You justify it by watching and enjoying it, many are energy star rated, Lcds use alot less power than tube tv
You justify it by watching and enjoying it, many are energy star rated, Lcds use alot less power than tube tv
You're OK recommending folks knowingly and willingly break the law, void their homeowner's insurance policy and expose themselves to third party liability damage just to save a few bucks?
Cheers, Paul
back to tank tv tankless, if you use more hot water from longer showers etc you wouldnt save any money and may actually see costs increase:(
Why? The marginal efficiency should be the same in both cases.
Wayne
assuming the tank runs out of water the shower ends
the tankless runs longer, possibly indefinetely........
more water more sewer, more gas........
can be a big loser...........
Extending your reasoning leads to the energy benefits of taking cold showers. Next up - sack cloth and self-flagellation!
What a particular person chooses to do with their money is no concern of mine. That is a personal choice and they're paying for it. What I object to is built in inefficiency which robs people of that choice and steals their money with nothing added.
R
I don't think that is actually true--the marginal efficiency is about the same for a tank and tankless, assuming comparable combustion technology (i.e. both 80% non-condensing). The tankless wins by eliminating the fixed standby costs which are basically independent of usage. So you could rephrase your statement as "with a tankless someone could choose to spend some of their savings on a longer shower, and still come out ahead, if it isn't too much longer."
Cheers, Wayne
So, you don't compute standby loss dollars in your scenario... Any other actual dollars spent that don't count in your theoretical calculations? Maybe you should rewrite what you wrote. I stand by what I wrote and, judging from your editing, I'm also a better writer. :)~
R
And it loses due to startup time and people turning on the tap and doing something else waiting for the hot water to be generated.
Startup time for hot water is dominated by the piping length between the heater and the point of use. The tankless adds at most 2 seconds to the startup time. For a 2.5 gpm shower, that's less that 0.1 gallons. A small effect.
Cheers, Wayne
No, it's not that the standby losses don't count, it's that they don't depend on usage. I guess I read your original statement as being one about incremental usage costs, in which case they don't appear. But apparently you were referring to average usage costs, where they do.
Cheers, Wayne
P.S. Analytically, what I'm saying is that a tankless will cost R * U dollars/month, where U is the usage in gallons/month and R is a rate in $/gallon. While the tank will cost you S + R * U, for the same rate R, where S is the dollar cost per month of the standby losses.
bullshit. It adds about a full minute.
Don't forget the ashes! Ashes lend a certain 'ambiance' to ascetics.
BING! BING! BING!
We must be talking about different technologies. On my modern (2006) gas tankless unit, it is about 2 seconds. Maybe 3 seconds.
Cheers, Wayne
Looking at the long-term situation....
my my tank vs tankless is now hotter than K&T and insurance difficulties........
lets have a group hug, no groping!!!!
so all those concerned with standby losses do you turn your vehicle off at long lights?
one day every new home will be required by law to be superinsulated, which could drop heating costs to near nothing
That day better come soon. I'm told Alberta's natural gas production is 12 billion cubic feet per day and 1 billion of that is currently used by the province's tar sands operation. The NEB is forecasting production to fall to 9 BCFD by 2012, at a time when 6 BCFD -- a full two-thirds -- will be used by the tar sands, in large part to power the new SAGD (Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage) plants now under construction. That suggests our natural gas supplies for domestic use (and export to the United States) will fall from 11 BCFD today to as little as 3 BCFD in less than five years.
Cold showers for everyone!
Cheers, Paul
Really a full minute, not on mine, mine fires in 2 seconds after water is turned on, probably another 3-5 seconds to fully heat output. I say you are unqualified to respond to tankless. I dont realy notice a difference from the changeover, Pipe length from heater to faucet is the issue. Your Full Minute statement is untrue, the issue is cold water in the pipes already. Im now at a tank location, about 40 seconds I need to get HW out of 50 ft of pipe. The tankless location with about 15 ft is maybe 10 seconds 10 or so to push out cold water.
Give em a bone, add 3-5 seconds to heat from 40 -110, maybe its longer , but not by much or EF rating would be alot worse than burner efficency.
Our government wont do squat, never did , never will. I super insulated mine, turning off a car at a light is a pain in the ass and probably wouldnt save me much since I have no brakes.
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.