heat the water, water and sewage, and even electric to run the tankless... bigger bills all around

Go live in the forest, then.

On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 10:38:34 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 07:30:14 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

tankless are just a bad idea all around. espically if you have teenagers, they can get a endless hot shower that runs up all the utility bills..


Bull!


Well they can, but they also can with other types of water heaters
too. With my old tankless oil fired boiler you could shower forever
and my daughter tried to. Very often I'd go in and turn the boiler off
to get her out of the shower.

I heard that one on the radio. during
ice storm 2003. Clever idea, and does
some good.

..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 8/10/2013 10:30 AM, bob haller wrote:
during power outages here people have run a

garden hose thru the home with a slow flow of

hot water to provide enough warmth to prevent

freezing.....

"nestork" wrote in message
...

[_2_ Wrote:
;3104416']
The downside of course is that you have to replace two water heaters
when they reach EOL.


Maybe, but there's little difference in economy.

More importantly, in case of any gas or power interruption a tank heater has
some reserve hot water. When a tankless unit fails in winter, nothing's
left but cold, cold water. Sadly their rate of failure seems much higher
and rightfully so, they are more complex and run very hot. Also, if you're
the slightest bit a survivalist that's 50 gallons of stored water you don't
have with a tankless. Depending on the disaster, of course. (-:

--
Bobby G.

wrote in message news:d1f57637-b812-4e5e-a7c6-

stuff snipped

Interesting theory, but I suspect it's not true. I don't accept the
idea that thermal shock is the dominant failure mechanism.

Community Association Underwriters of America, Inc. (CAU), one of the
largest insurance providers in the United States for community associations,
residential and office condominiums, cooperative apartments and homeowners
associations says on their site:

How do Water Heaters Fail?

A water heater holds and transfers water continuously - from installation to
replacement or failure. Over time, deposits will accumulate on the bottom of
the tank. These deposits corrode the tank liner and heater elements. Water
quality, particularly water hardness, directly influences the amount of
sediment deposited.

Moving water also causes wear on the tank and piping. The (!!) hotter the
water, the greater the fatigue on the parts it touches. (!!) The constant
heating of cold water also subjects the unit to extreme temperature swings.
No household appliance works under tougher conditions than the storage water
heater.

In most cases, water heaters fail gradually, but not always. Some of the
telltale signs of imminent failure include water accumulation beneath the
heater, a hissing or whistling sound characteristic of a worn valve, and
chronic hot water shortages during periods of normal demand. Prompt
corrective action is required once the signs of failure appear.

When the corroded bottom of a tank fails without warning, the water already
in the tank and the continuously fed cold-water supply create a deluge. If
not stopped, this water will continue to flow. In these cases, it's crucial
to stop the flow of water by turning off the cold-water supply valve at the
water heater or at the water main shut-off.

Community Association Underwriters of America, Inc.

http://www.cauinsure.com/

http://www.cauinsure.com/Include/Doc...520Heaters.pdf

I'd say they give fairly serious weight to the thermal shock a unit endures
as a cause of failure. Certainly not 100% but I'd say a fair number of
cracked tanks die from thermal fatigue.

With my limited experience with a water heater "plant" at a photofinishing
plant I QC'ed at, water heaters are indeed sized professionally to never
drop below half. If you run out of hot water, you are undersized in most
cases. I would bet that running low with large amount of winter-cold street
water has a negative effect on longevity very similar to what Nestork
proposes. And it means you have a sizing problem - the tank(s) is not big
enough.

As aside and a thread shift - the tank water heater deluge they mention
could be worse. I think I would rather have a water heater tank crack than
a washing machine hose split and turn into a fu&ing sprinkler. BTDT

Two major upgrades were monitoring and double-hulling the hoses. Now even
the stainless steel braided super high quality replacement hoses are backed
by a Floodstop and by covering them with smurf tube over their length so any
spraying occurs in a sheath and runs down to the floor instead of watering
the ceiling. And the workbench. And the washer. And the dryer. And the
pet food shelves. )-:

--

Bobby G.

On Sunday, August 11, 2013 3:26:30 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
"nestork" wrote in message

...



[_2_ Wrote:

;3104416']

The downside of course is that you have to replace two water heaters

when they reach EOL.





Maybe, but there's little difference in economy.



More importantly, in case of any gas or power interruption a tank heater has

some reserve hot water. When a tankless unit fails in winter, nothing's

left but cold, cold water.

There are tankless that don't require AC power to operate. As for gas
interruption, that occurs so rarely that it's not a factor, at least not
here. I've never had a gas outage. And if the unit itself fails, tank
and tankless are about the same. You're typically not going to know that
the unit is no longer operating until you don't have hot water.





Sadly their rate of failure seems much higher

and rightfully so, they are more complex and run very hot. Also, if you're

the slightest bit a survivalist that's 50 gallons of stored water you don't

have with a tankless. Depending on the disaster, of course. (-:



--

Bobby G.

wrote in message news:2816d50c-7bae-422b-a576-

stuff snipped

I personally don’t trust any manufacturer anymore to provide repair parts
for anything they sell.

I assume that's a "vote of tanks." I agree, I've been twiced stumped by "we
don't have spare parts but we'll give you a trade-in of 1/10 the purchase
price for a "refurb." That was a Flip shirtpocket HD video cam. I bought 4
Samsung factory refurbed and much superior cameras for nearly what the Flip
cost alone.

I don't like tankless for another reason and that's the often required
heavy-up of the gas line to the house. The bigger that is, the faster you
get into trouble if there's a break in the line. There's the point I
mentioned before - tankless fail without any backup. If a tank fails, you
might even get one or two more showers out of it. My tank heater failed
when I was covered with dirt from digging trenches but I could still wash
the dirt off and not freeze doing it.

I've since installed a reducing valve (sort of accidentally) and this
waterheater has way exceeded it predicted point of failure. We also have a
low-flow shower valve and my wife stopped taking baths (not showers for you
comedians out there!). According the CAU post, emptying the tank in very
cold weather probably shortens its lifespan.

--
Bobby G.

wrote in message news:82f43e5f-e679-42c0-ad64-

stuff snipped

One other factor to add to the usual list of differences is that
with a tank type if you lose power, you still have a tank of hot
water that can last a couple days of limited use. If you have a
gas tankless, some of them will operate without power, some will
not.

Agreed. Based on a post I read here, when a huge winter storm knocked out
power for about a week I used a 100' old style super-thick rubber hose
attached to the laundry sink and snaked up through the bedroom access panel
and coiled underneath the mattress, exiting into the bathtub.

Set to a trickle it provided enough warmth to sleep comfortably and the
excess filled up the bathtub and went out the overflow drain. I am hoping
when this water heater fails, I can replace it with another pilot light
model and not a piezo-electric one that requires electricity to operate. As
you point out, the pilot light consumes very little gas and what it does is
worth it to me to be able to stay in my own house in situations like that.
Making a gas water heater dependent on electricity to save pennies doesn't
seem like a good tradeoff.

--
Bobby G.

"bob haller" wrote in message
...
during power outages here people have run a garden hose thru the home with
a
slow flow of hot water to provide enough warmth to prevent freezing.....

Come to think of it, Bob, you were the one that gave me the idea to do that
and it does, indeed work quite nicely. A bit of a waste of water, but a
flood from cracked pipes would be worse.

tankless are just a bad idea all around. espically if you have teenagers,
they can get a
endless hot shower that runs up all the utility bills..

My neighbor was sure something in the street was leaking and causing her
water bill to soar. It was her daughter and brood letting the water flow,
flow and flow. The kids turned on the backyard hose and left it going all
day. You'd be surprised at how much water can flow from a dinky little
garden hose.

--
Bobby G.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message

stuff snipped

With my old tankless oil fired boiler you could shower forever
and my daughter tried to.

That's pretty funny (as a guy who didn't have to pay the bill can say!).

Very often I'd go in and turn the boiler off to get her out of the shower.

Meanie! (-:

--
Bobby G.

All tankless with power vent require line voltage to operate.... to run the blower....

I dont like running out of hot water, when we moved here the house had a 30 gallon tank... i froze getting a shower...

it currently has a 75 gallon 75,000 BTU tank. i never run out of hot water....

75 gallon is really over kill but they stopped making 50 gallon 75,000 BTU heaters. the 50 gallon fit the space better....

the bigger tank cost more to purchase but lasts far beyond it warranty, probably because thermal shock is less....

tankless clog and they sell cleaning kits to run acid thru it to remove sediment and tankless are pretty complicated, unlike regular tanks.

lets say a regular tank heater costs 600 bucks and has a average life expectancy of 10 years the cost is 60 bucks a year or the cost of a single decent candy bar a week, today perhaps $1.30 each...

thats super affordable and regular tanks rarely cause a problem till their end of life leak......

"Robert Green" wrote in
message

Making a gas water heater dependent on
electricity to save pennies doesn't seem like a good
tradeoff.

OTOH, if you are on a well, piezo vs pilot makes no difference. If there is
no electricity there is no water.

During the hurricanes of ought four, we were without power for a week. It
was August and sweltering...I prayed to all the gods I could think of for
rain so we could get naked, go outside and wash. It did, we did.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

On Sunday, August 11, 2013 11:45:39 AM UTC-4, dadiOH wrote:
"Robert Green" wrote in

message



Making a gas water heater dependent on

electricity to save pennies doesn't seem like a good

tradeoff.



It's indeed questionable how much, if anything, you save
by going up the technology curve with water heaters. As I
stated in another post, every time I look at this, it does
not appear worth it to me to get a more advanced, energy
efficient water heater, eg power vent, tankless, etc.

In the other post I gave numbers for two GE 40 gal water
heaters at HD. One a typical basic water heater, the other
a higher efficiency power vent. It was about $500 more
upfront cost for the more efficient one. Using DOE
numbers, it would take 14 years to recover the extra upfront
cost. And that doesn't factor in the time value of money.
Taking that into account, you'd likely never recover the
money. It also doesn't take into account that the std water
heater uses a chimney, the power vent is a direct vent type
and it also requires AC. So, if you're going from regular
to power vent, the install cost difference could add hundreds
more to the price. Then instead of 14 years, it could take
20+ years to get your money back. Well beyond the expected
life of the unit.

On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 03:26:30 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

More importantly, in case of any gas or power interruption a tank heater has
some reserve hot water. When a tankless unit fails in winter, nothing's
left but cold, cold water. Sadly their rate of failure seems much higher
and rightfully so, they are more complex and run very hot.

Perhaps with a single unit for the house. If you have zones you will
still have hot water on demand.

1 - master bath
1 - kitchen, laundry, foyer powder room, (garage?)
1 - other bedrooms and/or hall baths

I aware of a number of tankless in the past 5-6 years (new
construction - done right). They can be in tandem also. One is
called for. If needed the second or third will fire up.

Just some options. For a new construction I would use them. Not for
a retrofit. From the ones I've seen installed they are not
complicated.

On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 14:45:27 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

With my old tankless oil fired boiler you could shower forever
and my daughter tried to. Very often I'd go in and turn the boiler off
to get her out of the shower.

Now you are being stubborn. My grandfather would pull the fuses from
the phone box outside (ceramic/copper) when people talked to long
(mostly my sister!). Or he took the fuse when he left home.

My brother would put a table fork in for a fuse

On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 08:06:10 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

There's the point I
mentioned before - tankless fail without any backup.

Not true; unless, one has poor planning and execution of a tankless
system design.

1.) Zones
2.) Tandems (2-3)

Tankless is an easier DIY. With a tank unit you cannot replace a
serious leak.