Question about new service

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tankless will save energy. They don't maintain a tank temp when no water is being used.

What they may not do is pay for themselves in short enough time in money spent on energy to be worth the investment.

During heating season, the energy lost from a tank style water heater is given up to the building environmental air - and lessens the demand from the heating system - so that energy isn't really lost, and further complicates the efficiency calculation.
 
Thank you guys for your input. The well hasn't been dug so I wouldn't know water temps, but on average they are around 50 degrees here, so would need to be raised 55-70 degrees. There is a total of 4 full baths and 2 half baths so presumably would need something with a fairly high output flow potential. I advised him to go with a traditional tank style heater based on my opinion and the general consensus here seems to be the same. The LP being more expensive that NG is based on having had both in the past. As one poster said that could be because NG was billed monthly vs LP being filled whenever the tank was low so they could be comparable.

As far as the service goes, if he does go with a tank water heater a 200A service should suffice. If so, I would say install the 320/400A meter can and (2) 200A disconnets, and do 1 main and 1 subpanel
 
Most of the well water in the Yakima valley is in the low to mid 50 degree range. However there are areas that are warmer. I’ve had water in a municipal well at Sunnyside, in the mid 70’s. Some of the deep irrigation wells are up around 90 degrees.
 
MattS87 said:
Thank you guys for your input. The well hasn't been dug so I wouldn't know water temps, but on average they are around 50 degrees here, so would need to be raised 55-70 degrees. There is a total of 4 full baths and 2 half baths so presumably would need something with a fairly high output flow potential. I advised him to go with a traditional tank style heater based on my opinion and the general consensus here seems to be the same. The LP being more expensive that NG is based on having had both in the past. As one poster said that could be because NG was billed monthly vs LP being filled whenever the tank was low so they could be comparable.

As far as the service goes, if he does go with a tank water heater a 200A service should suffice. If so, I would say install the 320/400A meter can and (2) 200A disconnets, and do 1 main and 1 subpanel
Click to expand...
Natural gas requires less processing from the gas well to the end user and costs less per thermal unit. But unlike propane and butane it cannot be delivered in liquid form (dense) without cryogenic refrigeration or extremely high pressure. That limits its consumer use to piped systems only.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 
Little Bill said:
We usually use the 400A/320A meter base with dual lugs. Feed (2) 200A panels off that as Larry said.

I would try and talk them out of the electric tankless. Too much upfront with little chance of breaking even anytime soon. They do have to have parts replaced eventually and are not cheap. Add to that the extra for the power to supply it. But the most problem I encounter is unless you live in a warm climate the incoming water is too cold to heat well or fast enough.

To get the heat right you have to slow the flow down to allow it to heat well. I hear people all the time complaining about cold spurts occurring during a shower, especially if other hot water is being used at the same time.

Haven't heard the same complaints about gas tankless though.
Click to expand...
The electric ones tend to be sized too small.
 
kwired said:
Tankless will save energy. They don't maintain a tank temp when no water is being used.
Click to expand...
They don't save energy over a heat-pump style water heater.

Maintaining tank temp is not much of an issue with a well-insulated tank. The issue usually boils down to the water standing in the pipe that is usually not insulated enough to stay hot.
 
mivey said:
They don't save energy over a heat-pump style water heater.

Maintaining tank temp is not much of an issue with a well-insulated tank. The issue usually boils down to the water standing in the pipe that is usually not insulated enough to stay hot.
Click to expand...
Water in pipe cooling down when not in use is same issue with either. circulating water to keep water in pipe hot does result in more energy being used, with any heating unit.

Heat pump may use less energy because it isn't directly adding heat to the water it is transferring heat that was already present somewhere else. Heat pump can not instantly raise water temp 70 degrees at typical flow rates one may encounter in a dwelling, unless you have a really large heat pump.

My point was a tankless system uses no energy when there is no water use. A storage tank style system will need to refresh any lost heat at least occasionally when there is no water use. Better insulated the tank the less this is, but heat is still lost from the tank when no water is being used. I have said many times before, if this heat is lost to your house during heating season, it isn't total loss, it lessens the load on your heating system. Maybe not an incredible amount, but this heat is lost to your home and not to the outside. Downside to that is that heat does increase the demand on your home's cooling system during cooling season.
 
There are some studies out there on tank type water heater losses, IIRC you can figure about $60 per year in standby losses - rough value - depends in the quality of the unit. Then as k wired said, some of that energy isn't necessarily lost as it heats the house. With figures like that, seems silly to go tankless just for standby losses.
 
electrofelon said:
There are some studies out there on tank type water heater losses, IIRC you can figure about $60 per year in standby losses - rough value - depends in the quality of the unit. Then as k wired said, some of that energy isn't necessarily lost as it heats the house. With figures like that, seems silly to go tankless just for standby losses.
Click to expand...
Even more silly if heating season is longer than cooling season. May take 10 years or more to recover service upgrade costs in amount of energy dollars saved. By then, unit may have failed more than once already and is near needing replaced - so more investment into the unit before it even paid for itself in energy savings.
 
Hmm.... interesting arguments but here in Jamaica I will use the gas tankless on a propane tank for the few times the solar is not good enough..figure I will use more of the gas for cooking monthly than I use for heating water yearly...
 
electrofelon said:
There are some studies out there on tank type water heater losses, IIRC you can figure about $60 per year in standby losses - rough value - depends in the quality of the unit. Then as k wired said, some of that energy isn't necessarily lost as it heats the house. With figures like that, seems silly to go tankless just for standby losses.
Click to expand...

Not to mention by using a timer to control when the heating will take place you can reduce the losses even more
 
MattS87 said:
Not to mention by using a timer to control when the heating will take place you can reduce the losses even more
Click to expand...

Timer works if there is a consistent schedule of demand.

Timer still may not pay back fast enough in energy saved to be worth the investment in some instances either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top