Replace an old boiler with decreased effciency over time, add a new quick recovery coil cyilinder, modern controls, etc, replaced by a top line boiler will give 40%. It is the boiler and amendments to the system that all add up.
The message from "IMM" contains these words:
And if the old boiler has an efficiency of 75% and already has a decent control system dIMMs only answer is "snip drivel" because he doesn't understand the figures. To him 40% is just a magic incantation.
< snip drivel >
if you want to know if parts are available , use these guys ,
-- Tony
Of course when you think about it, it does not "add up". Your quick recovery coil cylinder will heat up faster and hence take more power from the bolier, but the total energy consumption to heat x litres of water stays the same as with the old cylinder. So the only gain in efficency there is the boilers, and you can't count that again.
There is a very *marginal* effect - and I doubt whether you could measure it. If you heat the water faster, the boiler and the intermediate pipework are hot for less time, so there are *slightly* less losses in this area. This argument is probably more valid when used in a pumped vs gravity HW context.
Wrong. A quick recovery cylinder takes all the boilers heat. The return temp will be quite low for most of re-heat time. The lower temp gives greater condensing efficiency and prevents cycling, which is more efficiency. You are not supposed to use quick recovery cylinders on regular boilers as the low return temp may cause condensation. All peripheral equipment around a boiler is designed "not" to cause condensation. Which has always puzzled me why the boiler stats always went down to silly low temperatures. More better designs only had a switch of high and low temps with the low being above what would cause condensation.
When replacing with a top condensing boiler it will not be gravity. 40% less bills are achievable.
I didn't say it would! I was simply saying that when comparing gravity with pumped HW - using *any* boiler - the boiler will have to run for less time for pumped, resulting in less wasted heat.
To a certain - but lesser - extent this is also true when comparing a fast recovery with normal recovery cylinder (both fully pumped in this case).
With a load compensating boiler and modulating burner, the return temp will be much the same with either. The only difference will be the rate of energy delivery (i.e. power).
Even if the higher load was goading the boiler into more efficent operation, we are only talking a small marginal difference here.
Again marginal. We are not talking 10s of % points here.
Quick recovery cylinders in some tests have proven to be 25-30% more efficient in energy used than standard cylinders. 10% improvement is easily achievable just on the DHW alone when replacing an old cast iron boiler and cylinder with a top condenser and quick recovery cylinder.
That sounds like marketing bull...
Perhaps if you compare a modern foamed QR cylinder with an unlagged conventional one.
The energy you need to heat the water remains the same regardless of the type of cylinder (so as long as you are not dissipating that energy to the surroundings due to lack of insulation). If the boiler modulates to suit the load, there is going to be little difference in efficiency there.
So please explain where your 25 to 30% is coming from?
(the answer I expect, is that you contrive an experiment to make your cylinder look good)
Not so.
Depends on how the applinace is in efficiency, control system (two cyl stats), and how it is coupled to the cylindner.
The pre Part L cylinders (Part L is not that much better) heated by a regular low efficiency cast iron boiler (lots of boiler cycling) vs. top efficiency condenser, quick recovery cylinder, two stats (no cycling). So,
10% is easily achieved in DHW aloneThe message from "IMM" contains these words:
Snip yet more of dIMMs dishonest drivel. Lb to a pinch of salt dIMM will not be able to point to an authoritative source for his latest fantasy.
Ignore this fool. He quotes maker's ads - not real life use.
Estimate about half that.
So now we're getting closer to reality, but of course spending even more money. Oh - I'll bet there are very few 50-55% boilers left in existence.
Strange. Mine has worked perfectly for some 25 years. Perhaps it didn't know it wasn't meant to work...
< snip drivel >
The message from "IMM" contains these words:
So dIMM gets to snip dIMMs dishonest drivel yet again. In some ways it is a pity he is so thick. If he had 3 brain cells rather than the 2 which occasionally interact he might have the capacity to at last realise that not being able to support his fantasies with anything other than bluster will not go down well with the lurkers. As it is I am beginning to think that not only is dIMM thick he is also a coward who just cannot face up to reality.
Does anyone know what John Burns-Curtis really does in real life?
Doesn't hang about with craftsmen by his instance they all use cheap tools. Not CORGIE registered so couldn't make a living installing heating systems. Has a small house and a cheap car so not successful. Probably a clerk in a PM by his unlimited knowledge of catalogues and advertising blurb.
;-)
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.