Re: Quick basic advice on a dripping gas 40-gal hot-water heater
Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator
> Is it down the basement on a concrete floor with no possibility of
> water damage?
It's in a concrete-floored garage on a wooden pedestal so there's not much
by way of water damage that can occur if the leak were to exascerbate in
the next few days.
> The safe bet is to call a plumber and replace the tank as soon as
> possible. The labor to replace the tank with a similar unit will
> likely be less than that of a tankless.
I've since given up on tankless for the retrofit costs. The labor at Home
Depot seems to be $309 to hook up the new hot water heater and haul away
the old one; plus $55 for earthquake straps; plus $50 for permits; plus
taxes of roughly 9% on the parts and service.
> Bite the bullet and take your lumps, the joys of being a home owner.
Here are the comparisons I can generate so far, based on what Home Depot
says at their Bronx New York Water Heater Servicing Center.
The prices below are installed but sans earthquake straps, permits, &
taxes. Note that the Home Depot water heater servicing center had no
figures for the BTUs (they said they weren't important). They mostly pushed
warranty but I did my comparison by cost per First Hour Rating.
Home Depot Water Heater Servicing Center (877-467-0542)
by price (installed), SKU, FHR, EF, BTU, volume, and warranty:
$608 SG40T12AVH/182-755 72galFHR 0.59EF ??KBTU 40gal 6-yr(drain 2x/year)
$658 SG50T12AVH/183-717 80galFHR 0.58EF ??KBTU 50gal 6-yr(drain 2x/year)
$677 SG40T12AVH/182-786 72galFHR 0.59EF ??KBTU 40gal 9-yr(self cleaning)
$718 SG50T12AVH/184-076 80galFHR 0.58EF ??KBTU 50gal 9-yr(self cleaning)
$728 SG40T12AVH/182-953 68galFHR 0.59EF ??KBTU 40gal 12-yr(self cleaning)
$783 SG50T12AVH/185-191 83galFHR 0.58EF ??KBTU 50gal 12-yr(self cleaning)
Here are the best numbers I could find by going to the local Home Depot.
Notice the only way to get the all-important First Hour Rating was to open
each and every box which the floorperson balked at so I don't know that or
the Energy Factor.
Here is what was at the store by price, UPC, FHR, ER, BTU, volume, &
warranty:
$280, 514017, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 34K, 40gal, 3yr
$290, 509501, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 36K, 40gal, 6yr
$350, 519005, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 38K, 40gal, 9yr
$350, 431048, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 38K, 50gal, 6yr
$360, 494272, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 40K, 40gal, 6yr
$370, 551821, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 40K, 40gal, 9yr
$380, 569840, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 34K, 40gal, 6yr
$410, 431055, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 38K, 50gal, 9yr
$420, 518411, ??gal FHR, .59EF, 40K, 40gal, 12yr
$420, 494302, 68gal FHR, .??EF, 40K, 50gal, 6yr
$440, 518435, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 40K, 50gal, 12yr
Do any of these choices seem most reasonable to replace my existing 65
gallon First Hour Rating, ??EF, 40 gallon, 35,000 BTU 50" tall by 18"
diameter gas-fired shelf-mounted earthquake-strapped hot water heater?
Donna
Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator
> gallon First Hour Rating, ??EF, 40 gallon, 35,000 BTU 50" tall by 18"
> diameter gas-fired shelf-mounted earthquake-strapped hot water heater?
It would be nice if there were freeware to do all these calculations for
us! (I'll ask the wonderful folks on the freeware newsgroup if they have
any "special" cost-per-FHR calculators other than standard calculators).
Here is what the choices seem to be by cost per FHR (which seems like the
only reasonable comparison).
Home Depot Water Heater Servicing Center (877-467-0542)
by cost per FHR given the price (installed), price for the heater, SKU,
FHR, EF, BTU, volume, and warranty:
$4.15 $608 $299 182-755 72galFHR 0.59EF ??KBTU 40gal 6-yr(drain 2x/year)
$4.36 $658 $349 183-717 80galFHR 0.58EF ??KBTU 50gal 6-yr(drain 2x/year)
$5.11 $677 $368 182-786 72galFHR 0.59EF ??KBTU 40gal 9-yr(self cleaning)
$5.11 $718 $409 184-076 80galFHR 0.58EF ??KBTU 50gal 9-yr(self cleaning)
$6.16 $728 $419 182-953 68galFHR 0.59EF ??KBTU 40gal 12-yr(self cleaning)
$4.51 $783 $374 185-191 83galFHR 0.58EF ??KBTU 50gal 12-yr(self cleaning)
Given the cost per FHR for the Home Depot hot water heaters above, it seems
like the best bet, economically and maintenance wise, is the $5.11 per
first hour rating 72-gallon FHR 40-gallon $368 dollar ($677 + $55
earthquake straps + $50 permit fee + ~$50 local taxes) GE
SG40T12AVH/182-786 hot water heater.
Do you agree?
That is, does this cost per FHR comparison seem logical to you?
It would be nice if there were freeware to do these calculations for us so
I'm including the freeware team on this (they helped me years ago with a
freeware garage-door torsion-spring calculator which was utterly fantastic
- maybe they have similar freeware calculators for home water heater
replacement comparisons!).
Donna
Malcolm Hoar
>Home Depot Water Heater Servicing Center (877-467-0542)
>by cost per FHR given the price (installed), price for the heater, SKU,
>FHR, EF, BTU, volume, and warranty:
>
>$4.15 $608 $299 182-755 72galFHR 0.59EF ??KBTU 40gal 6-yr(drain 2x/year)
>$4.36 $658 $349 183-717 80galFHR 0.58EF ??KBTU 50gal 6-yr(drain 2x/year)
>$5.11 $677 $368 182-786 72galFHR 0.59EF ??KBTU 40gal 9-yr(self cleaning)
>$5.11 $718 $409 184-076 80galFHR 0.58EF ??KBTU 50gal 9-yr(self cleaning)
>$6.16 $728 $419 182-953 68galFHR 0.59EF ??KBTU 40gal 12-yr(self cleaning)
>$4.51 $783 $374 185-191 83galFHR 0.58EF ??KBTU 50gal 12-yr(self cleaning)
>
>Given the cost per FHR for the Home Depot hot water heaters above, it seems
>like the best bet, economically and maintenance wise, is the $5.11 per
>first hour rating 72-gallon FHR 40-gallon $368 dollar ($677 + $55
>earthquake straps + $50 permit fee + ~$50 local taxes) GE
>SG40T12AVH/182-786 hot water heater.
>
>Do you agree?
>That is, does this cost per FHR comparison seem logical to you?
It's a useful tool but not the whole story, especially in
what I gather will be a low usage situation. That would
steer me to a small capacity heater and one with the very
best insulation I could find. A longer warranty is good
provided you're not paying an unreasonable premium for it.
In a low usage situation I would try and establish the
R-values of the insulation in each product before making
a final decision.
Also take into account the "quality" of your local water.
If harsh, and you want a long life, consider a heater with
a stainless steel tank (although there's a significant
price premium).
--
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| ma...@malch.com Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/ Shpx gur PQN. |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary Heston
>Here is what was at the store by price, UPC, FHR, ER, BTU, volume, &
>warranty:
>$350, 519005, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 38K, 40gal, 9yr
>$370, 551821, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 40K, 40gal, 9yr
>Do any of these choices seem most reasonable to replace my existing 65
>gallon First Hour Rating, ??EF, 40 gallon, 35,000 BTU 50" tall by 18"
>diameter gas-fired shelf-mounted earthquake-strapped hot water heater?
The two above should equal or exceed the FHR of your existing heater.
That's mainly a function of BTUs, so the second of the two above will
be slightly better; of course, it'll burn a bit more gas. If that's a
concern, go with the first.
Gary
--
Gary Heston ghe...@hiwaay.net http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
We live in amazing times, when one person can invent both the Internet
and global warming, then get awarded a "peace prize".
Susan Bugher
>>Do any of these choices seem most reasonable to replace my existing 65
>>gallon First Hour Rating, ??EF, 40 gallon, 35,000 BTU 50" tall by 18"
>>diameter gas-fired shelf-mounted earthquake-strapped hot water heater?
> It would be nice if there were freeware to do all these calculations for
> us! (I'll ask the wonderful folks on the freeware newsgroup if they have
> any "special" cost-per-FHR calculators other than standard calculators).
Nope.
Susan
Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator
> That's mainly a function of BTUs, so the second of the two above will
> be slightly better; of course, it'll burn a bit more gas. If that's a
> concern, go with the first.
I'm still looking up ways to make a smart decision.
One thing I've noticed is that the efficiency factors I've been quoted from
Home Depot stink (basically 58 to 59 percent).
I called PG&E and they pointed me to a $30 rebate but only for residential
gas water heaters of an EF of 62% or greater.
http://www.pge.com/res/rebates/gas_electric_storage/
Does anyone know where to find a 40gallon or 50gallon hot water heater with
that efficiency rating at a major chain (sears or home depot or ???).
http://www.pge.com/res/rebates/
Donna
James Sweet
>
> Here is what was at the store by price, UPC, FHR, ER, BTU, volume, &
> warranty:
> $280, 514017, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 34K, 40gal, 3yr
> $290, 509501, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 36K, 40gal, 6yr
> $350, 519005, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 38K, 40gal, 9yr
> $350, 431048, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 38K, 50gal, 6yr
> $360, 494272, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 40K, 40gal, 6yr
> $370, 551821, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 40K, 40gal, 9yr
> $380, 569840, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 34K, 40gal, 6yr
> $410, 431055, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 38K, 50gal, 9yr
> $420, 518411, ??gal FHR, .59EF, 40K, 40gal, 12yr
> $420, 494302, 68gal FHR, .??EF, 40K, 50gal, 6yr
> $440, 518435, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 40K, 50gal, 12yr
>
> Do any of these choices seem most reasonable to replace my existing 65
> gallon First Hour Rating, ??EF, 40 gallon, 35,000 BTU 50" tall by 18"
> diameter gas-fired shelf-mounted earthquake-strapped hot water heater?
>
The only number that really matters to you is the capacity, get one close to
the original capacity and assuming you were happy with the performance
before, you should be with the new one. I recently replaced the water heater
in my mom's house with the last one on the list there, it was 20 bucks more
for double the warranty, seems like a no brainer. Can't advise much on the
labor cost as I've always done all that stuff myself.
James Sweet
"Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator" <donn...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message news:r7Prj.9814$Ch6....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
Call around and ask, there's only a few different companies that make these
things, others just stick their name on them. As far as I know, the
efficiency of gas water heaters doesn't vary much from one to the next
unless you go tankless.
HeyBub
> I've since given up on tankless for the retrofit costs. The labor at
> Home Depot seems to be $309 to hook up the new hot water heater and
> haul away the old one; plus $55 for earthquake straps; plus $50 for
> permits; plus taxes of roughly 9% on the parts and service.
Earthquake straps? In the Bronx? What a rip-off. I haven't been able to find
an earthquake in that area larger than a 2.6 (roughly equivalent to closing
a drawer). You have to get to 4.0 before there's any damage that's even
noticable. (The WTC collapse registered 2.3.)
$50 permit? Call city hall and see if a permit is required.
As for charging you to haul the old one off, forget it. Just put the defunct
heater on the curb and the urban faries will scoop it up during the night
(they sell them to scrap metal places or make hinges for the doors on their
little Leprechaun houses, I forget which.).
Nate Nagel
Rheem should have a few models that qualify, and they're a pretty common
brand. Also see if any State or Craftmaster models meet your needs;
AFAICT those three make up the vast majority of the water heater market;
many other brands are just relabels of those three. There's another one
that you can't buy direct (only sold to pros) but I can't recall the
name now.
BTW, you're getting all obsessive compulsive about this. I like you :)
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator
Hi Nate and others,
I appreciate the help.
One thing that confuses me to no end is this EFFICIENCY thing.
If both a 50 gallon and 40 gallon water heater has the same 59 percent
efficiency factor ... do they cost the SAME to heat?
Or does the 50 gallon water heater actually cost more even if it's the same
efficiency?
The reason I ask is I assumed they cost the same to operate but someone
said the smaller water heater will cost less to operate even if the
efficiency factor is the same.
Can someone who understands this clarify if a larger heater truly costs
more to operate than a smaller volume heater even if the efficiency factor
is the same?
Donna
hal...@aol.com
> Can someone who understands this clarify if a larger heater truly costs
> more to operate than a smaller volume heater even if the efficiency factor
> is the same?
>
> Donna
no larger heater costs no more to heat the same amount of water.
if you call a real plumbing store AO SMITH sells a 96% efficent
condensing hot water tank but i dont know the cost.........
mc
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 22:32:43 -0500, Nate Nagel wrote:
> Hi Nate and others,
> I appreciate the help.
> One thing that confuses me to no end is this EFFICIENCY thing.
>
> If both a 50 gallon and 40 gallon water heater has the same 59 percent
> efficiency factor ... do they cost the SAME to heat?
>
> Or does the 50 gallon water heater actually cost more even if it's the
> same
> efficiency?
Heating less water costs less, even with equally efficient heaters.
Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 03:28:11 GMT, James Sweet wrote:
> The only number that really matters to you is the capacity
Hi James,
I don't wish to argue and I certainly appreciate any help but I think
that's bad advice based on what I read.
For example, look here:
http://www.candcheat.com/webapp/GetPage?pid=149
Where it says:
Although many consumers make water heater purchase decisions based only on
the size of the storage tank, the first-hour rating (FHR), provided on the
Energy Guide label, is actually more important. The FHR is a measure of how
much hot water the heater will deliver during a busy hour. The FHR is
required by law to appear on the unit's Energy Guide label. Therefore,
before you buy a water heater, estimate your household's peak-hour demand
and look for a unit with an FHR in that range. And beware that a larger
tank doesn't necessarily mean a higher FHR.
The point is that the volume of the water heater is, apparently,
meaningless from a standpoint of delivering enough hot water to meet our
needs. The volume is merely (apparently) a starting point - just like the
warranty is as meaningless as the volume.
So, it seems, based on my research, that to buy by volume and warranty are
exactly what the manufacturers want you to do to keep you as far away from
meaningful critera as possible.
What's really important, it seems, is the FHR and the EF. The only thing
I'm really confused about is whether two equal efficiency (to simplify the
argument) hot water heaters of two different sizes cost the same or
different amounts.
Do you know?
Donna
Malcolm Hoar
>On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 22:32:43 -0500, Nate Nagel wrote:
>Hi Nate and others,
>I appreciate the help.
>One thing that confuses me to no end is this EFFICIENCY thing.
>
>If both a 50 gallon and 40 gallon water heater has the same 59 percent
>efficiency factor ... do they cost the SAME to heat?
Nope.
>Or does the 50 gallon water heater actually cost more even if it's the same
>efficiency?
Yup.
>The reason I ask is I assumed they cost the same to operate but someone
>said the smaller water heater will cost less to operate even if the
>efficiency factor is the same.
The smaller heater will be cheaper to run -- but it may not
provide enough hot water when you need it.
But the difference (between 40 and 50 gal) isn't going to be
that great provided the heater has good insulation.
The energy factor tells you how well much of the gas is
converted into hot water. A low rating on a gas heater
means lots of therms (energy) are going up the flue.
>Can someone who understands this clarify if a larger heater truly costs
>more to operate than a smaller volume heater even if the efficiency factor
>is the same?
If your current heater is 40gal and meets your demands, I
see absolutely no reason to upgrade to a 50gal tank.
I'm in Northern CA and a 50 gal tank is just about adequate
for my home -- with 2500 sq ft, two adults and three kids.
We run a little low on hot water if everyone takes a shower
or bath in really quick succession while doing laundry.
It's a very minor problem about once a year. 99% of the
time, 50 gals is just fine.
Rick Blaine
>One thing that confuses me to no end is this EFFICIENCY thing.
>
>If both a 50 gallon and 40 gallon water heater has the same 59 percent
>efficiency factor ... do they cost the SAME to heat?
>
For the same water use, yes. Efficiency refers to non-electric heaters
(electrics are 100% efficient), and accounts for the heat loss up the vent pipe.
In other words, heat that doesn't heat the water.
>Or does the 50 gallon water heater actually cost more even if it's the same
>efficiency?
>
Not to heat the water, but over the lifetime, yes.
>The reason I ask is I assumed they cost the same to operate but someone
>said the smaller water heater will cost less to operate even if the
>efficiency factor is the same.
>
True.
>Can someone who understands this clarify if a larger heater truly costs
>more to operate than a smaller volume heater even if the efficiency factor
>is the same?
Although both units will use the same amount of energy to heat water, the larger
heater has a larger tank, which in turn means it has more surface exposed to the
outside. The greater the surface area, the greater the heat loss when you aren't
using water, which means the larger heater will use more energy to maintain the
hot water.
Now, if you live north of the Mason Dixon line and your water heater is inside
the house, then that isn't a total loss as you heat that escapes goes to warm
your house. It only becomes a problem when you want to run the A/C.
OTOH, if you live south of the Mason Dixon line or your water heater is in the
garage, then yes, you will pay a little more to run a 50 gal heater than a 40
gal. one. Is it significant? Look at the energy tag on the two heaters, but I
suspect the difference is less than $20/year. OTOH, you may find the larger unit
has better insulation, which may compensate.
Rick Blaine
>Heating less water costs less, even with equally efficient heaters.
Sigh. Absolutely true and totally meaningless within the context of this
discussion. Oh wait! This is usenet...
Hint: Direct energy cost is based on _use_ and efficiency, not _capacity_ and
efficiency.
Malcolm Hoar
>What's really important, it seems, is the FHR and the EF.
At the risk of repeating myself... and the insulation.
Think about it. How many hours per day do you actually spend
with the hot water faucets turned on?
The tank is "leaking" heat 24 hours per day, 7 days a week.
A well insulated tank will store the energy you used and
paid for. A poorly insulated tank will throw it away.
Rick Blaine
>>If both a 50 gallon and 40 gallon water heater has the same 59 percent
>>efficiency factor ... do they cost the SAME to heat?
>
>Nope.
Yes they do. Basic physics says that it takes the same amount of energy to heat
the same water, regardless of the container size.
>
>>Or does the 50 gallon water heater actually cost more even if it's the same
>>efficiency?
>
>Yup.
But not because it takes more energy to heat the water, because the heat loss
from the tank is slightly higher.
Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator
>> Or does the 50 gallon water heater actually cost more
>> even if it's the same efficiency factor?
>
> Heating less water costs less, even with equally efficient heaters.
Are you sure?
Look at what this energy page says about the Efficiency Factor:
http://www.friendlyplumber.com/plumbing101/washer_heater_energy.html
The "energy factor [is the] number of cycles that can be completed w/ one
kilowatt-hour of electricity".
If that's true, then it's independent of the VOLUME of the water heater.
So, if I read that correctly, a 40-gallon water heater with an EF of .58
takes roughly about 2 KWH of power to heat once while a 50-gallon water
heater with the same EF would take EXACTLY the same amount of power to heat
all 50 gallons.
Can someone check my math on that web page and report back if I understand
incorrectly? If we turn off our brains, of course 40 gallons would cost
less to heat than 50 gallons; but if we think, it might not be so.
Can you help me think about this properly?
What does the Efficiency Factor say about costs for two different sized
tanks with the same efficiency factor?
Donna
Edwin Pawlowski
"Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator" <donn...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message
>
> Does anyone know where to find a 40gallon or 50gallon hot water heater
> with
> that efficiency rating at a major chain (sears or home depot or ???).
> http://www.pge.com/res/rebates/
>
> Donna
Why a major chain? They don't give very good service. Try a local plumber
and plumbing supply house for a better deal and usually better units.
Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator
> Hint: Direct energy cost is based on _use_ and efficiency, not _capacity_ and
> efficiency.
Good point ... dead capacity vs active usage!
Darn. I wish I understood this EF thing better, especially given two
identical situations where the *only* difference is the CAPACITY.
Based on what you implied, if I inferred correctly, if the USAGE was
exactly the same for two water heaters with the same EF, then the costs to
operate a 50-gallon water heater would be EXACTLY the same as the costs to
operate a 100-gallon water heater (if the Efficiency Factor were the same
for both).
Did I understand the math (and your point) correctly?
Donna
mc
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:10:47 -0500, mc wrote:
>
>>> Or does the 50 gallon water heater actually cost more
>>> even if it's the same efficiency factor?
>>
>> Heating less water costs less, even with equally efficient heaters.
>
> Are you sure?
>
> Look at what this energy page says about the Efficiency Factor:
> http://www.friendlyplumber.com/plumbing101/washer_heater_energy.html
>
> The "energy factor [is the] number of cycles that can be completed w/ one
> kilowatt-hour of electricity".
>
> If that's true, then it's independent of the VOLUME of the water heater.
Strange. Then it isn't a measure of efficiency.
Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator
> The tank is "leaking" heat 24 hours per day, 7 days a week.
> A well insulated tank will store the energy you used and
> paid for. A poorly insulated tank will throw it away.
Another good point.
Does the Efficiency Factor take this heat leakage into account?
Or is the ONLY way to research the insulation thickness (which doesn't seem
to be on the energy star label).
What's the easiest way to compare heat leakage between two water heaters?
Donna
Rick Blaine
>Good point ... dead capacity vs active usage!
>
>Darn. I wish I understood this EF thing better, especially given two
>identical situations where the *only* difference is the CAPACITY.
>
>Based on what you implied, if I inferred correctly, if the USAGE was
>exactly the same for two water heaters with the same EF, then the costs to
>operate a 50-gallon water heater would be EXACTLY the same as the costs to
>operate a 100-gallon water heater (if the Efficiency Factor were the same
>for both).
>
>Did I understand the math (and your point) correctly?
Not exactly. There are two types of heat use/loss in a water heater: One is the
heat used to heat the water you are actively using. The other is to reheat the
water that's sitting in the tank all day when you aren't using it.
Both tanks will use the same amount of energy to heat the water you are using
directly. If both tanks have the same efficiency and the same insulation, the
smaller tank will lose less energy to the outside air and thus be slightly less
expensive to operate over the course of a year.
The actual difference in cost is probably not that much. Look at the estimated
annual cost of the two heaters on the yellow energy tag. They normalize for all
that. If one say $180 and the other says $200, that's a rough idea of the
difference in operating costs.
hr(bob) hofmann@att.net
Donna:
Get a heater with the same gallons as you currently have, and as high
an efficiency rating as possible, go for at least a 5-year warranty.
Get a unit that is exactly the same outside dimensions so the piping
does not have to be changed and find a reasonably handy neighbor to
put the new tank in. It should take less than 30 minutes to do the
entire switch-out if the old and new tanks are the exact same size.
Compare prices on a cost per year of warranty coverage, I have seen a
lot of heaters that go bad within a year or so of the expiration of
the warranty, so cost per year of coverage is a good comparison
criteria. If you have the room, adding a fibre-glass water heater
cover over the new tank will improve the heat loss and thus raise the
efficiency. Don't obcess(SP?) about this, it isn't worth the time and
effort.
H. R.(Bob) Hofmann
Rick Blaine
>What's the easiest way to compare heat leakage between two water heaters?
Look at the yellow energy label on the heaters. The annual cost to operate
printed there can be compared on different models.
Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator
I think it was MY MISTAKE to call it an efficiency factor.
It's actually an ENERGY FACTOR.
And, it seems to be independent of the capacity of the tank.
It's dependent on the "cycles".
So, it seems if a 50-gallon water heater has an EF of 0.50, then it takes
two kilowatt hours of power to "cycle" that water heater. Likewise, if a
100-gallon water heater has the same EF, then it takes the same amount of
power to "cycle" that water heater.
Now we have to figure out what a "cycle" is.
I can presume it is to heat up a stated amount of hot water, presumably the
capacity but I don't know that for sure.
If a "cycle" is the capacity, then it would actually cost LESS per gallon
for a 100 gallon water heater than a 50 gallon water heater assuming the
same Energy Factor.
Realistically, all the Home Depot water heaters have a 0.58 or 0.59 EF so
that would indicate, if my assumptions are correct, they the larger ones
(e.g., 50 or 60 gallons capacity) actually costs LESS to operate than the
smaller ones (e.g., 40 gallons capacity) for any given number of gallons
USEAGE.
Can my math possibly hold water?
Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator
>>What's the easiest way to compare heat leakage between two water heaters?
> Look at the yellow energy label on the heaters. The annual cost to operate
> printed there can be compared on different models.
Are you sure?
Isn't the Energy Factor a more pure number than the annual costs?
That is, the energy costs depend, of course, on the price of energy and
volume of water assumed while the Energy Factor should be independent of
those two numbers.
So, it seems to me the EF already takes into account the insulation (and
whatever other factors matter).
Doesn't it?
Donna
Rick Blaine
>What does the Efficiency Factor say about costs for two different sized
>tanks with the same efficiency factor?
EF allows you to compare different heaters. It takes into account insulation and
other factors. Details here:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumer/your_home/water_heating/index.cfm/mytopic=13000
Rick Blaine
>>>What's the easiest way to compare heat leakage between two water heaters?
>> Look at the yellow energy label on the heaters. The annual cost to operate
>> printed there can be compared on different models.
>
>Are you sure?
>
Yes
>Isn't the Energy Factor a more pure number than the annual costs?
Yes.
>That is, the energy costs depend, of course, on the price of energy and
>volume of water assumed while the Energy Factor should be independent of
>those two numbers.
>
>So, it seems to me the EF already takes into account the insulation (and
>whatever other factors matter).
>
>Doesn't it?
Do you care? Consider the case where one heater has poor insulation and a very
efficient burner, and the other has a poor burner and better insulation. Both
have the same EF, both cost the same to operate over a year. Which one do you
buy?
Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator
> Consider the case where one heater has poor insulation and a very
> efficient burner, and the other has a poor burner and better insulation. Both
> have the same EF, both cost the same to operate over a year. Which one do you
> buy?
Hi Rick,
I don't wish to argue ... just to understand ... so please bear with me.
I've said a lot that is wrong (e.g., I called the EF an "efficiency"
factor) and at first I was choosing by size and warranty (which is about as
opposite of the true selection process as is possible) ... so I'm learning
from all you guys and trying to truly understand how to properly select a
real water heater out of the real selections and choices truly available
today in my area.
It seems like I'm not the only one confused as some people said to buy a
water heater by CAPACITY (which seems nearly meaningless except for overall
mechanical size reasons) instead of by FHR, for example.
The web site you recommended was better for FHR than those I tried:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumer/your_home/water_heating/index.cfm/mytopic=12990
As that web site CLEARLY said the FHR is the most important VOLUME number.
"To properly size a storage water heater ... use the water heater's first
hour rating (FHR). The first hour rating is the amount of hot water in
gallons the heater can supply per hour (starting with a tank full of hot
water). It depends on the tank capacity, source of heat (burner or
element), and the size of the burner or element."
So, I now know that the volume (e.g., 40 gallon or 50 gallon is a nearly
meaningless number when the actual FHR is known).
But, I'm still confused about the EF.
That same web site:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumer/your_home/water_heating/index.cfm/mytopic=13000
Says "the energy factor (EF) indicates a water heater's overall energy
efficiency based on the amount of hot water produced per unit of fuel
consumed over a typical day. This includes ... how efficiently the heat
from the energy source is transferred to the water ... the percentage of
heat loss per hour from the stored water compared to the heat content of
the water ... [and] the loss of heat as the water circulates through a
water heater tank, and/or inlet and outlet pipes."
So, if I understand it correctly, all we need is the EF and the FHR and the
actual size (e.g., 40 gallons, 50 gallons, or 60 gallons) is meaningless
from the standpoint of how much hot water it delivers or how much it costs
to operate.
This seems so counterintuitive that no wonder a lot of people are confused,
even me. But then, like countersteering on a bicycle, sometimes you do turn
left to go right.
At the moment, it seems that the actual capacity of the tank is a nearly
meaningless number (except for dimensional reasons) - as is the warranty -
based on that web page (since both the FHR and ER already take into account
the tanks' size).
Donna
Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator
> Consider the case where one heater has poor insulation and a very
> efficient burner, and the other has a poor burner and better insulation. Both
> have the same EF, both cost the same to operate over a year. Which one do you
> buy?
I thought MORE about what you wrote and you're ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!
The insulation was suggested by someone else (not me). I agree with you,
the thickness of the insulation, in and of itself, is as meaningless as the
volume of the tank, in and of itself.
What seems meaningful isn't the warranty.
It's not the volume of the tank.
It's not the thickness of the insulation.
It's not even the total energy costs (since they make assumptions which
might not be true).
What seems meaningful is the ER and the FHR which take into account ALL
those factors (and more).
So my conclusion (open for discussion) is that what matters is:
- Get the desired FHR needed (e.g., 65 to 75 gallons is fine for me
- Get the desired ER (I wish I could find a .62 instead of .59 ERs)
- Get the right PHYSICAL SIZE (e.g., a 40-gallon tank is 50 inches tall)
Some other factors which _might_ be interesting are:
- Your article said try to get an ELECTRONIC flame igniter
- The Home Depot guy tried to sell me on the maintenance-free ones
(He said they had a fan that stirred up the sediment)
- Some folks recommended "better" valves for cleaning out the sediment
Donna
Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator
wrote:
>> $608 SG40T12AVH/182-755 72galFHR 0.59EF ??KBTU 40gal 6-yr(drain 2x/year)
>> $658 SG50T12AVH/183-717 80galFHR 0.58EF ??KBTU 50gal 6-yr(drain 2x/year)
>> $677 SG40T12AVH/182-786 72galFHR 0.59EF ??KBTU 40gal 9-yr(self cleaning)
>> $718 SG50T12AVH/184-076 80galFHR 0.58EF ??KBTU 50gal 9-yr(self cleaning)
>> $728 SG40T12AVH/182-953 68galFHR 0.59EF ??KBTU 40gal 12-yr(self cleaning)
>> $783 SG50T12AVH/185-191 83galFHR 0.58EF ??KBTU 50gal 12-yr(self cleaning)
For the record, this reference, pointed to me by someone on this thread, is
FANTASTIC for helping a consumer figure out which gas water heater to buy!
http://www.gamanet.org/gama/inforesources.nsf/vContentEntries/Product+Directories?OpenDocument
The actual document for a gas water heater is
http://www.gamanet.org/gama/inforesources.nsf/vAttachmentLaunch/C2AAFB8D41D003F485256E9000607F66/$FILE/12-07-gas-rwh.pdf
I'm reading it now to learn more.
A lot of what people said is right but a lot is wrong.
It's so hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.
But I'm trying!
Donna
Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator
wrote:
> A lot of what people said is right but a lot is wrong.
> It's so hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Nobody mentioned the payback calculation yet.
I'm trying to run the calculations in the invaluable Dec. 2007 document
http://www.gamanet.org/gama/inforesources.nsf/vAttachmentLaunch/C2AAFB8D41D003F485256E9000607F66/$FILE/12-07-gas-rwh.pdf
Given current PG&E cost per therm in my area
http://www.pge.com/tariffs/GRS.SHTML#GRS
of between $1.21 to $1.44 per therm
http://www.pge.com/tariffs/pdf/G-1.pdf
For those calculations, does an average cost per therm in my area of $1.33
seem reasonable to you?
Donna
James Sweet
>
> For those calculations, does an average cost per therm in my area of $1.33
> seem reasonable to you?
>
Look at your utility bill, it should say exactly what the cost per therm is,
they may call it CCF. That number sounds a little high, but then it varies
by area and the cost has multiplied by several times in the last 10-15
years. I pay around $1.15 per therm, I still remember when it was closer to
33 cents.
Malcolm Hoar
>Do you care? Consider the case where one heater has poor insulation and a very
>efficient burner, and the other has a poor burner and better insulation. Both
>have the same EF, both cost the same to operate over a year. Which one do you
>buy?
It depends on your usage. EF assumes typical usage patterns,
whatever that is.
If your usage is above typical, go for the better burner.
If your usage is below typical, go for the better insulation.
EF is not the holy grail, unless you actually know for a
fact that your usage patterns mirror those assumed in the
EF calculation.
Bob Shuman
I just attach a short section of garden hose and then open the bottom drain
for a minute or so every few months to keep the sediment to a minimum in my
gas HWH tank. I am fortunate enough to have a floor drain there in my
basement so this is fairly easy to do.
Also, if you can find a tank with the exact same dimension (Height x Width)
and that has the gas inlet, exhaust flue, cold water inlet, and hot water
outlet all located in exactly the same position/heights (or as near as
possible), then it makes the installation much simpler.
I also agree with the suggestion of installing the fiberglass "blanket"
insulation regardless of which model you choose to make it as efficient as
possible.
Good luck!
Bob
"Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator" <donn...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message news:8mRrj.6644$5K1...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator
> I just attach a short section of garden hose and then open the bottom drain
> for a minute or so every few months to keep the sediment to a minimum
We *should* have done that but never did.
This article says almost nobody drains their tanks nowadays:
http://hkentcraig.com/2WHarticle.html
So, I don't feel too badly.
Also, Home Depot GE salespeople on the phone tried really hard to sell me
the patented little fan that stirs up the sediments.
It would be nice to find an article that scientifically looks to see if
those sediment stirrers really worked or not.
Consumer Reports was a total disapointment as they told me to buy based on
warranty - which is a marketeer's dream. I'm surprised at Consumer Reports,
but, the older (and wiser) I get, the more I realize they don't know what
they're doing. Sigh.
Dan Rather, and now Consumer Reports.
Another trusted icon bites the dust!
All I have left is you!
Donna
Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator
> $50 permit? Call city hall and see if a permit is required.
I called this morning and the town said I need a PLUMBING permit because
it's a gas heater. I forgot to ask the price but the installer will handle
that for me (and charge me).
I just hope there isn't the 8.5% sales tax charged on top of the permit
costs!
As Will Rogers said, thank God we don't get as much government as we pay
for!
Donna
Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator
> The energy factor tells you how well much of the gas is
> converted into hot water. A low rating on a gas heater
> means lots of therms (energy) are going up the flue.
Hi Malcolm,
I did more research. Apparently, all GE water heaters sold by HD are made
by Rheem who also makes a water heater with an EF of 0.62 but it's hard to
find in a HD store. I'm gonna try Sears at 800-877-6420.
$360 ($675 installed) GG40T06TVG/182-785 FHR=68 gal EF=0.62 40,000 BTUs
The nearly meaningless specs are 40-gallon capacity & 6-year warranty.
$420 ($730 installed) GG50T06TVG/184-045 FHR=83 gal EF=0.62 40,000 BTUs
The nearly meaningless specs are 50-gallon capacity & 6-year warranty.
I am trying to figure out the calculation for the payback time given the
difference between an EF of 0.59 and the EF of 0.62.
Do you think it's worth it to pay (how much) more and go to more trouble to
find a residential gas hot water heater with the EF of 0.62 (given my
current cost per therm of $1.33)?
Donna
PS I'm gonna try the math for FHR & ER payback calculations here
http://www.gamanet.org/gama/inforesources.nsf/vAllDocs/Education?OpenDocument
Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator
> I pay around $1.15 per therm,
> I still remember when it was ... 33 cents.
I pay around $1.33 per therm.
I'm going to do the calculations today.
I just called Sears Kenmore (actually AO SMith State Industries makes all
the Kenmore brands) asking for their highest-efficiency consumer hot water
heater models.
- Sears Kenmore Home Water Heater Department: 1-800-877-6420
Here's the summary from Sears for the 40-gallon 12/1 year water heater:
- $420/$853 #33144 FHR 81 gallons, EF 0.63, BTU 40K,
- 58" tall, 20.5" diameter, 63.5" tall with diverter
Here's the summary from Sears for the 50-gallon 12/1 year water heater:
- $450/$885 #33154 FHR 97 gallons, EF 0.63, BTU 40K,
- 59.5" tall, 22" diameter, 65" tall with diverter
The installation fee includes a bunch of possibly mandatory extras.
- Mandatory Installation Fee $300
- Mandatory Disposal Fee $10
- Mandatory Plumbing Permit $77
- Mandatory Flex Pipe Replacement $46
- Mandatory Sales Tax on the water heater ~8.75%
- Possible Earthquake Straps $68
- Possible pipe retrofit fees ~100
- Possible trip charge of $35 to $80 if any service is refused
I still have to do the calculations to see if the EF makes any real
difference at a cost per therm of $1.33 particularly since the "average"
water heater at HD was 0.58 or 0.59 EF, but I could special order a HD one
with 0.62 EF but I could get from Sears one with an EF of 0.63.
I wonder how much exactly it all matters ... for that ... I need to build
the calculations.
I think I have enough now - certainly more than I ever thought I needed to
know - to make a reasonable not-dumb decision on replacing my home water
heater that started leaking yesterday morning.
Please let me know if you have any calculators on the web which can COMPARE
two home water heaters given the specs we have posted in this thread!
Thanks,
Donna
N8N
If you plan on flushing the tank and inspecting the anode annually
from here on out, I would expect that the higher efficiency model will
be your better buy unless the price is *significantly* higher. Proper
maintenance could make the tank last 30 years or more, it's just that
few people actually do it.
I write the flush/inspection dates right on the side of the tank in
Sharpie, that reminds me when it's time to do it again.
nate
hal...@aol.com
might save 4% on a more efficent model.
4% of $300 is $12 bucks a year, thats no biggie.
now the 90+ tanks might cut your water heating bill by nearly half,
but purchase cost will be a lot more
Logan Shaw
> Both tanks will use the same amount of energy to heat the water you are using
> directly. If both tanks have the same efficiency and the same insulation, the
> smaller tank will lose less energy to the outside air and thus be slightly less
> expensive to operate over the course of a year.
True, but there's one minor complication: the larger tank will
probably have a smaller ratio of surface area to volume[1]. Since
surface area is basically what determines the rate of heat loss[2],
a tank that's double the size will not lose heat at double the rate.
So while the larger tank will lose more heat, the increase in lost
heat is smaller than linear.
On the other hand, having a water heater with a large capacity can
encourage people to take excessively-long showers if they are already
inclined in that direction, and having a water heater with a small
capacity can definitely discourage long showers. :-)
- Logan
[1] As a starting point for visualizing this, imagine a 100-gallon
water heater as simply two 50-gallons stacked on top of each
other. When you stack them, the bottom of the upper one and
the top of the lower one will be up against each other and
thus not losing heat from that surface. So you've eliminated
some surface area. Real water heaters will have different
proportions, but the same basic idea applies. If you model
them as spheres, volume is proportional to the cube of the
radius but surface area is proportional to the square.
[2] ... along with temperature difference, but that's a constant
here, so we can eliminate it from this comparison.
Edwin Pawlowski
"Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator" <donn...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message
>
> The installation fee includes a bunch of possibly mandatory extras.
> - Mandatory Installation Fee $300
> - Mandatory Disposal Fee $10
> - Mandatory Plumbing Permit $77
> - Mandatory Flex Pipe Replacement $46
> - Mandatory Sales Tax on the water heater ~8.75%
> - Possible Earthquake Straps $68
> - Possible pipe retrofit fees ~100
> - Possible trip charge of $35 to $80 if any service is refused
Do you get a choice of KY or Vaseline too?
Call al local plumber and save a bundle of money. The flex pipe should be
replaced with every installation though.
hal...@aol.com
> "Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator" <donna....@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
or a local handyman, tanks are easy to change, few DIYers get permits
tra...@optonline.net
What on that list is so excessive or wouldn't incur a similar charge
from a local plumber? They all seem within reason, depending of
course on the area.
Edwin Pawlowski
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:6fc777ee-3fad-467f-b11c-
>
>
> > The installation fee includes a bunch of possibly mandatory extras.
> > - Mandatory Installation Fee $300
> > - Mandatory Disposal Fee $10
> > - Mandatory Plumbing Permit $77
> > - Mandatory Flex Pipe Replacement $46
> > - Mandatory Sales Tax on the water heater ~8.75%
> > - Possible Earthquake Straps $68
> > - Possible pipe retrofit fees ~100
> > - Possible trip charge of $35 to $80 if any service is refused
> What on that list is so excessive or wouldn't incur a similar charge
> from a local plumber? They all seem within reason, depending of
> course on the area.
The total is in the $680 range for most options. Start with he basic $300
charge. Double what a local guy may charge. Permits can very , but probably
closer to $25 if you actually get one. I'd not get one. What about that $80
trip charge? Sears will hose you no matter what. Last place I'd go.
tra...@optonline.net
> <trad...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:6fc777ee-3fad-467f-b11c-
>
> > > The installation fee includes a bunch of possibly mandatory extras.
> > > - Mandatory Installation Fee $300
> > > - Mandatory Disposal Fee $10
> > > - Mandatory Plumbing Permit $77
> > > - Mandatory Flex Pipe Replacement $46
> > > - Mandatory Sales Tax on the water heater ~8.75%
> > > - Possible Earthquake Straps $68
> > > - Possible pipe retrofit fees ~100
> > > - Possible trip charge of $35 to $80 if any service is refused
> > What on that list is so excessive or wouldn't incur a similar charge
> > from a local plumber? They all seem within reason, depending of
> > course on the area.
>
> The total is in the $680 range for most options.
Install 300
Disposal 10
Permit 77
Flex Pipe 46
That's $433 plus tax for a straightforward typical job. You may be
able to get it done for less, but it's not an outrageous price either.
Start with he basic $300
> charge. Double what a local guy may charge.
$300 is a typical price here in NJ.
Permits can very , but probably
> closer to $25 if you actually get one. I'd not get one.
Any decent licensed plumber is going to get a permit, if one is
required. It's not a customer option, either you need one or you
don't. Now $77 may be a bit high, but with the way all kinds of fees
and permit charges have been jacked up here and in many other parts of
the country, it wouldn't surprise me to find that it could cost that
much. How about the plumber's time in going and getting it?
What about that $80
> trip charge? Sears will hose you no matter what. Last place I'd go.
What $80 trip charge? That was IF SERVICE IS REFUSED. Meaning they
make a wasted trip and are locked out, etc.
hal...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
sears charges a trip charge for travel.
as a matter of fact if you get your furnance with air serviced they
charge a trip charge twice, then discount the second trip charge by
half.........
sears is a rip off that deserves to go into the dustbin of retail
history
Lou
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:6fc777ee-3fad-467f...@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
It's been better than a couple of decades since I bought a new water heater,
and that one was electric, but...
the installation fee seems high - enough to double the cost of the
appliance.
sales tax on the heater? - I seem to remember that something that becomes
part of real property is sales tax exempt, if you file the proper
certificate, in NJ anyway
earthquake straps?
The one time I had to replace the water heater, I bought it from Sears - the
installed price was better than an independent plumber, the service was fast
(called in the morning, heater was in that afternoon) and the installer was
pleasant and informative. A lot can change in 20+ years, but if/when I
again need a new heater, I'll at least see what they have to say.
Also, all the back and forth about the relative cost of operating a smaller
heater compared to a larger one seems to me to be fairly easily resolved -
take a look at the energy guide label. When I pick a 30 gallon heater and a
50 gallon heater at random and compare the estimated annual operating cost,
the difference is $7.00 a year in favor of the smaller heater. Your actual
operating costs will depend on the cost of fuel in your area and your actual
usage, but while I don't advocate getting a larger heater than you need, the
annual operating cost difference doesn't seem like a reason to get something
smaller than you could use.
Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator
> Permits can very , but probably closer to $25 if you actually get one.
You must get a plumbing permit in my town:
Home Depot charges $77
Lowes charges almost $90
Sears charges $95 for that same permit.
The overall installation fee (includes all sans tax & straps) is:
$400 Home Depot 877-467-0542
$410 Lowes 877-465-6937
$433 Sears 800-877-6420
What would a typical plumber have charged for the permit and installation?
Donna
Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator
> Also, all the back and forth about the relative cost of operating a smaller
> heater compared to a larger one seems to me to be fairly easily resolved -
> take a look at the energy guide
It turns out a lot of people were dead wrong on efficiency, including me.
According to the www.gamanet.org web site, operating a 40-gallon hot-water
heater is no more or less efficient than operating a 50-gallon hot-water
heater.
The only thing that matters for efficiency is the Energy Factor (EF) which
takes into account the tank size, insulation, and burner BTU.
Reference site: http://www.gamanet.org/gama/inforesources.nsf
So, if a 40 gallon hot-water heater has an EF of, say, 0.63 while a
50-gallon hot-water heater has an equal EF of 0.63, then the costs are
EXACTLY the same to operate the two heaters!
The math is all spelled out for us in the PDF at:
http://tinyurl.com/38eh4d
http://www.gamanet.org/gama/inforesources.nsf/vAttachmentLaunch/C2AAFB8D41D003F485256E9000607F66/$FILE/12-07-gas-rwh.pdf
Since almost all of us were dead wrong on this one, it would be nice if
someone can read that reference document and let me know if my new
conclusions that size doesn't matter has any flaws in it as I publically
state that all that matters is the EF (based on my reading ten times of
that document).
Donna
Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator
wrote:
> The math is all spelled out for us in the PDF at:
> http://tinyurl.com/38eh4d
> http://www.gamanet.org/gama/inforesources.nsf/vAttachmentLaunch/C2AAFB8D41D003F485256E9000607F66/$FILE/12-07-gas-rwh.pdf
>
> Since almost all of us were dead wrong on this one, it would be nice if
PLEASE DOUBLECHECK THESE HOT-WATER-HEATER CALCULATIONS!
Here are the necessary calculations I believe we need to make in order to
compare two gas-fired water heaters. All calculations are courtesy of the
referenced PDF and charts at www.gamanet.org except the energy costs which
are courtesy of PG&E at http://www.pge.com/tariffs/pdf/G-1.pdf
In reality, these calculations would need to be done for at least a
half-dozen different water heaters (two each from Lowes, Sears, and Home
Depot, for example) in order to properly choose an available water heater
intelligently.
For simplicity, I'll use the values I plugged into the calculations for my
home; yours may differ but the mathematical approach is exactly the same.
0. Calculate minimum legal efficiency (EF)
1. Calculate maximum peak-hour requirements (FHR)
2. Calculate total installed price ($/installation)
3. Calculate yearly operating costs ($/year)
4. Calculate payback period (months/installation)
Here are my calculations.
PLEASE CHECK FOR ERRORS OR OMISSIONS AS WE ALL ARE LEARNING FROM THIS!
0. Calculate the minimum energy factor required by federal & local law:
(based on October 1990 Dept. of Energy Test Procedure for Water Heaters as
published in the May 11, 1998 Federal Register.)
For gas-fired residential water heaters, the minimum energy factor is:
Minimum EF for 40-gallon water heaters = 0.67 - 0.0019 * 40 = 0.58
Minimum EF for 50-gallon water heaters = 0.67 - 0.0019 * 50 = 0.59
Note: Southern California uses different legal minimum numbers than
northern California so be advised to modify the calculation for your area!
1. Determine your peak requirements:
20 gallons per shower x 2 showers in one hour = 40 gallons per hour
20 gallons per bath x 0 baths in one hour = 0 gallons per hour
2 gallons per shave x 0 shaves in that hour = 0 additional gallons
4 gallons per personal wash x 0 = 0 additional gallons
4 gallons per shampoo x 0 = 0 additional gallons (do it in the shower)
4 gallons per hand dishwashing x 0 dishes = 0 gallons
14 gallons per dishwasher load x 1 load = 14 additional peak gallons
5 gallons per food preparation x 1 meal = 5 additional gallons
26 gallons per wringer wash x 1 load = 26 additional peak gallons
32 gallons per automatic wash x 0 loads = 0 additional peak gallons
-----
TOTAL PEAK GALLONS = 40 + 14 + 5 + 26 = 85 gallons First Hour Rating
2. Determine price installed (inclusive):
Sears 33154 is $882 ($449 for the heater + $433 for full installation)
HD 183-717 is $747 ($349 for the heater + $398 for full installation)
3. Determine yearly operating costs given your basal energy unit, FHR, EF,
and average-use assumption.
For simplification, I'll only compare two heaters but the calculator we
create needs to cover at least a few at a time. I did this in Excel for
current northern California baseline (Schedule G-1 Residential Service)
energy rates.
CHOICE A:
Sears 33154 (marketed as Kenmore but made by AO Smith) FHR=97 EF=0.63
(41,045 btu/0.63)($1.21106/therm * 1 therm/100,000 btu) x 365 = $288/year
CHOICE B:
Home Depot 183-717 (marketed as GE but made by Rheem) FHR=80 EF=0.58
(41,045 btu/0.58)($1.21106/therm * 1 therm/100,000 btu) x 365 = $313/year
Note: Irrelevant specs would have been tank size, burner BTUs, gallons to
recovery to 90 degrees in one hour, etc. as the only figures that matter
for the calculations are the EF and the FHR since they take into account
all other design-size specifications such as those you quoted.)
4. Determine payback period:
a. Additional cost of more efficient model = $882 - $747 = $135
b. Annual savings of more efficient model = $313 - $288 = $25 per year
c. Payback period = $135 / $25 * 365 / 30 = 65 months (5.4 years)
5. Determine overall savings:
The two water heaters compared in this simplified calcuation would be
equivalent in overall costs at approximately 5 and a half years.
Considering the average water heater lasts 13 years, total savings for the
more expensive yet more economical heater would be:
(13 years - 5.4 years) * $25/year = $190 savings overall
6. Choose the correct water heater:
Based on the math everyone should perform when selecting the proper water
heater, I would buy the Sears 33154, which will save me almost 200 dollars
over its lifetime over the Home Depot 183-717 assuming current energy
prices and average usage.
Note: In reality, one needs to compare at least a half-dozen water heaters;
here I only compared two for simplicity. I knew none of these calculations
just two days ago, so, PLEASE CHECK MY NUMBERS after reading the reference
document I refer to.
If the numbers hold water, then this should go into the alt.home.repair FAQ
for everyone to benefit from all our efforts to understand how to properly
size & select a home water heater replacement (yes, I know there are
physical size issues also but this tutorial is already too long to go into
those details).
Donna
Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator
>>What's the easiest way to compare heat leakage between two water heaters?
>
> Look at the yellow energy label on the heaters. The annual cost to operate
> printed there can be compared on different models.
Actually, since my cost per therm is far from the average used for those
stickers, the sticker numbers are innacurate in my situation.
The sticker numbers might work to roughly compare two models in performance
but they don't work to calculate the true payback period for two models.
For that, the math I've posted today should be sufficient (assuming the
calculations hold water under scrutiny of this esteemed group).
Donna
James Sweet
Jeez.
I'd feel like I was ripping someone off if I charged more than 100 bucks to
install a water heater, but then I'm not licensed or bonded so I don't do
this for random people, but still, last one I did took less than an hour,
it's literally 3 threaded pipes and a flue vent.
Best way to find out what a plumber charges is to call one.
James Sweet
It's really easy to take the cost shown on the sticker and extrapolate the
actual cost in your area. Cost per year on sticker/cost per therm on sticker
= X/Your cost per therm, solve for X.
Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator
>>Heating less water costs less, even with equally efficient heaters.
> Sigh. Absolutely true and totally meaningless within the context of this
> discussion.
> Hint: Direct energy cost is based on _use_ and efficiency, not _capacity_ and
> efficiency.
It turns out Rick is right.
The size of the home water heater (e.g., 40 gallons, 50 gallons, etc.) is
nearly meaningless, as is the warranty period.
The only way the tank size plays any role in the selection process for
purely physical reasons. Why? Because both the EF and the FHR already take
into account the size of the holding tank so there is no need to even
bother to look at tank size (other than for purely physical reasons).
Likewise, the warranty is always less than the average lifetime of a home
water heater, which, at 13 years, is vastly greater than the 1-year labor
warrantees all the heaters I looked at (from Sears, Lowes, and Home Depot)
provided. (Note: The 12yr/9yr/6yr/etc. warranty figures often quoted by
Sears/Lowes/HomeDepot are for PARTS! Not labor).
Thanks everyone for enlightening me ... If I didn't know better, I'd buy by
the size of the tank and the warranty but now I know they are meaningless
figures. The manufacturer WANTS you to look there but in reality, the
truthy lies in the FHV, EF, and cost/therm.
I didn't realize you guys knew so much about home water heaters ... but I'm
glad you do. In only two days, I was able to take my knowledge level, with
your help, from absolutely nothing to being able make basic lifetime cost
comparisons given any two home heaters.
Thanks!
Donna
Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator
> It's really easy to take the cost shown on the sticker and extrapolate the
> actual cost in your area. Cost per year on sticker/cost per therm on sticker
> = X/Your cost per therm, solve for X.
Hi James,
You're right.
I guess what I meant was I can "solve for X" without looking at the
sticker. I can call Sears, Home Depot, or Lowes and just ask for FHR & ER
and, from that (and my known cost/therm), I can compare two heaters side by
side:
CHOICE A:
Sears 33154 (marketed as Kenmore but made by AO Smith) FHR=97 EF=0.63
(41,045 btu/0.63)($1.21106/therm * 1 therm/100,000 btu) x 365 = $288/year
CHOICE B:
Home Depot 183-717 (marketed as GE but made by Rheem) FHR=80 EF=0.58
(41,045 btu/0.58)($1.21106/therm * 1 therm/100,000 btu) x 365 = $313/year
But, you are right. If I were in the store, I could basically double the
annual operating costs shown and I'd be in the ballpark.
Thanks! We learned a lot in this thread, didn't we!
Donna
Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator
> It's really easy to take the cost shown on the sticker and extrapolate the
> actual cost in your area. Cost per year on sticker/cost per therm on sticker
> = X/Your cost per therm, solve for X.
Hi James,
In running your calculations, I realized the EF is NOT shown on the energy
sticker! But, it can be derived. Is my match below correct?
Given an EnergyGuide sticker that says:
"This Model Uses 240 therms/year".
I think we can calculate the ER.
Does this calculation look right to you?
240 therms/year * 1 year/41,045,000 btu * 100,000 btu/1 therm = .58
The part of the math that escapes me is why this calculation uses 1,000
times the BTUs per year than the previous calculations. Any idea?
Donna
Only Just
This is all very good but can you trust the figures given by the
manufacturers as these are often derived by engineer calculations and
marketing guru's and are manipulated to suit their agenda.
an example of this is how many people ever get the rated fuel consumption as
stated by any vehicle manufacturers, also appliance manufactures have
devised ways of confusing the figures to get a better rating that it
actually uses. The best way to purchase the water system is to get one that
suits your requirements as in size and water capacity.
Justy.
hal...@aol.com
> "Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator" <donna....@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> messagenews:P6xsj.587$fX7...@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 06:16:38 GMT, Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator
> > wrote:
> >> The math is all spelled out for us in the PDF at:
> >>http://tinyurl.com/38eh4d
>
> >> Since almost all of us were dead wrong on this one, it would be nice if
> >> someone can read that reference document and check my calculations
>
> > PLEASE DOUBLECHECK THESE HOT-WATER-HEATER CALCULATIONS!
>
> > Here are the necessary calculations I believe we need to make in order to
> > compare two gas-fired water heaters. All calculations are courtesy of the
> > are courtesy of PG&E athttp://www.pge.com/tariffs/pdf/G-1.pdf
>
> - Show quoted text -
bottom line provided you buy a large enough heater the other
differences are minor,
operating costs warranty etc,
over the life of the heater, they in any form arent deal breakers. a
little shorter life, a little more cost, and as the last poster
pointed out manufacturers massage numbers, to make themselves look
good. small differences dont matter much
as long as you buy a decent tank you will be satisfied.
The FHR is largely dependent on burner size. the 75K BTU tanks cost
more but in the end what everyone wants is enough hot water. no
running out please......
tra...@optonline.net
> messagenews:P6xsj.587$fX7...@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 06:16:38 GMT, Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator
> > wrote:
> >> The math is all spelled out for us in the PDF at:
> >>http://tinyurl.com/38eh4d
>
> >> Since almost all of us were dead wrong on this one, it would be nice if
> >> someone can read that reference document and check my calculations
>
> > PLEASE DOUBLECHECK THESE HOT-WATER-HEATER CALCULATIONS!
>
> > Here are the necessary calculations I believe we need to make in order to
> > compare two gas-fired water heaters. All calculations are courtesy of the
> > are courtesy of PG&E athttp://www.pge.com/tariffs/pdf/G-1.pdf
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, the tests are done per EPA rules and specs by an independent
testing lab.
Now, on the other hand, those tests are performed under a certain set
of criteria based on an estimate of how the water heater would
actually be used. I would say the difference in how someone will
actually uses it in practice as compared to how it was tested, could
easily outweigh small differences in the recorded test data under the
controlled conditions. I would bet that a heater rated at an eff of .
61 vs one at .58 could easily be a wash or even upside down in actual
use. Same thing for the first hour rating.
In other words, over analyzing this whole thing is likely a waste of
time. Even the above payback analysis is flawed, because it ignores
the time value of money. Laying out $135 today and getting it back
over the next 6 years doesn't account for the fact that the money
could be earning a return. Or if you put the heater on a credit card
and pay interest, even for a short time, and the perceived savings are
gone. Take any of that into account and the difference between these
heaters shrinks.
Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator
> This is all very good but can you trust the figures given by the
> manufacturers as these are often derived by engineer calculations and
> marketing guru's and are manipulated to suit their agenda.
Hi Only Just,
I *think* you *can* trust these numbers (FHR & ER) ... but I'm just going
by the written facts. You have the experience I don't have.
The facts are that there are *independent* labs paid to *verify* that these
FHR and ER numbers are accurate, for example, OSHA recognizes ITSNA whose
numbers I quoted throughout the latter half of this thread.
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_id=16637&p_table=FEDERAL_REGISTER
Gama says, as of December 12, 2007, "Intertek Testing Services of Cortland,
New York (http://www.intertek.com/) has been retained as the program
administrator and *independent* testing laboratory responsible for
conducting efficiency *verification* tests on water heaters" (emphasis
mine).
If Intertek is truly "independent", and if they do randomly select units as
their product literature says, then I think you *can* trust these numbers.
Donna
Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator
> bottom line provided you buy a large enough heater the other
> differences are minor,
Hi Hallerb,
I agree the whole point is to buy a "large enough heater"; the only thing
I'm saying about that is "large enough" has almost nothing directly to do
with tank size. Certainly it has nothing to do with warranty.
My personal experience after spending frustrating hours on the
hot-water-heater specialists lines at Home Depot (877-467-0542), Lowes
(877-465-6937), and Sears (800-877-6420) is that these chains try very hard
to force me to buy by tank size and warranty. Extremely hard. That tells me
a lot.
You and I know very well that most water heaters are made by about 4
different companies and they are largely similar (given any class of EF and
FHR ratings).
Even knowing that, I can't tell you how many times I told the box stores I
didn't care one bit about the tank size nor the warranty ... only to have
them go right back to comparing all their heaters by tank size and
warranty, trying to sell me on the little widget that stirs up the sediment
at the bottom of the tank or the "lifetime" warranty that's really a 1-year
labor warranty and a one-shot on lifetime.
Even after I told them comparing water heaters by tank size (instead of
performance) and meaningless warranties (they're all one-year labor) was
like comparing all automobiles by engine size (instead of performance) and
the meaningless color of paint, they *still* insisted on describing their
home water heaters by tank size and warranty! That says a lot in and of
itself!
I was shocked Lowe's so-called hot water heater specialists didn't even
have the FHR for their offering (I had to call the store and have a guy
read it off the stickers!).
When someone who is selling you something is trying so very hard to make
you look elsewhere from the actual facts, that tells us a lot. Basically,
once you have sized by FHR and priced by total costs (taking into account
EF and your local cost/therm) ... the rest is irrelevant!
Thanks for helping enlighten me and put meat into this thread!
Donna
Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator
> the tests are done per EPA rules and specs by an independent
> testing lab.
I agree. Intertek Testing Services is supposedly independent. If anyone has
information otherwise, please post.
> In other words, over analyzing this whole thing is likely a waste of
> time. Even the above payback analysis is flawed, because it ignores
> the time value of money.
Very good point.
Here are the original calculations I posted for inspection:
a. Additional cost of more efficient model = $882 - $747 = $135
b. Annual savings of more efficient model = $313 - $288 = $25 per year
c. Payback period = $135 / $25 * 365 / 30 = 65 months (5.4 years)
e. Overall savings = (13 years - 5.4 years) * $25/year = $190
How would we change these to take into account the time value of money?
As always, I'll hazard my math to see if it stands up to scrutiny.
Using the compound interest calculator here ...
http://www.moneychimp.com/calculator/compound_interest_calculator.htm
that $135 at 5% compounded monthly over the 5.4 years payback period
actually costs $176.75 at the 65-month point.
You're right. That's a big difference! (I don't use credit cards so I won't
factor in the additional, but huge, credit-card costs if paid on
installment!)
Conversly, the annual savings over that same 65-month period is also
increased, from $25/year to $26.28 per year using the same 5% interest rate
compounded monthly.
This more accurate payback-period calculation then becomes $177 / $26 * 365
/ 30 = 83 months (6.9 years).
The overall savings now shrinks a whopping 16% from $190 when not taking
into account the time value of money, to (13 years - 6.9 years) * $26/year
= $159
Thanks for testing the math. Please let me know what you think of the new,
more realistic calculations which take into account the time value of
money.
Donna
PS Can someone in the field write a calculator to do all this math for us?
Bob Shuman
life.
The AVERAGE is exactly that: an average or mean calculation of the life for
all units shipped/sold. The real life span is affected by many things,
including the water quality/hardness (it consumes the anode quicker), the
temperature setting you select (hotter means it builds more internal
pressure and you get a shorter life) and the amount of hot water that you
use (more cycles of the burner mean a shorter life).
I am on my third gas HWH and purchased the house new in 1991. The first
heater lasted about 7 years and the second 6.5 years. I had a 7-year
warranty on the tank from Sears and they gave me a replacement free of
charge which has been in now for over 5 years. I believe that I will get a
longer life this time around since two of my children are no longer living
at home.
The bottom line here is that the warranty period may be important depending
on your circumstances. It is basically a cheap insurance policy that covers
only the cost of a replacement heater. For me, that was important since I
do the installation myself, but for someone hiring a plumber, the material
cost could easily be less than the labor and associated miscellaneous
expenses (permits).
Good luck in whatever you choose.
Bob
"Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator" <donn...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message news:bIxsj.57494$Pv2....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator
> I did want to read more, and not sure if I saw it or not,
> but why the quick Nay to the tankless design?
> Did anyone provide a credible counter-argument?
You can decide if it's credible but a counter argument to tankless home
water heater selection is here
http://www.waterheaterrescue.com/pages/WHRpages/English/Longevity/the-right-hot-water-heater.html
That web site also provides nice selection and installation advice (with
pictures!) for all hot water heaters, including those with tanks and
tankless.
Donna
hal...@aol.com
fit, with a high output burner to minimize running out of hot water,
the warranty is on high output tanks is 7 years. could of got a 12
year tank but I prefered more hot water over longer warranty which is
generally pro rated anyway and replacement usually based on list price
rather than sale price.
sometimes a tank on sale is cheaper than the same tank warranty
replaced.
minor $$$ savings are just that minor, like some fret buying a new
tank, to me its a low enough cost, like one candy bar a week who
cares,
bottom line i just want lots of nice hot water. costs are way below in
priority
Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator
> the warranty on high output tanks is 7 years. could of got a 12
> year tank but I prefered more hot water over longer warranty which is
> generally pro rated anyway and replacement usually based on list price
> rather than sale price.
Just to be clear, my research indicates ALL warranties (at least all those
from Sears, Home Depot, and Lowes) are really only 1 year labor.
I don't know about you, but, it's not likely I'll be disconnecting my water
heater and bringing it to the manufacturer after that one year is up.
May I ask a "real" question?
Given installation is about the same price as the home water heater itself,
what do you get for that vaunted 12 year warranty after the first year?
Sure, they'll replace it for free ... but it costs as much to replace as it
did to buy so ... tell me please (I'm not being fascesious) ...
WHAT does the warranty *really* buy you after the first year is up?
Donna
James Sweet
"Meat Plow" <me...@petitmorte.net> wrote in message
news:1krui6....@news.alt.net...
>
That's one reason I've never called a plumber. I know most of them aren't
getting rich, but still. I've been doing everything myself for so long that
I forget sometimes just how much it saves.
James Sweet
Well if I understand this right, when you buy the heater you pay for the
heater, plus you pay for the installation. For a warranty replacement you
pay for the installation, does that not save you the cost of the heater?
My line of thought is that a unit with a longer warranty is likely built
better, with better quality components, and thus likely to last longer.
Whether this is universally true I can't say, however last time I looked at
them, the 12 year warranty heaters did have a nicer fit & finish than the 6
year models, and the price difference was very small. I'll replace it myself
if it ever fails, and I'm sure it will outlast the warranty with the soft
water we have here, but if it's a higher quality unit I'm willing to pay for
that.
58plu...@gmail.com
> (41,045 btu/0.63)($1.21106/therm * 1 therm/100,000 btu) x 365 = $288/year
>
> (41,045 btu/0.58)($1.21106/therm * 1 therm/100,000 btu) x 365 = $313/year
I read the article you referenced at
http://www.waterheaterrescue.com/pages/WHRpages/English/Longevity/water-heater-preventive-maintenance.html
It doesn't say WHERE the 41,045 BTU number cames from.
What is this "magic" number of 41,045 BTU?
Bob Shuman
provides the reserve capacity. It is this the tank's storage capacity, in
conjunction with the burner size and the EF factor that determines the FHR
rating, which determines how much "hot" water you will get before it is
considered simply "warm" water. The storage capacity is also very important
in regards to determining the physical dimensions of the tank. (I has to
fit in the space allowed and the height and spacing of the exhaust flue,
water inlet, water outlet and gas inlet will be dependent on the tank's
size.)
I already posted my thoughts on warranty as well in a previous reply. The
bottom line here is you certainly know more than enough to make an informed
choice.
Bob
"Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator" <donn...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message news:yCDsj.1050$fX7...@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 05:34:49 -0800 (PST), hal...@aol.com wrote:
>> bottom line provided you buy a large enough heater the other
>> differences are minor,
>
> Hi Hallerb,
>
> I agree the whole point is to buy a "large enough heater"; the only thing
> I'm saying about that is "large enough" has almost nothing directly to do
> with tank size. Certainly it has nothing to do with warranty.
> Donna
58plu...@gmail.com
<donna....@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Does this calculation look right to you?
> 240 therms/year * 1 year/41,045,000 btu * 100,000 btu/1 therm = .58
>
> The part of the math that escapes me is why this calculation uses 1,000
> times the BTUs per year than the previous calculations. Any idea?
Why do you use 41,045 BTU in one calculation when you have the EF in
hand and 41,045,000 BTU in the reverse calculation when you're trying
to determine the EF?
What is this "magic" number 41.045 anyway?
Bob Shuman
newsgroups, then the warranty means a big deal. If you pay someone to
install, then it may not be as important, especially if the design,
materials, and construction quality is identical.
Bob
"Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator" <donn...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message news:ofFsj.8363$0o7....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
58plu...@gmail.com
>
> It doesn't say WHERE the 41,045 BTU number cames from.
>
> What is this "magic" number of 41,045 BTU?
Wrong reference.
http://www.waterheaterrescue.com/images/DayAndNight3.jpg
The right reference is
http://www.gamanet.org/gama/inforesources.nsf/vContentEntries/Product+Directories?OpenDocument
The document that has that calculation is
http://www.gamanet.org/gama/inforesources.nsf/vAttachmentLaunch/C2AAFB8D41D003F485256E9000607F66/$FILE/12-07-gas-rwh.pdf
But it still doesn't say where the "magic" 41,045 BTU comes from.
hal...@aol.com
know its still a pro rata warranty....
number of installed months, vs number of warranteed months, gives a
percentage, thats then applied to a brand new similiar heater at full
list price
on that one heater the sale price was less than the pro rata price,
kinda mad i bought my new one somewhere else........
warrantys are sales tools, they rarely help the purchaser much. wheres
your original invoice? company like sears might no longer be in
business in 8 years.........
just look at all the retailers who have goine out of business over the
years.....
a warranty from builders square or hechinger isnt worth the paper its
written on........
the BTU # is from the manufacturer, they vary from under 30,000 BTU to
75,000 BTU on my current tank.
higher btus cost more to build, better stronger burner and heavier
tank to take the added heat.
58plu...@gmail.com
> the BTU # is from the manufacturer, they vary from under 30,000 BTU to
> 75,000 BTU on my current tank.
I can't say that I know what the 41,045 BTU is in the calculation but
it can't be different for different gas burners because it's the same
number no matter what gas heater you use.
So it must be some kind of other "magic" number.
Only Just
The reason I brought up about the tests is that I have been informed that
the manufactures of refrigerators here in Aus have been using "Energy Star"
ratings for quite a while, The way they now measure these results is also
based on "Peak" start-up current so now the manufactures stagger the start
of all the motors in a refrig, eg, compressor starts then after a set period
the inner fan will start then the outside fan will start thus reducing that
start-up peak so it "Reduces" the energy rating so making it a more
desirable unit for the "Greenies" and the power saving conscious people but
only hiding the true power consumed, Also there has been numerous letters
written into the newspaper tech here about people not getting the same fuel
economy in their new vehicle that they bought and the result that they were
replied to was that they are only figures supplied by the manufacturer that
some test results came up with so they can compare different vehicles as set
by an industry standard. Remember that these tests are designed by the
industry and no matter who carries out the same tests providing that they
are using the same standards and criteria they will also receive the same
results to match.
Justy.
tra...@optonline.net
> "Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator" <donna....@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> messagenews:isDsj.931$fX7...@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:14:39 +1100, Only Just wrote:
> >> This is all very good but can you trust the figures given by the
> >> manufacturers as these are often derived by engineer calculations and
> >> marketing guru's and are manipulated to suit their agenda.
>
> > Hi Only Just,
>
> > I *think* you *can* trust these numbers (FHR & ER) ... but I'm just going
> > by the written facts. You have the experience I don't have.
>
> > The facts are that there are *independent* labs paid to *verify* that
> > these
> > FHR and ER numbers are accurate, for example, OSHA recognizes ITSNA whose
> > numbers I quoted throughout the latter half of this thread.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't believe it's accurate to say these tests were designed by the
industry. The manufacturers of water heaters certainly gave there
opinions and suggestions, but the actual test standards were arrived
at by the EPA. And different manufacturers have different opinions
of how the various water heaters should be tested. They were not even
close to being all in agreement.
However, I do agree with most of what you posted. Tests have to
assume some type of typical usage to come up with a way to do the
tests. And just like with cars, your mileage may vary, especially
if your usage is substantially different than the tests. And once
the tests are set in place, manufacturers will start to tweak there
designs to play the spec game. That's why I wouldn't go crazy trying
to figure this out to the last decimal place.
When I needed a new water heater, I went with another 50 gal unit,
which was what I already had. I did look at the energy efficieny
ratings and concluded that for my usage an average unit would be
fine. I went down to HD, bought it and installed it in one day. It
has a eff rating of .56, and cost me I think about $300 7 years ago.
I wasn't gonna lose sleep worrying over whether a .58 or .61 was gonna
make enough difference to be worth it.
I did get a 10 year warranty, which came in handy about 2 years ago.
The thermocouple went and State, who was the manufacturer, had a new
one here in 2 days for free.
Lou
"James Sweet" <james...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xAxsj.159$sh.74@trnddc07...
> > On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:02:20 GMT, Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> >> Permits can very , but probably closer to $25 if you actually get one.
> >
> > You must get a plumbing permit in my town:
> > Home Depot charges $77
> > Lowes charges almost $90
> > Sears charges $95 for that same permit.
> >
> > The overall installation fee (includes all sans tax & straps) is:
> > $400 Home Depot 877-467-0542
> > $410 Lowes 877-465-6937
> > $433 Sears 800-877-6420
> >
> > What would a typical plumber have charged for the permit and
installation?
> >
> > Donna
>
> Jeez.
>
> I'd feel like I was ripping someone off if I charged more than 100 bucks
to
> install a water heater, but then I'm not licensed or bonded so I don't do
> this for random people, but still, last one I did took less than an hour,
> it's literally 3 threaded pipes and a flue vent.
So, how are you counting your time? The work itself may take an hour or so,
but the plumber also has to drive to and from the installation site, and
that takes time. Sometimes the plumber will also have to drive to the store
or warehouse and pick up the heater.
And let's not forget that in order to drive, s/he needs a vehicle, one that
is probably more or less dedicated to the business, and that has to be paid
for also.
According to http://www.careeroverview.com/plumbing-careers.html the median
wage for a plumber in 2002 was $19.30/hour. Assuming a 40 hour work week
for 50 weeks a year, that comes to $38,600/year. Doesn't sound like a way
to get rich quick.
A question on the cost of the permit - how much would it cost if you went to
the town office and got the permit yourself?
Lou
"Only Just" <ifixit2@hotmail(dot)com> wrote in message
news:47b2d11e$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
((snip))
>
> This is all very good but can you trust the figures given by the
> manufacturers as these are often derived by engineer calculations and
> marketing guru's and are manipulated to suit their agenda.
> an example of this is how many people ever get the rated fuel consumption
as
> stated by any vehicle manufacturers, also appliance manufactures have
> devised ways of confusing the figures to get a better rating that it
> actually uses. The best way to purchase the water system is to get one
that
> suits your requirements as in size and water capacity.
Vehicle mileage estimates, or for that matter any estimates, are based on a
load of assumptions. Your actual experience will vary according to how
closely your situation matches the assumptions. By the way, vehicle
manufacturers follow a standard test procedure specified by federal law, and
the EPA confirms 10%-15% of the results by conducting its own tests.
I agree that the rated fuel consumption for motor vehicles is off - I
haven't averaged that low for at least 15 years. For instance, my car is
rated 20/29 for city/highway - last week I averaged 33.2 mpg in about 440
miles of mixed driving according to the car's odometer and the reading on
the pump when I gassed up on Friday evening. According the average mileage
display on the dashboard of the car, I got 34.1 mpg, and I suppose the
difference could be due to the attendant (no self service gas in NJ) filling
the tank right up to the gas cap and/or inaccuracies in the pump or
odometer, or even simply to the fact that I fill up the tank at the end of
the day (when the car and the gas is at its warmest) but do about half my
driving in the morning (when the gas is the coolest). Which means simply
that a full measured gallon on a Friday afternoon is probably less than a
gallon on Monday morning simply due to the expansion and contraction that go
with changes in temperature.
Lou
"Bob Shuman" <resh...@removethis.alcatel-lucent.com> wrote in message
news:47b301a4$1...@news.alcatel.com...
> A quick comment on warranty period and the AVERAGE home gas water heater
> life.
>
> The AVERAGE is exactly that: an average or mean calculation of the life
for
> all units shipped/sold. The real life span is affected by many things,
> including the water quality/hardness (it consumes the anode quicker), the
> temperature setting you select (hotter means it builds more internal
> pressure and you get a shorter life) and the amount of hot water that you
> use (more cycles of the burner mean a shorter life).
>
> I am on my third gas HWH and purchased the house new in 1991. The first
> heater lasted about 7 years and the second 6.5 years. I had a 7-year
> warranty on the tank from Sears and they gave me a replacement free of
> charge which has been in now for over 5 years. I believe that I will get
a
> longer life this time around since two of my children are no longer living
> at home.
>
> The bottom line here is that the warranty period may be important
depending
> on your circumstances. It is basically a cheap insurance policy that
covers
> only the cost of a replacement heater. For me, that was important since I
> do the installation myself, but for someone hiring a plumber, the material
> cost could easily be less than the labor and associated miscellaneous
> expenses (permits).
I think it matters no matter who does the installation - either way, you
didn't have pay for a new heater.
Lou
<hal...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d8313227-a022-497b...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> warrantys are sales tools, they rarely help the purchaser much. wheres
> your original invoice?
You keep all of that stuff, and not just in case you ever need to invoke the
warranty - you keep it for tax or insurance purposes.
You keep this stuff in a file folder in a drawer - it takes a few second to
put it there when you buy something new. Or in the case of something like a
water heater, you put it in a plastic bag and tape it to the appliance.
Lou
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:49:53 -0700, Rick Blaine wrote:
> >>What's the easiest way to compare heat leakage between two water
heaters?
> >
> > Look at the yellow energy label on the heaters. The annual cost to
operate
> > printed there can be compared on different models.
>
> Actually, since my cost per therm is far from the average used for those
> stickers, the sticker numbers are innacurate in my situation.
The labels show the estimated annual energy usage AND the estimated annual
cost, based on an average cost of fuel. Take the energy usage and multiply
by your own fuel cost assumptions.
> The sticker numbers might work to roughly compare two models in
performance
> but they don't work to calculate the true payback period for two models.
>
> For that, the math I've posted today should be sufficient (assuming the
> calculations hold water under scrutiny of this esteemed group).
I doubt that your calculations are "true" - in the way that you initially
didn't account for the time value of money, I didn't see that you took into
account the changing cost of fuel. What is today a $25.00 annual saving
could be a $50.00, $75.00, $100.00 (make your own assumptions) annual saving
a year or three down the line. Nor did you account for general inflation,
or even the normal tendency for people's income to rise over time - today's
annual payback might mean an hour or two of work a year, but assuming
constant fuel costs, it'll probably be less work time a year or two down the
line.
You can estimate payback periods only by making a cat's cradle of
assumptions.
James Sweet
> I agree that the rated fuel consumption for motor vehicles is off - I
> haven't averaged that low for at least 15 years. For instance, my car is
> rated 20/29 for city/highway - last week I averaged 33.2 mpg in about 440
> miles of mixed driving according to the car's odometer and the reading on
> the pump when I gassed up on Friday evening. According the average
> mileage
> display on the dashboard of the car, I got 34.1 mpg, and I suppose the
> difference could be due to the attendant (no self service gas in NJ)
> filling
> the tank right up to the gas cap and/or inaccuracies in the pump or
> odometer, or even simply to the fact that I fill up the tank at the end of
> the day (when the car and the gas is at its warmest) but do about half my
> driving in the morning (when the gas is the coolest). Which means simply
> that a full measured gallon on a Friday afternoon is probably less than a
> gallon on Monday morning simply due to the expansion and contraction that
> go
> with changes in temperature.
>
>
The expansion and contraction based on temperature for a volume as small as
a tank of fuel in a car are so tiny that you'd never be able to measure them
with anything around the house, and certainly not the odometer in your car.
The fuel temperature varies over a range of perhaps 60F max, usually much
less.
John Robertson
> A quick comment on warranty period and the AVERAGE home gas water heater
> life.
>
> The AVERAGE is exactly that: an average or mean calculation of the life for
> all units shipped/sold. The real life span is affected by many things,
> including the water quality/hardness (it consumes the anode quicker), the
> temperature setting you select (hotter means it builds more internal
> pressure and you get a shorter life) and the amount of hot water that you
> use (more cycles of the burner mean a shorter life).
>
> I am on my third gas HWH and purchased the house new in 1991. The first
> heater lasted about 7 years and the second 6.5 years. I had a 7-year
> warranty on the tank from Sears and they gave me a replacement free of
> charge which has been in now for over 5 years. I believe that I will get a
> longer life this time around since two of my children are no longer living
> at home.
>
The gas water heater in my house was old when I bought the place in
1998...and it is still running fine. I think it is about twenty years
old - no leaks so far! And I had three teenagers living here for a
number of years...
John :-#)#
--
(Please post followups or tech inquiries to the newsgroup)
John's Jukes Ltd. 2343 Main St., Vancouver, BC, Canada V5T 3C9
Call (604)872-5757 or Fax 872-2010 (Pinballs, Jukes, Video Games)
www.flippers.com
"Old pinballers never die, they just flip out."
N8N
Just to be devil's advocate, I used to have a Rabbit GTI that I got
with a bad gas cap; the first time I parked it in the sun with a full
tank of gas, the fuel started pouring out around the gas cap and down
the quarter panel :(
nate
hal...@aol.com
operating costs/
their real value is in comparing efficenies in a general way.
obviously a home with 8 kids will use a lot more hot water than a
single guy living alone.
with so many variables, incoming water temp, desired water temp,
amount of water used, cost of gas, etc etc,.
everything is a estimate
Bob Shuman
replace the one that developed the small leak within the 7-year tank rust
out warranty period. I did need to bring them the old tank though, which
was not an issue.
Bob
<hal...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d8313227-a022-497b...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Lou
Well, maybe I'm calculating wrong. There's an approximately 3% difference
between what I calculate as my miles per gallon for last week and what the
car calculated. The coefficient of expansion of gasoline is 0.069% per
Fahrenheit degree. Coincidentally, over a 30 degree temperature difference,
that's between a 2% and a 3% change in volume. For 15 gallons of gas, that
comes somewhere between 3 and 4 ounces of gas.
The meter on the pump reads out several digits to the right of the decimal
point - it appears that this level of accuracy is available at the gas
station. The odometer reads out only to the tenth of a mile, which means
that I don't have the accuracy at my end to calculate this by hand. I don't
know what the internal accuracy is when the car computes average miles per
gallon - I presume the fuel pump knows pretty precisely how much gas it's
pumped, and the odometer measures distance covered by counting revolutions
of something (one of the wheels?), and it seems reasonable that the internal
accuracy of the car's computation is more than adequate to notice a
difference of this magnitude.
I guess the other consideration is that the car is likely computing average
mpg using the gas burned (or at least, pumped to the engine) while any by
hand calculation is basing it on gas bought, and any difference the fill
level will throw the result off. Last week, the attendant took great pains
to fill the tank right up to the brim (he was evidently trying to get the
total to come out to a whole dollar amount), something that usually doesn't
happen. So I have no problem believing that I bought slightly more gas than
I burned.
Whichever figure is right and whatever the explanation, it still seems to me
that the mileage estimates published by the EPA are too low, and it's seemed
that way ever since I started paying attention (way too many years ago).
Tony Hwang
EPA figure is based on sea level wht IDEAL driving condition, weather,
road, wind, temp., etc.
hal...@aol.com
> EPA figure is based on sea level wht IDEAL driving condition, weather,
> road, wind, temp., etc.
EPA numbers are bogus the worst were on vehicles like PRIUS.
tests always favor the manufacturer..........
Vic Smith
<lpogoda...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>Whichever figure is right and whatever the explanation, it still seems to me
>that the mileage estimates published by the EPA are too low, and it's seemed
>that way ever since I started paying attention (way too many years ago).
>
Might be they don't account for your driving style. Might be
something else - not interested enough to look into it, but I'm
sure they lab test versus "real world."
Think you said you had an Impala, and the 3.1 engine coupled with the
GM lockup trans is an efficient combo. I consistently get 30-31 mpg
highway with mine ('97 Lumina) over a long stretch of varied terrain.
Measured by actual gas pumped into the tank over many thousands of
miles. My '88 Celebrity with the 2.8 did about 28 mpg, but always had
a heavier passenger load.
--Vic
Edwin Pawlowski
"Vic Smith" <thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>>Whichever figure is right and whatever the explanation, it still seems to
>>me
>>that the mileage estimates published by the EPA are too low, and it's
>>seemed
>>that way ever since I started paying attention (way too many years ago).
>>
> Might be they don't account for your driving style. Might be
> something else - not interested enough to look into it, but I'm
> sure they lab test versus "real world."
The news 2008 figures take real life into consideration and are much closer
to reality. Previous figures were ideal lab conditions.
Only Just
"Edwin Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net> wrote in message
news:E7etj.6146$xq2....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
It all points down to the fact that average Joe citizen can't tell the
difference unless he can find out exactly how they take all these
measurements (The method used and exactly what figures) that each company
used and how (If they did) manipulated those figures to get the result as
they publish. The main thing that the Government is interested in is a
standard across the relevant industry so everyone can make a comparison.
Justy.
tra...@optonline.net
> "Edwin Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net> wrote in message
>
> news:E7etj.6146$xq2....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>Whichever figure is right and whatever the explanation, it still seems to
> >>>me
> >>>that the mileage estimates published by the EPA are too low, and it's
> >>>seemed
> >>>that way ever since I started paying attention (way too many years ago).
>
> >> Might be they don't account for your driving style. Might be
> >> something else - not interested enough to look into it, but I'm
> >> sure they lab test versus "real world."
>
> > The news 2008 figures take real life into consideration and are much
> > closer to reality. Previous figures were ideal lab conditions.
>
> It all points down to the fact that average Joe citizen can't tell the
> difference unless he can find out exactly how they take all these
> measurements (The method used and exactly what figures) that each company
> used and how (If they did) manipulated those figures to get the result as
> they publish. The main thing that the Government is interested in is a
> standard across the relevant industry so everyone can make a comparison.
>
> - Show quoted text -
The tests are performed by independent labs to the EPA test procedures
and standards. It's not up to the maufacturers to decide how to
test, nor can they manipulate the results for the cars. Same thing
for the water heaters.