I just had my central heating boiler serviced
by the gas company here,
for the first time in 14 years.

The service engineer said the boiler (Potterton "Profile Prima")
as in good nick, which surprised me.
But he mentioned that there are now "condensing boilers"
which save a bit of heat, as they extract heat from the fumes
which are expelled outside the house in older models.

Is it worth going over to such a model?

--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail (80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:45:47 +0100, Timothy Murphy
wrote:

I just had my central heating boiler serviced
by the gas company here,
for the first time in 14 years.

The service engineer said the boiler (Potterton "Profile Prima")
as in good nick, which surprised me.
But he mentioned that there are now "condensing boilers"
which save a bit of heat, as they extract heat from the fumes
which are expelled outside the house in older models.

Is it worth going over to such a model?


it isnt worth upgrading your existing boiler unless you need to
becuase its in a bad way or your upgrading your kitchen and you want a
change etc etc. If your existing boiler is working fine then keep it
as you wont recoup the cost of the change in energy savings.

If you want to improve things,invest in insulation and other forms of
energy conservation (gas and electric!). You will only spend once on
insulation but you will spend all the time on heating a house which
leaks out heat like a colander.

joe



Remove antispam and add 670 after bra to email

Be a good Global citizen-CONSUMECONFORMOBEY

Circumcision- A crime and an abuse.
http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/

The service engineer said the boiler (Potterton "Profile Prima")
as in good nick, which surprised me.
But he mentioned that there are now "condensing boilers"
which save a bit of heat, as they extract heat from the fumes
which are expelled outside the house in older models.

Generally speaking, it is neither economic nor environmentally friendly to
replace working models, unless they are particularly inefficient. The costs
(money and energy) of building a boiler are quite high and will take a long
time to offset against decreased fuel usage.

When the boiler does need replacing, you should replace with a condensing
model. Generally speaking, you are required to do so, but there are
exceptions, which you should not be tempted to use unless you really have
to.

Christian.

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:45:47 +0100, Timothy Murphy
wrote:

I just had my central heating boiler serviced
by the gas company here,
for the first time in 14 years.

The service engineer said the boiler (Potterton "Profile Prima")
as in good nick, which surprised me.
But he mentioned that there are now "condensing boilers"
which save a bit of heat, as they extract heat from the fumes
which are expelled outside the house in older models.

Is it worth going over to such a model?


it isnt worth upgrading your existing boiler unless you need to
becuase its in a bad way or your upgrading your kitchen and you want a
change etc etc. If your existing boiler is working fine then keep it
as you wont recoup the cost of the change in energy savings.

If you want to improve things,invest in insulation and other forms of
energy conservation (gas and electric!). You will only spend once on
insulation but you will spend all the time on heating a house which
leaks out heat like a colander.

joe



Remove antispam and add 670 after bra to email

Be a good Global citizen-CONSUMECONFORMOBEY

Circumcision- A crime and an abuse.
http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/

"tarquinlinbin" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:45:47 +0100, Timothy Murphy
wrote:

I just had my central heating boiler serviced
by the gas company here,
for the first time in 14 years.

The service engineer said the boiler (Potterton "Profile Prima")
as in good nick, which surprised me.
But he mentioned that there are now "condensing boilers"
which save a bit of heat, as they extract heat from the fumes
which are expelled outside the house in older models.

Is it worth going over to such a model?


it isnt worth upgrading your existing boiler unless you need to
becuase its in a bad way or your upgrading your kitchen and you want a
change etc etc. If your existing boiler is working fine then keep it
as you wont recoup the cost of the change in energy savings.

Wrong. A condensing boiler can be had for under £500. That will save
around £100 per year (gas has just gone up 13%) So, 5 years "max" to
recoup the cost, lees if gas gone up again, and then massive saving over the
old boiler after the recoup period. Do some sums and stop arm waving.

http://www.uselessenergy.org.uk/boilers_prices.asp

If you want to improve things,invest in insulation and other forms of
energy conservation (gas and electric!). You will only spend once on
insulation but you will spend all the time on heating a house which
leaks out heat like a colander.

Good advice.

"Timothy Murphy" wrote in message
...
I just had my central heating boiler serviced
by the gas company here,
for the first time in 14 years.

The service engineer said the boiler (Potterton "Profile Prima")
as in good nick, which surprised me.
But he mentioned that there are now "condensing boilers"
which save a bit of heat, as they extract heat from the fumes
which are expelled outside the house in older models.

Is it worth going over to such a model?


Yes it is worth going for such a model - if you have the money I would.

In fact I did a few months ago and am well pleased with the fuel savings,
quiet operation, quicker warm times and just generally pleased all round.
Oh, and I got a few eco warrior brownie points too.

Can't see what all the fuss is about. A nice new boiler for around £1500+. I
wish I'd done it ages ago.

In article ,
RedOnRed wrote:
In fact I did a few months ago and am well pleased with the fuel
savings, quiet operation, quicker warm times and just generally pleased
all round.

There's no way a condensing boiler in principle will be quieter or have
faster warm up times than a non condenser.

--
*With her marriage she got a new name and a dress.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haz of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ,
RedOnRed wrote:
In fact I did a few months ago and am well pleased with the fuel
savings, quiet operation, quicker warm times and just generally pleased
all round.

There's no way a condensing boiler in principle will be quieter or have
faster warm up times than a non condenser.

...more incoherrent babble based on no experience whatsoever. Culiflower
cheese today at the home is it?

In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
In fact I did a few months ago and am well pleased with the fuel
savings, quiet operation, quicker warm times and just generally
pleased all round.

There's no way a condensing boiler in principle will be quieter or have
faster warm up times than a non condenser.

..more incoherrent babble based on no experience whatsoever.

Please explain just how a condensing boiler is inherently quieter than a
non condenser. Similarly why it will warm up quicker. If you can manage to
before your lunchtime nap, or if still sober.

--
*Never miss a good chance to shut up *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Please explain just how a condensing boiler is inherently quieter than a
non condenser. Similarly why it will warm up quicker. If you can manage to
before your lunchtime nap, or if still sober.


I didn't say that a condensing boiler is technically quieter then a
non-condensing. My last boiler was 28 years old and suffered from bad,
noisey kettling. In that respect a new boiler is quieter.

My new boiler warms up quicker presumably due to it firing up on all
cylinders in its modulating mode, which a lot of old boilers may not have.
Additionally, due to our system being modified with the new boiler
installation, our boiler warms up the house quicker.

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
In fact I did a few months ago and am well pleased with the fuel
savings, quiet operation, quicker warm times and just generally
pleased all round.

There's no way a condensing boiler in principle will be quieter or
have
faster warm up times than a non condenser.

..more incoherrent babble based on no experience whatsoever.

Please explain

It is not worth explaining to an old codger who can't understand. How was
the cauliflower cheese at the home?

(sorry if this gets posted twice - newsfeed playing up)

Timothy Murphy wrote:

But he mentioned that there are now "condensing boilers"
which save a bit of heat, as they extract heat from the fumes
which are expelled outside the house in older models.

Is it worth going over to such a model?

Depends on the circumstances. When you need to replace it for other
reasons then yes certainly, go for the best efficiency you can get all
other things being equal. Whether it is worthwhile scrapping a working
system requires some careful analysis. There is no point taking the
simplistic view of just comparing the raw cost of the boiler to the gas
savings, you need to look at the fuller picture.

Firstly how much are you spending on gas for your current boiler? The
model you list probably has an efficiency around about the 75% mark. So
going to a modern 90% model could reduce your gas bills by up to 15%.

What would it cost to have it changed - even a straight swap would
probably require some additional work for plumbing the condensate drain
etc. You may also need to spend some on upgrading controls to modern
build regs standards. Chances are even with a basic boiler you are
looking at £1500 unless you are up to doing the work yourself.

Modern high tech boilers are less likely to be happy going 14 years
without a service, so you need to factor in extra maintenance costs as
well.

To balance the costs you can also look at other factors: the modern
boiler will modulate over a decent range which combined with better
controls (TRVs on most of the rads etc) may give better temperature
regulation and comfort in your house. It may also take up less space and
be quieter / less ugly etc.

Environmentally the picture is less clear, since no manufactured product
is "environmentally friendly". These environmental costs of making your
new boiler and disposing of your old one are obviously hard to quantify
- but they are certainly not zero.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
(sorry if this gets posted twice - newsfeed playing up)

Timothy Murphy wrote:

But he mentioned that there are now "condensing boilers"
which save a bit of heat, as they extract heat from the fumes
which are expelled outside the house in older models.

Is it worth going over to such a model?

Depends on the circumstances. When you need to replace it for other
reasons then yes certainly, go for the best efficiency you can get all
other things being equal. Whether it is worthwhile scrapping a working
system requires some careful analysis. There is no point taking the
simplistic view of just comparing the raw cost of the boiler to the gas
savings, you need to look at the fuller picture.

Firstly how much are you spending on gas for your current boiler? The
model you list probably has an efficiency around about the 75% mark. So
going to a modern 90% model could reduce your gas bills by up to 15%.

What would it cost to have it changed - even a straight swap would
probably require some additional work for plumbing the condensate drain
etc. You may also need to spend some on upgrading controls to modern
build regs standards. Chances are even with a basic boiler you are
looking at £1500 unless you are up to doing the work yourself.

Modern high tech boilers are less likely to be happy going 14 years
without a service, so you need to factor in extra maintenance costs as
well.

My God! Nothing worse than amateur misadvise. All boiler have to be
serviced once a year. A one piece heat exchanger condensing boiler clean its
own heat exchanger.

"Doctor Drivel" wrote

My God! Nothing worse than amateur misadvise. All boiler have to be
serviced once a year.

They might have to be but most aren't

I had my one serviced for the first time when it broke down after 14 years.

"informer" wrote in message
...

"Doctor Drivel" wrote

My God! Nothing worse than amateur misadvise. All boiler have to be
serviced once a year.

They might have to be but most aren't

I had my one serviced for the first time when it broke down after 14
years.

You are totally irresponsible and should be prosecuted. The house is in
danger.

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
eenews.net...

"informer" wrote in message
...

"Doctor Drivel" wrote

My God! Nothing worse than amateur misadvise. All boiler have to be
serviced once a year.

They might have to be but most aren't

I had my one serviced for the first time when it broke down after 14
years.

You are totally irresponsible and should be prosecuted. The house is in
danger.


Time to get your fluffy handcuffs out you keep next to your bed for a
citizens arrest. But don't forget to take your gimp boy outfit off prior to
apprehension of this hardened recidivist.

In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
I had my one serviced for the first time when it broke down after 14
years.

You are totally irresponsible and should be prosecuted. The house is in
danger.

Is that the same as flooding foundations through faulty jointing of
plastic pipes with a hacksaw rather than spending pennies on the correct
tool?

Think we should be told.

BTW, I must have asked a hundred times for your advice on servicing a
boiler, safety wise. With no reply.

Others will draw their own conclusions.

--
*Time is the best teacher; unfortunately it kills all its students.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Doctor Drivel wrote:


My God! Nothing worse than amateur misadvise. All boiler have to be
serviced once a year. A one piece heat exchanger condensing boiler clean its
own heat exchanger.



OK, sentence by sentence:

(1) No problem, I understand this one.

(2) misadvice? Advise is a verb, not a noun. But I;m not sure
misadvice is a word either!

(3) Boilers

(4) Enough of the pedantry, and the real point. What does that sentence
mean?

Andy

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:


My God! Nothing worse than amateur misadvise. All boiler have to be
serviced once a year. A one piece heat exchanger condensing boiler clean
its
own heat exchanger.



OK, sentence by sentence:

(1) No problem, I understand this one.

(2) misadvice? Advise is a verb, not a noun. But I;m not sure misadvice
is a word either!

(3) Boilers

(4) Enough of the pedantry, and the real point. What does that sentence
mean?

Andy

Seems simple enough to understand to me, until you complicated it with
profound pedantism and your hilarious subtle brand of condescension - that
is.

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:


My God! Nothing worse than amateur misadvise. All boiler have to be
serviced once a year. A one piece heat exchanger condensing boiler clean
its
own heat exchanger.



OK, sentence by sentence:

(1) No problem, I understand this one.

(2) misadvice? Advise is a verb, not a noun. But I;m not sure
misadvice is a word either!

(3) Boilers

(4) Enough of the pedantry, and the real point. What does that sentence
mean?

Are you foreign?

snipped to the relevant bits
Doctor Drivel wrote:
"Andy Champ" wrote
Doctor Drivel wrote:
A one piece heat exchanger condensing boiler clean its own heat exchanger.
What does that sentence mean?
Are you foreign?

From some points of view, yes.

However, I'm honestly puzzled.

I thought most condensers were multi-part heat exchangers. However I
can't see how the number of parts used to manufacture the heat
exchanger, nor whether or not it has water on the outside, can have any
relevance to cleanliness.

Andy

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:45:47 +0100, Timothy Murphy
wrote:

| I just had my central heating boiler serviced
| by the gas company here,
| for the first time in 14 years.
|
| The service engineer said the boiler (Potterton "Profile Prima")
| as in good nick, which surprised me.
| But he mentioned that there are now "condensing boilers"
| which save a bit of heat, as they extract heat from the fumes
| which are expelled outside the house in older models.
|
| Is it worth going over to such a model?

It is well worth doing the sums to see how much you would save.
On our *very* well insulated extended semi, we spent only GBP 370 in 2004
on heating plus Domestic Hot Water, of which about GBP 150.

So if efficiency of a 25 year old boiler was about 70%, a high efficiency
one 80% (sedbuk) and a condensing boiler 90% (sedbuk) we could only save
GBP 37 per year going to a High Efficiency one and GBP 75 for a condensing
one. These give payback times of 5 to 20 years depending on how much one
allows for installation costs. In pure economic terms I would expect a
payback of more than 10 years, and preferably over 20 years, the expected
life of a boiler.

In our case, the change would not be cost effective. However, because the
boiler was clapped out and as part of a remodeling of the kitchen it will
go ahead, probably a condensing one, because it would be greener.

I would strongly suggest that you do some cost and savings estimates with
your own figures, allowing a reasonable inflation factor for gas costs,
before replacing a boiler which is in "good nick".

--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk
The London suicide bombers killed innocent commuters.
Animal rights terrorists and activists kill innocent patients.

"Dave Fawthrop" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:45:47 +0100, Timothy Murphy
wrote:

| I just had my central heating boiler serviced
| by the gas company here,
| for the first time in 14 years.
|
| The service engineer said the boiler (Potterton "Profile Prima")
| as in good nick, which surprised me.
| But he mentioned that there are now "condensing boilers"
| which save a bit of heat, as they extract heat from the fumes
| which are expelled outside the house in older models.
|
| Is it worth going over to such a model?

It is well worth doing the sums to see how much you would save.
On our *very* well insulated extended semi, we spent only GBP 370 in 2004
on heating plus Domestic Hot Water, of which about GBP 150.

So if efficiency of a 25 year old boiler was about 70%,

More like 55%.

In article s.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
So if efficiency of a 25 year old boiler was about 70%,

More like 55%.

More numbers plucked out of the air.

If it were 55% and your modern boiler was 108% or whatever it would near
half the gas consumption. And not even the wildest of advertising claims
that.

--
*I'm really easy to get along with once people learn to worship me

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" througha haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article s.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
So if efficiency of a 25 year old boiler was about 70%,

More like 55%.

More numbers

Yes 55 is a number.

snip senile drivel

So if efficiency of a 25 year old boiler was about 70%, a high efficiency

Before you embark on a load of misleading figures. The efficiency of a 25
year old boiler is likely to be around 55% efficient. Like the one I just
got shot of.

In article ,
RedOnRed wrote:
Before you embark on a load of misleading figures. The efficiency of a
25 year old boiler is likely to be around 55% efficient. Like the one I
just got shot of.

It really depends on the type of 25 year old boiler. In 1980 there were
plenty that bettered that and by quite some margin.

--
*I'm pretty sure that sex is better than logic, but I can't prove it.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

RedOnRed wrote:
Before you embark on a load of misleading figures. The efficiency of a 25
year old boiler is likely to be around 55% efficient. Like the one I just
got shot of.


1973, Ideal Standard efficiency, 76%

Regards
Capitol

Capitol wrote:

Before you embark on a load of misleading figures. The efficiency of a
25 year old boiler is likely to be around 55% efficient. Like the one
I just got shot of.


1973, Ideal Standard efficiency, 76%

If you wander through the SEDBUK database, there are very few that are
as low as 55% (39 models out of over 3,300 listed - mostly poxytons).

There are a few hundred at 65%, but the vast bulk are 70% or better.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"Capitol" wrote in message
...


RedOnRed wrote:
Before you embark on a load of misleading figures. The efficiency of a 25
year old boiler is likely to be around 55% efficient. Like the one I just
got shot of.

1973, Ideal Standard efficiency, 76%

Regards
Capitol

That's odd, my 1977 Ideal Standard floor stander was 55%.

76% for a 1973 model sounds a remarkable feat of engineering.

In 1973 with big flares, collars and lapels...wastage was a way of life.

RedOnRed wrote:
"Capitol" wrote in message
...


RedOnRed wrote:

Before you embark on a load of misleading figures. The efficiency of a 25
year old boiler is likely to be around 55% efficient. Like the one I just
got shot of.

1973, Ideal Standard efficiency, 76%

Regards
Capitol


That's odd, my 1977 Ideal Standard floor stander was 55%.

76% for a 1973 model sounds a remarkable feat of engineering.

In 1973 with big flares, collars and lapels...wastage was a way of life.

Input, 24.3KW
Output, 18.5KW
To water, 17.6KW
To local ambient, 0.9KW

Or, another model

Input, 123KW
Output, 96KW
To water, 28.3KW
To local ambient, 1.8KW
Efficiency, 78%


Regards
Capitol