40 gal just not enough: Replacing water heater for 2400 sq home. Family of 2 adults + 2 children
Thomas G. Marshall
Ok, our 40 gal gas water heater is failing. About 10 years old, which I
hear is ok.
But every time I talk to someone about their 40 gal water heater, they all
complain that they run out of hot water (comparable size homes and kids).
Bur our builder (and all builder's we spoke to when looking to build)
*insist* that 40 gallons is enough.
But we were always worried about running the wash or dishwasher before
showering, or two long showers would result in the 2nd losing water.
Complete with those water saving disks etc.
1. Is 80 gallons overkill? Perhaps I'm reacting viscerally.
2. Am I going to notice a large gas usage increase?
3. Are there rules in place limiting the water tank sizes?
4. Are there any particular brands to look for or stay away from?
I'm sorry for the barrage of questions.
dpb
...
> 1. Is 80 gallons overkill? Perhaps I'm reacting viscerally.
In my experience, yes; but everybody is different. We raised four kids
and don't recall running out of hot water being a significant issue.
> 2. Am I going to notice a large gas usage increase?
Well, certainly it will go up -- how much will depend on how much more
hot water you end up actually using.
> 3. Are there rules in place limiting the water tank sizes?
Some jurisdictions, possibly altho I've not heard of it doesn't mean
there aren't...
> 4. Are there any particular brands to look for or stay away from?
No data...
Comments --
1. There's a middle between 40 and 80, too. What about 50/60???
2. If there's a particular bath that tends to be the problem area,
might consider the on-demand solution for the overloaded area.
3. Depending on house layout, two smaller each located strategically
might be a better solution than the single larger, too...
--
Glenn
"Thomas G. Marshall"
<tgm2tothe...@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:VMsKj.891$NM.653@trnddc01...
>
> Ok, our 40 gal gas water heater is failing. About 10
> years old, which I hear is ok.
>
> But every time I talk to someone about their 40 gal
> water heater, they all complain that they run out of
> hot water (comparable size homes and kids).
When I had two daughters home, I had two 40gal set up
in series. They make a 60 gal but 2 - 40's probably
would be cheaper.
Thomas G. Marshall
Another question that has always bugged me raises in me noggin.
What happens when half a tank is used up? Does ice cold water rush in and
cool everything down? Is it thus better to gang two together somehow to
have the 2nd take over when the first is refilling?
RicodJour
Instead of replacing the old with a newer version of the old, you may
want to look into a tankless water heater instead of keeping that 40+
gallons of water at ready-to-be-used temperature 24/7/365 when you
really only need the hot water for _maybe_ an hour a day. They've
been in use around the world for decades, but are just gaining
momentum in the US.
Here's one link: http://www.tanklesswaterheaterguide.com/ I haven't
read through that link, but it seemed to hit the high points and will
give you an overview - from there it's up to you and your finely honed
Google skills.
R
Jeff Cohen
"warm" water before cold as the hot water runs out.
I would agree that 40 is enough most of the time but you will run short
every now and then. I can't imaging a 60 gal not being adequate for you.
The idea of 2 x 40 gal is interesting, but I suspect it would use more
energy than 1 X 80 check the ratings, certainly more than 1 x 60 gal.
"Thomas G. Marshall" <tgm2tothe...@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:MftKj.3026$_I1.667@trnddc02...
Bill
> Instead of replacing the old with a newer version of the old, you may
> want to look into a tankless water heater instead of keeping that 40+
> gallons of water at ready-to-be-used temperature 24/7/365 when you
> really only need the hot water for _maybe_ an hour a day. They've
> been in use around the world for decades, but are just gaining
> momentum in the US.
> Here's one link: http://www.tanklesswaterheaterguide.com/ I haven't
> read through that link, but it seemed to hit the high points and will
> give you an overview - from there it's up to you and your finely honed
> Google skills.
>
Tankless is the way to go.
Just ask yourself, do you keep your auto running in the driveway so it will
be warm when you get in it?
They say tankless is 80% more efficient than an electric tank.
That one is more expensive, but it recoupes in cost in two to three years.
mike
Spare us the tankless marketing bullship. Standard water heaters DO
NOT run constantly. They are well insulated and have a large thermal
mass of water inside.
When tankless salesmen feel the need to trot out BS like that, it
makes me distrust any further "data" they want to push.
RicodJour
No, they don't run constantly, but they do maintain a large amount of
mass at a substantially higher temperature with relatively little
insulation. There's only one way to do that - throw money at it. The
standard water heater tank doesn't have a setback or vacation setting,
so it maintains that higher temperature regardless of the amount of
hot water actually needed, time of day, etc. Tankless is a superior
system for almost everyone. I don't buy anything based on what a
salesman or marketing department states without performing some due
diligence and investigating on my own.
R
Bill
I'm sorry you are that naive to technology.
Phisherman
<tgm2tothe...@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Ok, our 40 gal gas water heater is failing. About 10 years old, which I
>hear is ok.
>
>But every time I talk to someone about their 40 gal water heater, they all
>complain that they run out of hot water (comparable size homes and kids).
>
>Bur our builder (and all builder's we spoke to when looking to build)
>*insist* that 40 gallons is enough.
>
>But we were always worried about running the wash or dishwasher before
>showering, or two long showers would result in the 2nd losing water.
>Complete with those water saving disks etc.
>
>1. Is 80 gallons overkill? Perhaps I'm reacting viscerally.
>
Sounds a lot, but maybe that is what you need. Teenagers use the most
hot water for some reason.
>2. Am I going to notice a large gas usage increase?
Maybe. If you have more hot water, there may be less effort to
conserve.
>
>3. Are there rules in place limiting the water tank sizes?
>
No. But 80 sounds large. A tank with a different height may present
some installation issues, so allow for more time.
>4. Are there any particular brands to look for or stay away from?
Stick with well-known brands. I added a thermal blanket to my water
heater, plus insulated all the hot water tubes. I set the water
temperature to 125 degrees. Anything lower than 120 can grow bacteria.
Flush your tank twice a year and it should last longer than 10 years.
Blattus Slafaly 0/00 ? ? ?
run out and it stops running just as soon as you cut off the faucet.
I know because I had one.
--
Blattus Slafaly ? 3 :) 7/8
Stormin Mormon
>showering, or two long showers would result in the 2nd losing water.
>Complete with those water saving disks etc.
>
>1. Is 80 gallons overkill? Perhaps I'm reacting viscerally.
>
Sounds a lot, but maybe that is what you need. Teenagers use the most
hot water for some reason.
CY: Consider a low flow showerhead in the kids side of the house.
>2. Am I going to notice a large gas usage increase?
Maybe. If you have more hot water, there may be less effort to
conserve.
CY: Everyone will say "Hey, we got plenty... "
>
>3. Are there rules in place limiting the water tank sizes?
>
No. But 80 sounds large. A tank with a different height may present
some installation issues, so allow for more time.
CY: I know of no rules.
>4. Are there any particular brands to look for or stay away from?
Stick with well-known brands. I added a thermal blanket to my water
heater, plus insulated all the hot water tubes. I set the water
temperature to 125 degrees. Anything lower than 120 can grow bacteria.
Flush your tank twice a year and it should last longer than 10 years.
CY: If you turn the temp up, you risk scalding. However, a hotter temp means
the kids have to dial in more cold, so the water in the tank lasts longer. A
hotter temp and a "tempering valve" is an option.
Stormin Mormon
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"dpb" <no...@non.net> wrote in message news:ftdlnj$534$1...@aioe.org...
Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
...
3. Depending on house layout, two smaller each located strategically
Stormin Mormon
is to replace lost heat. Heat lost from the tank. That's lost through one of
several ways. Depending if it's gas or electric or fuel oil source,
different methods of heat loss.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Bill" <bar...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:E1uKj.32856$vr3....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
mike
> Salesman I'm not, someone who likes to save money, I am.
> I'm sorry you are that naive to technology.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Instead of replacing the old with a newer version of the old, you may
> > > want to look into a tankless water heater instead of keeping that 40+
> > > gallons of water at ready-to-be-used temperature 24/7/365 when you
> > > really only need the hot water for _maybe_ an hour a day. They've
> > > been in use around the world for decades, but are just gaining
> > > momentum in the US.
> > > read through that link, but it seemed to hit the high points and will
> > > give you an overview - from there it's up to you and your finely honed
> > > Google skills.
>
> > Tankless is the way to go.
> > Just ask yourself, do you keep your auto running in the driveway so it
> > will
> > be warm when you get in it?
>
> > They say tankless is 80% more efficient than an electric tank.
> > That one is more expensive, but it recoupes in cost in two to three years.
>
> Spare us the tankless marketing bullship. Standard water heaters DO
> NOT run constantly. They are well insulated and have a large thermal
> mass of water inside.
>
> When tankless salesmen feel the need to trot out BS like that, it
>
> - Show quoted text -
You're the one who thought that standard water heaters run
continuously and that tankless are 80% more efficient than tanks!
SNORT.
Maybe you should listen to someone besides your tankless salesman:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/02/08/ST2008020802253.html
But if you want spend dollars to chase pennies, more power to ya.
S. Barker
(something parents don't think they have to do anymore) Make rules and
enforce them. Teenager showers are 5 minutes long. Period. No hot water
problem, no outrageous water bills, no septic problems. (for those on
septics). We raised 2 boys and had countless others living with us over the
years and made do just fine on a gas 40 gallon unit.
and the tankless boys can stick them. I like HOT water. Not lukewarm
water.
s
"Thomas G. Marshall" <tgm2tothe...@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:VMsKj.891$NM.653@trnddc01...
Percival P. Cassidy
ISTR that the standard capacity in Australia was 60 gallons, with 80
gallons as a common upgrade -- and remember that these are "Real
gallons," each consisting of eight 20-ounce pints. The one already in
the house we bought in the US Midwest, however, is 50 (mini-)gallons.
I don't know how the various brands rate here in the USA, but Rheem was
common in Australia. When we built our house in Australia, however, we
used a local (I mean really local, not marketed outside that State,
AFAIK) brand that had a 25-yr warranty. One day I was wandering through
a shopping mall and got accosted by the salesdroid at a Rheem booth who
asked me how old my water heater was; when I told him "12 years," he
said, "Oh, so you'll be needing a new one soon"; when I told him the
brand I had, he said, "Oh, then you won't be needing a new one for a
long time yet." IOW, widely advertised brands aren't always the best.
Perce
tra...@optonline.net
>
> - Show quoted text -
Before concluding that 40gallons is the problem, I'd check the shower
heads and flow rates. You may find that reducing the shower flow a
bit means you will have enough hot water from a 40 and save energy
too. Also, it's possible the existing one has some serious
problems. If it's full of sediment, has a broken dip tube, etc, it
may not be performing anywhere near what a new one is capable of.
Check the first hour rating on the ones you are considering. That'a
a good indicator of how much water they can supply in typical high
demand hour.
If you do decide to go larger, I'd think a 50 with a good first hour
rating would probably be enough for most families of 4.
As others have pointed out, you can also consider tankless. Main
issues there are unit and installation cost, which can be higher
depending on existing gas lines. The TL needs a much larger gas
supply.
hal...@aol.com
75,000 btu. the higher the BTU the better.
Because we ran out occasionally we went from a 34,000 BTU 40 gallon
tank to a 75,000 BTU 50 gallon tank. I wanted a 75 gallon tank but it
wouldnt fit the available space between toilet and furnace.
Tankless tends to be a hot topic here........ from inadquate heat, =
cool showers if you live in areas that freeze in the winter, no hot
water at all in a power failure, if the tankless uses line voltage to
operate, no hot water with valve just open a little, super expensive
install, needing new gas line and occasionally a new meter. teenagers
given unlimited hot water might live in the shower. expensive service,
tankless are complex and require occasional service, standby losses in
current tanks is actually low, and stanby losses help heat your home
in the winter, so most of the heat isnt really lost. life is full of
sytandby losses, tv, cable boxes clocks etc etc. anything that draws
power when not in use is a standby loss......
your old tank is probably full of sludge decreasing its hot water
ability.
a new tankless will cost a fortune.......... 3 to 4 times a standard
tank which is highly reliable.
so lets talk tanks
upgrade from your old 40 gallon probably 40,000 btu to a 75 or 80
gallon 75,000 btu will likely give you about 4 times or more your
current hot water capacity. and in its life probably never need
service
you double the gallon capacity and double the burners BTU rating,
roughly 4 times the hot water.
no more cold showers:)
PeterD
<rico...@worldemail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 7, 2:59 pm, mike <yellowbird...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Spare us the tankless marketing bullship. Standard water heaters DO
>> NOT run constantly. They are well insulated and have a large thermal
>> mass of water inside.
>>
>> When tankless salesmen feel the need to trot out BS like that, it
>> makes me distrust any further "data" they want to push.
I was going to jump on Mike but then you proved him totally correct!
>
>No, they don't run constantly, but they do maintain a large amount of
>mass at a substantially higher temperature with relatively little
>insulation.
The insulation in most water heaters today is good and easily
supplicated as well. That's not a valid point at all.
>There's only one way to do that - throw money at it. The
>standard water heater tank doesn't have a setback or vacation setting,
Sure it does. Gas water heaters do have (and have had for years) such
as setting. An electric heater has the circuit breaker--kick it off
and the hot water cost is then zero.
>so it maintains that higher temperature regardless of the amount of
>hot water actually needed, time of day, etc. Tankless is a superior
>system for almost everyone.
Nope, not even slightly.
>I don't buy anything based on what a
>salesman or marketing department states without performing some due
>diligence and investigating on my own.
Which you didn't do here. There are many situations where tankless is
far from optimal.
Oh, and FYI, I've had both, and I'm totally satisfied with the results
of my 40 gal *tanked* water heater! We're not talking investigation
here, but real world experience.
Old Redneck
<tgm2tothe10thpo...@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote:
Get an 80 gallon water heater. Check the efficiency rating tag on the
heater and get the most efficient one. Ignore all other comments --
sometimes you can get too much information.
hal...@aol.com
>
> Get an 80 gallon water heater. �Check the efficiency rating tag on the
> heater and get the most efficient one. �Ignore all other comments --
> sometimes you can get too much information.
your far better off with a higher BTU tank........
incidently 2 tanks in series is best for added capacity....... but
doubles standby losses..
Tom Kendrick
The 50 covers master bath, washer, kitchen and dishwasher. The 40
handles the remaining bathrooms; 3 lavatories and 2 showers.
Our son would take 20 minute showers and then say that it got cold
when 40 gallons was gone. I now have 1.6 gpm nozzles in the two
bathrooms off the 40 gallon unit and the kids are gone as well.
Realize that the burner in the 40 and 50 are the same heat capacity
(BTU), so the 50 just has an extra 10 gallon reserve. We have also
recently replaced the laundry equipment with front-loaders that use
less water.
If you are taking two long showers AND running the washing machine AND
the dishwasher 80-100 gallons would NOT be overkill and you WILL see
double the gas usage. Here's why-
Right now, when all the hot water is gone, humans decide to come back
later, washers don't stop just because the input water temperature is
low, they just wash with cold water.
When you get two units, each is about 40,000 BTU/hour and you will be
running BOTH of them at the same time trying to recover from the
continuous usage. Since the water stays warm, the humans will extend
their showers and the washing equipment will use the same amount that
they do now. Hotter water does not reduce the cycle time.
Better go get those 1.6 gpm shower nozzles now. The kids can still get
clean in a finer spray, just using less water.
Paul M. Eldridge
wrote:
>Tankless is the way to go.
>Just ask yourself, do you keep your auto running in the driveway so it will
>be warm when you get in it?
>
>They say tankless is 80% more efficient than an electric tank.
>That one is more expensive, but it recoupes in cost in two to three years.
This is totally false. According to the U.S. DOE, the standby losses
of a conventional electric water heater with an EF rating of 0.93 are
331 kWh a year. At $0.10 per kWh, these losses amount to less than
$3.00 per month. And if you live in an area where heating demands
dominate and the tank is located inside a conditioned space, your
actual out-of-pocket expense would be even less.
In addition, if you install a tankless water heater and it results in
excessive strain on the utility's distribution system or adversely
impacts power quality (e.g., flickering lights due to high transient
load), you could be held personally liable for the full cost of any
necessary transformer and line upgrades; a next door neighbour
complaining to the power company about "bad power" could very well
cost you several thousands of dollars.
http://www.progress-energy.com/custservice/flares/builders/tankless.asp
Cheers,
Paul
Jim Redelfs
> 1. Is 80 gallons overkill?
Yes.
The 40-gallon water heater in our old house died just as our three
daughters "discovered" hot water.
I installed a 50-gallon. It was a PERFECT fit for the five of us.
In our next house, built in 1991 with one full and two 3/4 baths, we
have a 50-gallon heater and have virtually never run out of hot water.
> 2. Am I going to notice a large gas usage increase?
Probably not a LARGE increase. Your hot water consumption is what it
is, whether it is delivered using a 40-gallon tank or an 80. The cost
to heat a gallon of water will be the same with either tank. It's the
standby loss that would make the biggest difference between the two
sizes.
> 4. Are there any particular brands to look for or stay away from?
I think they're all the same. Price difference will be dictated by
length of tank warranty and BTU input.
Have your plumber install his spec model 50. Done. Have fun!
--
:)
JR
sherry
>
> - Show quoted text -
thought we needed watr heatr and researched tankless but was afraid
we'd lose our on demand feature and waitng 4 hot water would b an
issue..mayb ok 4 auxiliary hot water...good luck..sherry
Thomas G. Marshall
> On Apr 7, 12:34 pm, "Bill" <barg...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
...[snip]...
>> When tankless salesmen feel the need to trot out BS like that, it
>> makes me distrust any further "data" they want to push.- Hide quoted
>> text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> You're the one who thought that standard water heaters run
> continuously and that tankless are 80% more efficient than tanks!
> SNORT.
>
> Maybe you should listen to someone besides your tankless salesman:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/02/08/ST2008020802253.html
>
> But if you want spend dollars to chase pennies, more power to ya.
I think Bill was actually agreeing with that article, but that article
pretty much sells me on the tanks. Anyone here debunk that article at all?
hal...@aol.com
<tgm2tothe10thpo...@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote:
> mike said something like:
>
> > On Apr 7, 12:34 pm, "Bill" <barg...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> ...[snip]...
>
> >> When tankless salesmen feel the need to trot out BS like that, it
> >> makes me distrust any further "data" they want to push.- Hide quoted
> >> text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > You're the one who thought that standard water heaters run
> > continuously and that tankless are 80% more efficient than tanks!
> > SNORT.
>
> > Maybe you should listen to someone besides your tankless salesman:
>
> > But if you want spend dollars to chase pennies, more power to ya.
>
> I think Bill was actually agreeing with that article, but that article
> pretty much sells me on the tanks. �Anyone here debunk that article at all?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
whats to debunk the savings will take longer than the life of the
heater......
please explain how this is a advantage?
A: DEAR BOB: Tankless water heaters -- it's one of those topics that
seem to polarize people, and I have come to realize that many
consumers don't stop and ask all the right questions before they get
out their credit cards or checkbooks. It is impossible in this limited
space to fully discuss the topic.
I am going to stick to some basic facts I've gathered from my utility
bill, from water-heater manufacturers and from Web sites that sell
additional installation parts. I am adding a pinch of high school
math.
A tankless water heater can cost up to three times what a traditional
storage-tank water heater does. Some tankless water heaters that use
natural gas or propane require expensive stainless-steel exhaust-
venting pipes. The gas lines feeding the heaters need to be larger
than those required by a traditional model. This is not a challenge in
new construction like your vacation home, but it can add considerable
expense in an existing home where the fuel lines might need to be
redone.
Tankless water heaters are more energy-efficient than traditional
storage-tank heaters. A traditional water heater might be 60 percent
efficient, whereas a newer tankless heater often can produce
efficiencies of 80 percent or higher.
I studied my August 2007 utility bill and found that I spent about $36
on hot water using a traditional storage-tank heater for a family of
five sometimes taking two showers a day. My winter hot-water costs
could be expected to be slightly more because the temperature of the
incoming water is colder and must be heated longer to reach the
desired temperature.
We use our water heater every day. You may be using your water heater
for 40 to 50 days a year.
If I were to switch to a tankless heater today, I might save $7 per
month on the efficiency differential and maybe an additional $2 per
month on the amount of energy lost while the heated water sits in the
tank. This means a tankless water heater could save me $108 per year.
Let's be more aggressive and say $125 per year.
If my existing water heater failed today and I replaced it with a
tankless model sized for my family's needs, I would have to spend an
extra $1,550. It would take me nearly 12 1/2 years to break even. If I
included lost interest income on the extra money I spent for the
tankless model, the payback period would be longer.
In your case, the bottom line is far worse. It could take you at least
30 years to break even because the tankless water heater would sit
idle in your vacation home for most of the year. Tankless water
heaters must work hard every day to make economic sense for many
people.
ransley
>
> - Show quoted text -
The only bullship is your knowledge, at my previous location I
installed a $500 Bosch ng tankless, my bill went from 20 to no more
than 10$ in summer, that includes gas dryer and stove, my payback is 4
years, where I am now is Ng Tank and last summers gas bill is back to
no less than 22 with gas stove and dyer. Tank Ng are only near 60%
efficent even with an 82$ efficent burner.
ransley
Here we go again the same missinformation, with 90-100f temp rise
offered you cant have a cold shower, I cant shower at over 106f but my
unit takes 35f water and heats it to 125 if I was to be wastefull.
Mine has battery ignition and regular vent-No A.C. But I have a
generator for my home for heat.
It took me 5 hrs to install, but I guess thats "super expensive" for
you. I put in 3/4 gas but that was only 1 hr work, again easy and
cheap, my meter is original.
Tankless require no "service" but tanks are supposed to be flushed
every year.
20% of your loss is waste-up the chimney and out, of no benefit to
anyone but your gas supplier since true overall efficency is near
50-60% in " Energy Factor" proven ratings
I paid about 500$ for a Bosch 117000btu unit, I get a FOUR year
payback, I hardly see the 3-4x cost of waste, I see I am saving money
Tank, loose efficency every year due yo scale settling over the
burner, just as my last tank had over a foot of scale at the bottom,
its efficency was probably reduced 20-40%, tankless dont do that, and
its easy to pour lime away through mine. You cant do that with a tank.
ransley
<tgm2tothe10thpo...@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Ok, our 40 gal gas water heater is failing. About 10 years old, which I
> hear is ok.
>
> But every time I talk to someone about their 40 gal water heater, they all
> complain that they run out of hot water (comparable size homes and kids).
>
> Bur our builder (and all builder's we spoke to when looking to build)
> *insist* that 40 gallons is enough.
>
> But we were always worried about running the wash or dishwasher before
> showering, or two long showers would result in the 2nd losing water.
> Complete with those water saving disks etc.
>
> 1. Is 80 gallons overkill? Perhaps I'm reacting viscerally.
>
> 2. Am I going to notice a large gas usage increase?
>
> 3. Are there rules in place limiting the water tank sizes?
>
> 4. Are there any particular brands to look for or stay away from?
>
> I'm sorry for the barrage of questions.
Do you have water reducing shower heads and faucet strainers, Your
tank may not have the recovery or as I realy suspect, a waste of hot
water as in long showers and hw faucets run without concern. I would
not recommend a tankless with a large family that is not truely trying
to be conservative on water as it will likely cost more to heat with
tankless, Kids will do the 20 min shower. A 40 with faster recovery, a
bigger tank, will all work, so might education and conservation.
ransley
wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 14:50:30 -0400, "Bill" <barg...@bellsouth.net>
Depending on your local rate it could be easily 80% more efficent,
mine was about 75% cheaper converting from electric tank to Ng
tankless. Then again some have cheap hydro and expensive fossile fuel,
and savings could be Zero. Each person has their own unique set of
costs, for some tankless is best, for some that would need large
tankless and major gas work tankless are not worth it.
hal...@aol.com
>
> Here we go again the same missinformation, with 90-100f temp rise
> offered you cant have a cold shower, I cant shower at over 106f but my
> unit takes 35f water and heats it to 125 if I was to be wastefull.
>
> �Mine has battery ignition and regular vent-No A.C. But I have a
> generator for my home for heat.
>
> It took me 5 hrs to install, but I guess thats "super expensive" for
> you. I put in 3/4 gas but that was only 1 hr work, again easy and
> cheap, my meter is original.
>
> Tankless require no "service" but tanks are supposed to be flushed
> every year.
>
> 20% of your loss is waste-up the chimney and out, of no benefit to
> anyone but your gas supplier since true overall efficency is near
> 50-60% in " Energy Factor" proven ratings
>
> I paid about 500$ for a Bosch 117000btu unit, I get a FOUR year
> payback, I hardly see the 3-4x cost of waste, I see I am saving money
>
> Tank, loose efficency every year due yo scale settling over the
> burner, just as my last tank had over a foot of scale at the bottom,
> its efficency was probably reduced 20-40%, tankless dont do that, and
> its easy to pour lime away through mine. You cant do that with a tank.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
you said above
"Tankless require no "service" but tanks are supposed to be flushed
every year"
then talk of pouring lime away thru yours
"tankless dont do that, and its easy to pour lime away through mine.
""
frankly draing a little bit of water out of the bottom drain valve is
way easier than taking the plumbing apart to pour in lime away, which
isnt cheap, and then flush it out somehow.
plus you always talk of 20% going up the chimney as standby loss but
refuse to supply a link to verify that:(
people who go tankless have spent so much money they will have to
convince themselves it was a good move........
hal...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
electric almost always costs more than natural gas to heat water
S. Barker
I thought not. It doesn't matter if the junk mf's are FREE to run if you
can't get what you need out of them.
s
"ransley" <Mark_R...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c71781bf-81d8-4b3b...@m71g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
S. Barker
.... They'll always tell you they run better when they know good and well
it made no difference whatsoever...
s
<hal...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:f685f587-6c59-425e...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Paul M. Eldridge
Hi Mark,
We're really speaking of two separate things: efficiency and
cost-effectiveness based upon fuel choice and my comments pertain to
the former. The poster claimed a "tankless is 80% more efficient than
an electric tank" and this statement is categorically false.
As noted above, the standby losses of an electric water heater with an
EF of 0.93 or better are less than 1 kWh/day; at $0.10 per kWh, less
than $3.00 per month and during the winter months the net
out-of-pocket expense would be lower if the tank is located inside a
conditioned space (effectively nil if the home is electrically heated
and potentially net positive if heated with oil now that fuel oil in
many parts of North America is more expensive than electric
resistance).
Cheers,
Paul
tra...@optonline.net
> Kind of like the boys with the high dollar K$N filters on their trucks.
> .... They'll always tell you they run better when they know good and well
> it made no difference whatsoever...
>
> s
>
>
> news:f685f587-6c59-425e...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> people who go tankless have spent so much money they will have to
> convince themselves it was a good move........
I don't think that's fair. Ransley says he's actually bought one for
$500 and installed it himself relatively easy. And he's happy with
the results. I think his opinion is worth more than most here most
of whom don't have one and just sling mud. Especially those that
continue to spout misleading information, like "The heat loss from a
tank unit helps heat your home in the winter." It's been pointed out
repeatidly that much of the waste heat in a gas tank unit goes up the
flue. And the heat that escapes the sides of the tank only helps heat
the house if it happens to be in the living space, which isn't where
most are located. And then, in summer, the heat is still added to
the house and if you have AC as most do, then you're paying to remove
that heat. Yet, this same sad misinformation continues.
George
temperatures?
RicodJour
> BUT, can you get 140 - 160 degree water out of it?
>
> I thought not. It doesn't matter if the junk mf's are FREE to run if you
> can't get what you need out of them.
The Bosch units can be dialed up to 140 degrees. I realize that you
get more water at a given temperature when you start with hotter water
and mix in cold, but what do you need 160 degree water for?
Considering that most of the time you'll mix it down to 120 degrees
and the anti-scald showers won't let you go anywhere near 160, what's
the point of heating water just to cool it down? If your system is
undersized for the amount of hot water you need, cranking up the water
temperature is a backwards way of adjusting it.
R
Wayne Whitney
> plus you always talk of 20% going up the chimney as standby loss but
> refuse to supply a link to verify that:(
I don't understand this criticism, we've been over this before. The
energy factor of typical gas tankless is 0.80 and the energy factor of
a typical gas tank is 0.60. The difference, 20% of the theoretical
heat value of the gas used, is the standby losses. Most of the
standby losses go up the central flue of a conventional gas tank water
heater, as there can't be any insulation between the flue and the hot
water.
Yours, Wayne
Paul M. Eldridge
>I don't think that's fair. Ransley says he's actually bought one for
>$500 and installed it himself relatively easy. And he's happy with
>the results. I think his opinion is worth more than most here most
>of whom don't have one and just sling mud. Especially those that
>continue to spout misleading information, like "The heat loss from a
>tank unit helps heat your home in the winter." It's been pointed out
>repeatidly that much of the waste heat in a gas tank unit goes up the
>flue. And the heat that escapes the sides of the tank only helps heat
>the house if it happens to be in the living space, which isn't where
>most are located. And then, in summer, the heat is still added to
>the house and if you have AC as most do, then you're paying to remove
>that heat. Yet, this same sad misinformation continues.
The OP has an electric water heater and electric units do not have
stack related losses. The only loss is through the tank wall and these
losses are less than 1 kWh per day if the tank has an EF of 0.93 or
better (the new minimum standard is 0.91).
Secondly, if the tank is located inside a conditioned space any heat
loss through the wall *will* offset a portion of the home's space
heating demand. If the home is electrically heated the net loss is
effectively zero during the heating season and for those who heat with
oil, the losses could result in a net positive gain now that
residential fuel oil is more expensive than electricity in many parts
of the country.
With respect to air conditioning, a central air unit with a SEER of 10
would eliminate 2.94 kWh of heat for every 1.0 kWh consumed (the ratio
is 3.8 kWh to 1 for a 13 SEER unit). Thus, the additional a/c burden
for a 10 SEER model if tank losses are 0.91 kWh/day would be less than
10 kWh/month.
Cheers,
Paul
S. Barker
s
"George" <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:aKmdnW5WyY0oDGba...@comcast.com...
S. Barker
b. i'd never have an antiscald shower valve
c. the hotter the water is to begin with, the longer it'll last mixed down.
steve
"RicodJour" <rico...@worldemail.com> wrote in message
news:c664bdf6-9751-4672...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
RicodJour
wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 08:26:00 -0700 (PDT), trad...@optonline.net wrote:
> >I don't think that's fair. Ransley says he's actually bought one for
> >$500 and installed it himself relatively easy. And he's happy with
> >the results. I think his opinion is worth more than most here most
> >of whom don't have one and just sling mud. Especially those that
> >continue to spout misleading information, like "The heat loss from a
> >tank unit helps heat your home in the winter." It's been pointed out
> >repeatidly that much of the waste heat in a gas tank unit goes up the
> >flue. And the heat that escapes the sides of the tank only helps heat
> >the house if it happens to be in the living space, which isn't where
> >most are located. And then, in summer, the heat is still added to
> >the house and if you have AC as most do, then you're paying to remove
> >that heat. Yet, this same sad misinformation continues.
>
> The OP has an electric water heater and electric units do not have
> stack related losses. The only loss is through the tank wall and these
> losses are less than 1 kWh per day if the tank has an EF of 0.93 or
> better (the new minimum standard is 0.91).
No he doesn't. OP wrote: "Ok, our 40 gal gas water heater is
failing. About 10 years old, which I
hear is ok."
> Secondly, if the tank is located inside a conditioned space any heat
> loss through the wall *will* offset a portion of the home's space
> heating demand. If the home is electrically heated the net loss is
> effectively zero during the heating season and for those who heat with
> oil, the losses could result in a net positive gain now that
> residential fuel oil is more expensive than electricity in many parts
> of the country.
Most of the water heat inefficiency goes up the flue, so do most of
the dollars. It's an odd argument to state that putting a heater
(waste heat from the water heater) in a location that you don't need
it, is a smart move. Maybe we should all go back to the huge ass
furnaces under the house with one central floor grate to heat the
home. Then none of the inefficiency is lost...unfortunately most of
the comfort is.
R
Thomas G. Marshall
> On Apr 8, 7:27?am, "Thomas G. Marshall"
> <tgm2tothe10thpo...@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> mike said something like:
>>
>>> On Apr 7, 12:34 pm, "Bill" <barg...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> ...[snip]...
>>
>>>> When tankless salesmen feel the need to trot out BS like that, it
>>>> makes me distrust any further "data" they want to push.- Hide
>>>> quoted text -
>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>> You're the one who thought that standard water heaters run
>>> continuously and that tankless are 80% more efficient than tanks!
>>> SNORT.
>>
>>> Maybe you should listen to someone besides your tankless salesman:
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/02/08/ST20080...
>>
>>> But if you want spend dollars to chase pennies, more power to ya.
>>
>> I think Bill was actually agreeing with that article, but that
>> article at all?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> whats to debunk the savings will take longer than the life of the
> heater......
>
> please explain how this is a advantage?
I don't believe it is an advantage. Are you asking for me to explain? I
need not---I agree with the article.
You may have misread both Bill and I.
RicodJour
<tgm2tothe10thpo...@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote:
> hall...@aol.com said something like:
He seems to be in one of 'those' moods. ;)
http://www.geocities.com/~jbenz/against.wav
Whatever It Is, I'm Against It
I don't know what they have to say,
It makes no difference anyway --
Whatever it is, I'm against it!
No matter what it is or who commenced it,
I'm against it.
Your proposition may be good
But let's have one thing understood --
Whatever it is, I'm against it!
And even when you've changed it or condensed it,
I'm against it.
I'm opposed to it --
On general principles I'm opposed to it!
Chorus: He's opposed to it!
In fact, in word, in deed,
He's opposed to it!
For months before my son was born,
I used to yell from night till morn,
Whatever it is, I'm against it!
And I've kept yelling since I first commenced it,
I'm against it!
By Harry Ruby (music) and Bert Kalmar (lyrics)
Performed by Groucho Marx in "Horse Feathers" (1932)
Matt W. Barrow
> On Apr 8, 3:43 pm, "Thomas G. Marshall"
> <tgm2tothe10thpo...@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> hall...@aol.com said something like:
>>
>>
>> > whats to debunk the savings will take longer than the life of the
>> > heater......
>>
>> > please explain how this is a advantage?
>>
>> I don't believe it is an advantage. Are you asking for me to explain? I
>> need not---I agree with the article.
>>
>> You may have misread both Bill and I.
>
> He seems to be in one of 'those' moods. ;)
>
> http://www.geocities.com/~jbenz/against.wav
>
> Whatever It Is, I'm Against It
>
S. Barker
s
"Matt W. Barrow" <mba...@performancehomes.com> wrote in message
news:0ZQKj.5036$3N1...@newsfe17.lga...
cshenk
> Ok, our 40 gal gas water heater is failing. About 10 years old, which I
> hear is ok.
Should be 15 but if it's hard worked, perhaps 10 is ok.
> But every time I talk to someone about their 40 gal water heater, they all
> complain that they run out of hot water (comparable size homes and kids).
40G is ok. Not optimal for long showers if there are several and need to
take them within 20 mins of each other (night time shower with several
kids).
> But we were always worried about running the wash or dishwasher before
> showering, or two long showers would result in the 2nd losing water.
> Complete with those water saving disks etc.
Yup. If you can, go 50/60G. More is overkill.
> 1. Is 80 gallons overkill? Perhaps I'm reacting viscerally.
Yes though it will let all 4 shower within minutes of each other.
> 2. Am I going to notice a large gas usage increase?
Not with a mere 10-20G difference
> 3. Are there rules in place limiting the water tank sizes?
Has more to do with construction of your place. If it has to fit in a
cabinet for example, that cabinet may not be sized safely to hold a larger
unit. There may be distance from the walls for example involved.
> 4. Are there any particular brands to look for or stay away from?
Sorry, cant answer. If it helps though I have a 40G GE 'Smart Saver' gas
hot water heater. I do have to be a bit careful to not take a shower or
bath right after running the dishwasher or another's shower. 20 mins seems
to work for the wait. It's 14 years old and i seem to recall the wait 10
years ago was about 10 mins so we may be getting near replacement time.
IT's in the garage so there is no space problem if we get a bigger one.
tra...@optonline.net
> >I don't think that's fair. Ransley says he's actually bought one for
> >$500 and installed it himself relatively easy. And he's happy with
> >the results. I think his opinion is worth more than most here most
> >of whom don't have one and just sling mud. Especially those that
> >continue to spout misleading information, like "The heat loss from a
> >tank unit helps heat your home in the winter." It's been pointed out
> >repeatidly that much of the waste heat in a gas tank unit goes up the
> >flue. And the heat that escapes the sides of the tank only helps heat
> >the house if it happens to be in the living space, which isn't where
> >most are located. And then, in summer, the heat is still added to
> >the house and if you have AC as most do, then you're paying to remove
> >that heat. Yet, this same sad misinformation continues.
>
> The OP has an electric water heater and electric units do not have
> stack related losses. The only loss is through the tank wall and these
> losses are less than 1 kWh per day if the tank has an EF of 0.93 or
> better (the new minimum standard is 0.91).
Yes, but that has nothing to do with much of the mis-information and
slams directed against tankless units. All I'm saying is Ransley
actually has one, paid $500 for it, installed it without too much
effort and says it works well for him. That's some actual data,
instead of speculation.
Also, the vast majority of tankless are not going to be compared to
electric water heaters, but instead to gas ones. That's because
almost everywhere, it's cheaper to heat water with gas than electric.
So, someone looking for a water heater with gas available, isn't going
to be looking at electric and then you do have the heat loss via flue.
>
> Secondly, if the tank is located inside a conditioned space any heat
> loss through the wall *will* offset a portion of the home's space
> heating demand. If the home is electrically heated the net loss is
> effectively zero during the heating season and for those who heat with
> oil, the losses could result in a net positive gain now that
> residential fuel oil is more expensive than electricity in many parts
> of the country.
>
> With respect to air conditioning, a central air unit with a SEER of 10
> would eliminate 2.94 kWh of heat for every 1.0 kWh consumed (the ratio
> is 3.8 kWh to 1 for a 13 SEER unit). Thus, the additional a/c burden
> for a 10 SEER model if tank losses are 0.91 kWh/day would be less than
> 10 kWh/month.
>
> Cheers,
> Paul
Yes, that's true, but as I already pointed out:
1 - At least one regular poster here continually mentions the winter
benefit of heat loss without regard to where the water heater is
located and totally ignores the AC impact in the summer.
2 - Most water heaters are not located in a conditioned space.
3 - In the grand scheme of things, this whole heat loss benefit is a
nit.
hal...@aol.com
> 1 - At least one regular poster here continually mentions the winter
> benefit of heat loss without regard to where the water heater is
> located and totally ignores the AC impact in the summer.
>
> 2 - Most water heaters are not located in a conditioned space.
>
> 3 - In the grand scheme of things, this whole heat loss benefit is a
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
most water heaters are in basements, heat rises, so standby losses
help heat your home. or in a closet on a living floor, again standby
loss heats its suroundings, thats where you live.
again please post a link that says 20% go up the chimney........
please a link....... please........ all i see is someone stating it
must be....
since the cost beween a regular tank and a tankless can easily be a
grand, that $ could be spent for added insulation and weatherstripping
RicodJour
> > 1 - At least one regular poster here continually mentions the winter
> > benefit of heat loss without regard to where the water heater is
> > located and totally ignores the AC impact in the summer.
Doing otherwise would be inconvenient for their argument.
> > 2 - Most water heaters are not located in a conditioned space.
Well, it's semi-conditioned if you're in a heating climate and it's
winter. ;)
> > 3 - In the grand scheme of things, this whole heat loss benefit is a
> > nit.
It's not a nit, it's a distraction. It's also a semi-effective
distraction as only some of the heat radiates into the space and a
larger part goes up the chimney. I guess it would be akin to a
bumpkin earning thousands a month with their new found fame and
fortune and being thrilled, when they should be earning far more if
their business manager wasn't robbing them blind. It's good, but it
could be a lot better.
> most water heaters are in basements, heat rises, so standby losses
> help heat your home. or in a closet on a living floor, again standby
> loss heats its suroundings, thats where you live.
Heat doesn't rise, hot air does. As Bud Abbott would say, "What's
holding you down?" =:O
Heat radiates and basement walls are a notorious heat sink in cold
climates. I think that heat should be applied in the proper amount
where it's needed, and not in a basement with hopes that it will find
its way to the correct location.
> again please post a link that says 20% go up the chimney........
> please a link....... please........ all i see is someone stating it
> must be....
You mean like this one?
http://www.hpac.com/Issue/Article/27578/Choosing_a_Domestic_HotWater_System
An excerpt: "Energy efficiency is another problem with a typical
direct-fired water heater. A standard water heater is rated at about
84-percent steady state efficiency. That means that while the fire is
on, 84 percent of the heat from the fire enters the tank, while 16
percent of the heat goes up the chimney. That sounds pretty good, but
a water heater is not a steady state device: the fire turns on and
off. While the heater is off heat is still going up the chimney.
The annual fuel utilization efficiency (AFUE) rating of a typical
water heater is much lower, in the range of 70 percent for a 40-gal.
heater and dropping to 51 percent for a 75-gal. heater. An AFUE of 51
percent means that 51 percent of the heat in the fuel leaves the
heater by going out the hot water pipe. Except for a little heat lost
through the jacket of the heater, the rest goes up the chimney. So
while about 16 percent of the heat goes up the chimney while the fire
is burning, about another 15 to 35 percent, called "standby loss" goes
out the chimney while the fire is not burning."
Some of the Tagaki tankless heaters have EFs in the low 90s...
> since the cost beween a regular tank and a tankless can easily be a
> grand, that $ could be spent for added insulation and weatherstripping
There's no doubt that there are other ways to save energy and that
your average house could benefit, but we're discussing the relative
merits of tank v. tankless and not where someone should spend their
money. That decision is best left to the individual, no?
The thing that kills me is that the $300 federal tax credit for high
EF water heaters just expired in December - good timing! I wonder how
long it will be until they come up with some new credit program?
R
SteveB
>There's only one way to do that - throw money at it. The
>standard water heater tank doesn't have a setback or vacation setting,
Been a long long long long time since you've bought or even looked at a
water heater, I'd say
Wayne Whitney
> again please post a link that says 20% go up the chimney........
> please a link....... please........ all i see is someone stating it
> must be....
Take a look at <http://www.aceee.org/consumerguide/waterheating.htm>,
in particular the life-cycle costs comparison. This shows a typical
gas tank water heater has an energy factor of 0.60, and a typical gas
tankless has an energy factor of 0.80. The difference of 20%
represents the standby losses. Prior computations suggest that of
those standby losses, 7% represents the loss through the tank
insulation, and 13% represents the loss through the gas flue.
Cheers, Wayne
RicodJour
Reading what I wrote, I'm wondering what I wrote, and am overwrought
by that writing. How wrong my writing was.
I can only assume temporary insanity, or possession by demons.
R
Dioclese
wrote in message news:VMsKj.891$NM.653@trnddc01...
>
> Ok, our 40 gal gas water heater is failing. About 10 years old, which I
> hear is ok.
>
> complain that they run out of hot water (comparable size homes and kids).
>
> *insist* that 40 gallons is enough.
>
> But we were always worried about running the wash or dishwasher before
> showering, or two long showers would result in the 2nd losing water.
> Complete with those water saving disks etc.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
If the users of said hot water are old enough, yet not too old to move out
of the way quickly, just bump the temp setting up higher. Adjustment to
less hot water for comfort should save some hot water for other purposes.
Extremely lengthy showers are always a concern. They may be longer as a
result, with same lack of hot water. The predominant male is in order to
fix that lack of discipline.
--
Dave
glen stark
I'd like to try and elevate the tankless vs. tank discussion a little
bit. Let me just say however, kudos for actually bringing a citation into
the conversation (WP article). Unfortunately the cited article is
severely flawed. It attempts to generalize from anecdotal evidence, and
neglects to mention a key benefit of tankless systems: they have an
expected life time of OVER 20 YEARS (citation below).
The US department of energy discusses the pros and cons of the system, and
I hope we can all agree that they are a reasonably reliable and unbiased
source.
Check out:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumer/your_home/water_heating/index.cfm/
mytopic=12820
I recommend reading the whole page. It's brief and highly informative.
QUOTED from the DOE website:
-Most tankless water heaters have a life expectancy of more than 20
years. They also have easily replaceable parts that extend their
life by many more years. In contrast, storage water heaters last 10–15
years.
-[tankless water heaters] don't produce the standby energy losses
associated with storage water heaters, which can save you money.
Whether or not a tankless system is good for your requires a little
thought. If you have a problem with instantaneous flow (e.g. you want to
be able to run your washer, dishwasher, and have everyone take a shower
simultaneously), a tankless system to meet your needs will likely be
impractical. Your problem seems to be more length periods of continuous
use, which would indicate that you could seriously benefit from a tankless
system.
If you really need water > 140F, they probably aren't a good solution for
you. The vast majority of homeowners however do not.
If all you care about is the dollars and cents of it, the solution is to
get a couple of quotes from reliable contractors, look at your personal
energy rates, and do the math. It's pretty easy math, but if you have
trouble with it, I'll be glad to help.
If you care about energy conservation, then you can rest assured that you
will be doing a good thing for the environment, you won't lose any money
in the long run, and you might even profit from it. The latter case seems
to be the most likely, in my analysis.
SteveB
"Dioclese" <NONE> wrote in message
news:892dnXQbef9VyWHa...@earthlink.com...
The simple solution: let the kids shower last. Mom and Dad go first and
take long long showers to use up all the hot water and let the kids learn
that waiting is the result of their taking long showers and being
inconsiderate of others. Either that, or they will take colder shorter
showers until they catch on. If they ever do.
Steve
adam...@gmail.com
<tgm2tothe10thpo...@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Ok, our 40 gal gas water heater is failing. About 10 years old, which I
> hear is ok.
>
> But every time I talk to someone about their 40 gal water heater, they all
> complain that they run out of hot water (comparable size homes and kids).
>
> Bur our builder (and all builder's we spoke to when looking to build)
> *insist* that 40 gallons is enough.
>
> But we were always worried about running the wash or dishwasher before
> showering, or two long showers would result in the 2nd losing water.
> Complete with those water saving disks etc.
>
> 1. Is 80 gallons overkill? Perhaps I'm reacting viscerally.
>
> 2. Am I going to notice a large gas usage increase?
>
> 3. Are there rules in place limiting the water tank sizes?
>
> 4. Are there any particular brands to look for or stay away from?
>
> I'm sorry for the barrage of questions.
I think like other people posted in this group, a 60 or 80 would
probably be your best bet. I mean, why make this complicated? All you
want is a little more hot water. In.. out... done.
Adam
Protect our national fresh water supply with just a click! - The
National Water Conservatory
http://waterforever.blogspot.com/
hal...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
yeah and since i have a high BTU 50 gallon tank, and personal
experience says little effect on gas bill.........
you can check the energy guide labels to see what i mean.....
hal...@aol.com
> Hi everyone.
>
> I'd like to try and elevate the tankless vs. tank discussion a little
> bit. Let me just say however, kudos for actually bringing a citation into
> the conversation (WP article). Unfortunately the cited article is
> severely flawed. It attempts to generalize from anecdotal evidence, and
> neglects to mention a key benefit of tankless systems: they have an
> expected life time of OVER 20 YEARS (citation below).
>
http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumer/your_home/water_heating/index.cfm/%20mytopic=12820
note it appears in homes that use more water, the typical 2 adults and
2 teenagers savings are less, probably because the standard tank
spends more time heating water and less time standing by. this is a
new wrinkle on the tank vs tankless discussion
For homes that use 41 gallons or less of hot water daily, demand water
heaters can be 24%-34% more energy efficient than conventional storage
tank water heaters. They can be 8%-14% more energy efficient for homes
that use a lot of hot water--around 86 gallons per day. You can achieve
even greater energy savings of 27%-50% if you install a demand water
heater at each hot water outlet.
hal...@aol.com
http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumer/your_home/water_heating/index.cfm...
also note this word of warning
For example, taking a shower and running the dishwasher at the same
time can stretch a demand water heater to its limit. To overcome this
problem, you can install two or more demand water heaters, connected
in parallel for simultaneous demands of hot water. You can also
install separate demand water heaters for appliances--such as a clothes
washer or dishwater--that use a lot of hot water in your home.
then 2 showers and a dishwasher at same time will require multiple
tankless?
it also points out that a tankless with a pilot light can wipe out any
savings.....
wonder if the posters here who say their tankless works in a power
failure have tankless with pilot light? if so they arent saving
anything......
given the tankless high BTU and the flue gas requirements wonder how
many could afford multiple tankless around their home????????
Jeff
anyway. Dishwasher actually use much less water than most people realize.
However making the hot water hotter does mean you use less water from the
heated line side in showers and sinks. It will make the difference between
occasionally running out of hot water to rarely running out. I set my heater
higher than the recommended "mark" on the temp dial specifically to get more
shower time out of one tank full of hot water. We have pressure balancing
shower valves so there isn't the danger of full hot water in the shower if
someone flushes a toilet.
When we had our tank replaced a couple of years ago I had to specifically
decline a safety device that would add cold water to the hot water leaving
the tank if it detected it was higher than scalding temp. Apparently it is
now code for new construction around here. In my mind I can't quite figure
out if cooling "very" hot water to "fairly" hot water in the hot water line
rather than at the shower fixture would reduce amount of running time for
showers from one full tank of hot water. I'm thinking it would act the same
as lowering the tank temperature so it would reduce the available run time.
Has anyone installed a hot water recirculator? The theory is that you keep
the water in the hot water line hot so that you do not require any run time
to get your shower or sink up to temperature.
Jeff
"S. Barker" <ichase...@coldmail.com> wrote in message
news:_9CdncYebN3YPWba...@giganews.com...
ransley
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Here we go again the same missinformation, with 90-100f temp rise
> > offered you cant have a cold shower, I cant shower at over 106f but my
> > unit takes 35f water and heats it to 125 if I was to be wastefull.
>
> > �Mine has battery ignition and regular vent-No A.C. But I have a
> > generator for my home for heat.
>
> > It took me 5 hrs to install, but I guess thats "super expensive" for
> > you. I put in 3/4 gas but that was only 1 hr work, again easy and
> > cheap, my meter is original.
>
> > Tankless require no "service" but tanks are supposed to be flushed
> > every year.
>
> > 20% of your loss is waste-up the chimney and out, of no benefit to
> > anyone but your gas supplier since true overall efficency is near
> > 50-60% in " Energy Factor" proven ratings
>
> > I paid about 500$ for a Bosch 117000btu unit, I get a FOUR year
> > payback, I hardly see the 3-4x cost of waste, I see I am saving money
>
> > Tank, loose efficency every year due yo scale settling over the
> > burner, just as my last tank had over a foot of scale at the bottom,
> > its efficency was probably reduced 20-40%, tankless dont do that, and
> > its easy to pour lime away through mine. You cant do that with a tank.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> "Tankless require no "service" but tanks are supposed to be flushed
> every year"
>
> then talk of pouring lime away thru yours
>
> "tankless dont do that, and its easy to pour lime away through mine.
> ""
>
> frankly draing a little bit of water out of the bottom drain valve is
> way easier than taking the plumbing apart to pour in lime away, which
> isnt cheap, and then flush it out somehow.
>
> plus you always talk of 20% going up the chimney as standby loss but
> refuse to supply a link to verify that:(
>
> convince themselves it was a good move........- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have two valves I open with spigots, no taking apart anything to
flush.
Look Hallerb Energy Factor is a rating, research it , it was posted
here on all tanks made I did not post it, learn to Google and attempt
to disprove me, you cant, can you. Learn then post
ransley
> BUT, can you get 140 - 160 degree water out of it?
>
> I thought not. It doesn't matter if the junk mf's are FREE to run if you
> can't get what you need out of them.
>
>
> "ransley" <Mark_Rans...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c71781bf-81d8-4b3b...@m71g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> The only bullship is your knowledge, at my previous location I
> installed a $500 Bosch ng tankless, my bill went from 20 to no more
> than 10$ in summer, that includes gas dryer and stove, my payback is 4
> years, where I am now is Ng Tank and last summers gas bill is back to
> no less than 22 with gas stove and dyer. Tank Ng are only near 60%
> efficent even with an 82$ efficent burner.
Only and idiot would want 140-160f, do you have yours to 140? I bet not
ransley
Hey Hallerb, here it is, read and learn.
ransley
Gee mine was 500 with TAX, what a missinformed negative puts you are.
hal...@aol.com
> Most dishwashers use the dryer element to further heat up the incoming water
> anyway. �Dishwasher actually use much less water than most people realize.
>
> However making the hot water hotter does mean you use less water from the
> heated line side in showers and sinks. It will make the difference between
> occasionally running out of hot water to rarely running out. I set my heater
> higher than the recommended "mark" on the temp dial specifically to get more
> shower time out of one tank full of hot water. We have pressure balancing
> shower valves so there isn't the danger of full hot water in the shower if
> someone flushes a toilet.
>
> When we had our tank replaced a couple of years ago I had to specifically
> decline a safety device that would add cold water to the hot water leaving
> the tank if it detected it was higher than scalding temp. Apparently it is
> now code for new construction around here. �In my mind I can't quite figure
> out if cooling "very" hot water to "fairly" hot water in the hot water line
> rather than at the shower fixture would reduce amount of running time for
> showers from one full tank of hot water. I'm thinking it would act the same
> as lowering the tank temperature so it would reduce the available run time.
>
> Has anyone installed a hot water recirculator? The theory is that you keep
> the water in the hot water line hot so that you do not require any run time
> to get your shower or sink up to temperature.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
the recurircuate lines saves water but wastes energy unless you turn
it on specifically before using a fixture.......
the tempering valves prevent scalds, but keeping a tank hotter
increases standby losses, and leads to shorter lank life from the
thermal shock of very hot water and very cold water mixing.
there are no free lunches, gain a little here lose a little
there.........
i prefer a larger tank, with higher BTU, and a lower temperature so no
one can get scalded.........
your mileage may vary......
tankless owners see more wasted water since the tankless must detect
flow and turn on burners before hot water arrives
hal...@aol.com
look all along you have been posting 20% up flue but your own link
says.......
", 7% represents the loss through the tank
> > insulation, and 13% represents the loss through the gas flue.
> "
since stanby helps heat your home in the winter, only 13% is actually
lost.
does your tankless have a pilot, if so the government says your saving
nothing........ this is highly likely since you stated your tankless
works in a power failure
if your home uses a lot of water the standby time is less, and your
tankless saves little, according to the government link here
hal...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
you specifically said tankless require no service.......... yet you
installed service valves and must clean crud from the heat exchanger.
i buy a new tank, install and forget about it till it leaks in about
10 years, well i may wipe dust off the cover occasionally.......
ransley
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have them installed, I never flushed it, it doesnt need it yet,
with 9$ total NG bill in summer, including gas dryer and gas stove I
know its not limed up yet. BUT IT IS a fact tanks scale, and loose up
to 3 % effeciency every year to scale. It is also a fact my Ng bill is
50% more where I am now with a tank, tankless worked for me to cut my
bill.
Here is something else to piss you off, tankless are rated for 30 yr
life, Tanks are not.
hal...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
show me a 30 year link, longest tankless warranty is 10 years.........
show me a link to 3% a year to scale buildup..........
the last link you posted in my response to your claim 20% went up
chimney said 13 % up chimney.
so more links please to prove you dont know whats up
DOES YOUR TANKLESS HAVE A PILOT LIGHT???????
hal...@aol.com
>
> �I have them installed, I never flushed it, it doesnt need it yet,
so how many tankless did you install? you said them............
them is plural..........
but quote 500 bucks, which is suspiciously low.
please post which tankless you installed for 500 bucks each.
S. Barker
s
"ransley" <Mark_R...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2756b17a-579e-4b6a...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
ransley
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thats bull shit in relavance to consumption, mine triggers in 1-2
seconds with maybe 1/2 gallon detection. How about tankless can last
30 years and cut your gas bill in half, Or tankless can have a remote
theremostat in your shower so you dont waste money by heating water
hotter than you need, which is 102 for me. Or as you say" Tanks heat
your home" great idea when AC is running, Or the truth that tanks are
really near 60% efficent. Look at a Takagi condensing TK1 its maybe
96% on propane with the SAME energy factor as its efficency rating.
Now can you answer why tankless Energy Factor ratings are about the
same as the efficency of the burner, because Tanks waste freakin
energy up the chimney.
Wayne Whitney
> note it appears in homes that use more water, the typical 2 adults and
> 2 teenagers savings are less, probably because the standard tank
> spends more time heating water and less time standing by. this is a
> new wrinkle on the tank vs tankless discussion
Actually, it doesn't say the savings are less, it says the efficiency
improvement is less. Standby losses are basically independent of
usage. The greater the usage, the smaller the fraction of total costs
attributable to standby losses.
So if you are trying to calculate a payback period, and if the
incremental efficiency of the tank and tankless are the same, then
usage doesn't matter. All you need to do is figure out how much more
expensive the tankless is, and how your savings from standby losses
are.
Cheers, Wayne
Wayne Whitney
> then 2 showers and a dishwasher at same time will require multiple
> tankless?
No, but it may require a larger, more expensive unit than 1 shower and
a dishwasher at the same time. Personally I don't think dishwashers
are a big issue, it's no problem to defer dishwasher/clothes washer
use until the showering is done.
> it also points out that a tankless with a pilot light can wipe out any
> savings.....
This shows the article is somewhat out of date. Tankless heaters with
pilot lights are pretty old technology.
Cheers, Wayne
Wayne Whitney
> When we had our tank replaced a couple of years ago I had to specifically
> decline a safety device that would add cold water to the hot water leaving
> the tank if it detected it was higher than scalding temp. Apparently it is
> now code for new construction around here. In my mind I can't quite figure
> out if cooling "very" hot water to "fairly" hot water in the hot water line
> rather than at the shower fixture would reduce amount of running time for
> showers from one full tank of hot water. I'm thinking it would act the same
> as lowering the tank temperature so it would reduce the available run time.
No, it would act the same as mixing down the "very" hot water at the
shower like you do now. It doesn't matter where you do the mixing--by
raising the tank temperature you are still increased the amount of
heat stored in the tank.
Wayne
Wayne Whitney
> the last link you posted in my response to your claim 20% went up
> chimney said 13 % up chimney.
First, I am the source of the 13% up the chimney number. That is just
a rough estimate based on the total 20% standby losses of a gas tank
(gas tankless EF 0.80 - gas tank EF 0.60) compared to the 7% standby
losses of an efficient electric heater (0.98 EF of an electric
tankless - 0.91 EF of an electric tank). The difference is
attributable to the flue on a conventional gas tank.
But the 20% standby losses is the more important figure. The losses
through the tank periphery are still losses--they can only be
considered otherwise if the tank is in conditioned space and you are
in a heating-only climate.
> DOES YOUR TANKLESS HAVE A PILOT LIGHT???????
No, there's maybe only one model on the market today with a pilot
light, out of tens of models.
Wayne
RicodJour
> On 2008-04-09, hall...@aol.com <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > then 2 showers and a dishwasher at same time will require multiple
> > tankless?
>
> No, but it may require a larger, more expensive unit than 1 shower and
> a dishwasher at the same time. Personally I don't think dishwashers
> are a big issue, it's no problem to defer dishwasher/clothes washer
> use until the showering is done.
Particularly now that washing machines are coming equipped with
delayed start options.
Hey Haller, how come you're ignoring the link and quote I posted from
the engineering trade journal about standby loss? Trade journals are
rarely run by wacky bastards that print/post bad information. The
author is an interesting guy: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/03/17/030317ta_talk_sullivan
R
Glenn
the passion?
cshenk
> > 1 - At least one regular poster here continually mentions the winter
> > benefit of heat loss without regard to where the water heater is
> > located and totally ignores the AC impact in the summer.
Actually I didnt mention that but I'll add I 'seem' to get a *small* benefit
there. It isnt much but in the garage, which is cold in winter, a small
amount of heat is added by it. Being in the garage, it's effect on the AC
of the house in summer is negligible.
Mine is nearing end of life cycle so I'm reading the discussion carefully
and looking at replacement units. Newer ones are much better than my old
one.
I note several tank types around 400$ or less which would effectively
replace the existing unit with same style but more efficient, and lots of
tankless systems.
Running through the web page another posted, I seem to be the 'break even'
on gas price to run here with a slight edge to a tank type. The only real
difference seems to be how long the units last? That and a slight residual
heat generated to the garage which in winter for me, is a beneficial but
minor 'nice' towards the tank type.
Paul M. Eldridge
>
> 1 - At least one regular poster here continually mentions the
> winter benefit of heat loss without regard to where the water
> heater is located and totally ignores the AC impact in the summer.
Hi Mark,
The impact of standby loss with respect to added a/c demand is
generally very modest for three reasons:
1) with the exception of some of the southern most states, heating
degree days exceed those of cooling throughout most of North America,
in some cases by a factor of ten or more (e.g., Minneapolis MN).
Pittsburgh PA, a mid-eastern seaboard city, has 5,968 HDD and 654 CDD.
Even in San Diego CA, heating demands exceed those of cooling, i.e.,
1,256 HDD versus 984 CDD;
2) generally speaking, water heaters are located inside conditioned
spaces in colder regions due to the risk of freeze damage whereas they
are typically placed in non-conditioned spaces (e.g., attached
garages) in warmer climates -- located outside the home's thermal
envelope, there would be no impact on cooling demand;
3) for every kWh used, an air conditioner will remove three or more
kWh of heat. A 10 SEER air conditioner will purge 2.93 kWh of heat
for every one kWh consumed and a 13 SEER air conditioner (the current
minimum standard) will eliminate 3.8 kWh of heat. Thus, each kWh of
standby tank loss translates to 0.34 kWh of cooling demand at 10 SEER
and 0.26 kWh at 13 SEER.
Taken together, it's pretty clear the benefits in terms of heat gain
far outweigh any potential loss with respect to added cooling demand.
Cheers,
Paul
ransley
wrote:
Hi paul, I really dont see much of either heat gain winter or summer,
Im just arguing against misinformed oposition. I see a flue going up
the uninsulated part of the tank going outdoors. I guess im a little
pissed at negatives thrown at tankless by people that never owned one,
and post wrong information. I own one, I can see on my 9$ summer gas
bill, I see a short payback, and I cook all food on a gas stove and
have a gas dryer. Tank Energy Factor is what nobody wants to
aknowlegde. Energy Factor for Tanks are about 52-60, and it simply
means, in fact, if your tank is a 60 E.F., $0.40 of every dollar you
pay to heat water is wasted. Tankless EF ratings are near Total
efficencies, Tankless EF ratings are from 82-95 [95 for a condensing
Takagi] We have all these folks here who put down tankless with bogus,
stupid, bad, information. Granted tankless are not for all, but they
are designed to last 30 years since the coil is thick copper pipe,
they save money, they have drawbacks you must learn to live with, but
I like saving money and not paying utilitie companies. I did so well
with a 110 yr old house, lowering utilities from maybe 1500 a year to
550 that the gas company came out to see how was I stealing gas. I was
told by Nipsco my house is the most efficent they have seen. I heat
1800sq for no more than $105 at max -14f lows. Tankless can cost alot
more, but can cost the same, last longer, and save enough to pay you
back, very quickly. Quickly, and that is at todays Ng gas prices, with
oil over 100 a barrel, it`s going to rise real dam fast. Your payback
will be sooner with every Ng price increase, and last I read, new NG
field are not being opened from NIMBY bs, consumption is outpacing
production, that`s why LNG dockyards are being built, so we can IMPORT
gas on tankers, even though we have it in the ground. We have no
energy policy, we have no education. Even England mandates only
Condensing heating units, and England is an Exporter of energy. We are
an Importer. Dam I should run for President and give America an
Energy agenda.
ransley
>
> - Show quoted text -
Im not showing you anything, its there in print, The only ignorant
one Is you Hallerb. Learn to Google and post fact.
Tankless coil is just thick Copper pipe, What does copper piping
last, 50 Years ? 60? 80? go figure Mr Hallerb. 30 year life is a
design and is published.
Scale in tank, is there. I took out a 20 yr old tank with 13"
THIRTEEN inches of scale, yes so the burner is heating Scale. The
facts are there. there is something called Google you can search to
your hearts desire to learn Facts, not the BS you keep ramping about.
You are the one who is uninformed or to dam ignorant to keep posting
BS ,
No my tankless has battery ignition, pilotless, works without AC.
Batteries last 2 years. dual D cell.
Fact I save 12$ a month with tankless, or $144 a year. In 5 years it
will be I bet 288 is the price. My 117000 Btu Bosch cost 500 with tax,
and maybe 200 install, My parents 40gal NG tank cost the same , But I
am saving and Hallerb you aint, so wake up or shut up your insanity.
tra...@optonline.net
Yes, I was going to point that out too. Sure, in percentage terms,
the more hot water you use, the less in percentage terms you will save
on your energy bill. That's because the big difference is the
standby loss, which is independent of the amount of water used.
However, in dollars saved in gas saved per year from standy losses,
it's still going to be the same amount of money saved, which is what
you need to look at.
Also, am I the only one that thinks it odd that if a tankless has a
pilot light it would negate the entire energy savings compared to a
regular water heater? The regular water heater has a pilot light too
and I would think the overall impact of a pilot light might be a
couple %.
Wayne Whitney
> Also, am I the only one that thinks it odd that if a tankless has a
> pilot light it would negate the entire energy savings compared to a
> regular water heater? The regular water heater has a pilot light
> too and I would think the overall impact of a pilot light might be a
> couple %.
The pilot light on a tank, though, heats the tank water, so it isn't
waste. While on a tankless, it is pretty much a waste. Anyway, it's
pretty moot, as pilot light tankless is fairly old technology, just
like non-modulating tankless.
Cheers, Wayne
ransley
>
> - Show quoted text -
My 5 yr old tankless is battery ignition- 2 d cells. A pilot light I
think is long gone. There were even 5 years ago Hydro generator
pilots, the water runs, turns a blade, it turns a generator. But even
tank that are pilotless cant get above 70 Energy Factor wheras
tankless start at 82. Energy factor is the cost. The best tank I have
seen is 70 EF so $0.30 is wasted, the cheapest Tankless is 82 EF so
only 18% is wasted, and Takagi goes to 94 EF, go figure, its all in
the math. Pilot lights are the wrong way to go.
ransley
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am now at a tank location, my last summers gas bills are double and
more than at the tankless location, 9 vs 12$ a month. Same gas dryer,
same gas cooking. So Tankless saves me 13 or so a month at TODAYS gas
prices. Wait 5 years. my payback is 5 years and less and declining as
prices increase. Tankless-pilotless, work and outlast tank , which
looose 1-3 % efficency every year due to scale.
ransley
>
> - Show quoted text -
I should have stated 9 vs 22 -23 a month
Paul M. Eldridge
Hi Mark,
I don't like misinformation either and I don't have a strong opinion
on this matter. I don't doubt the operational performance of natural
gas tankless units is superior to that of their electric counterparts
and that the efficiency gains are more impressive. I have no
first-hand experience with tankless gas, but I'm familiar with the
electric variant and that experience left me cold, literally! It may
very well have been undersized (I don't honestly know), but the water
never got what you would call "hot" even though the shower was
equipped with a low-flow head and I was the only user at the time.
Based on this admittedly limited experience, I would be hard pressed
to recommend an electric unit, unless it was a high capacity model and
that, in itself, opens up another can of worms.
If someone could tell me that a conventional gas water heater with an
EF of 0.60 would use X cubic metres (or therms) of gas per year and
that a state-of-the-art tankless version would use Y, it would help me
to better compare these two technologies.
Cheers,
Paul
Matt W. Barrow
"Glenn" <pil...@kc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:47fcf4bb$0$17339$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> Curious. It's just a damn 'hot' water heater. Why all the passion?
Because it's a paradigm shift and those always bring discomfort.
tra...@optonline.net
wrote:
No, it's not clear at all to me that is the case. Because contrary
to your claim, in my experience most water heaters I've seen, from NJ
through New England are NOT in conditioned spaces. Most are in an
unfinished basement. That's where mine is. Some others are in
garages. I would say only a minority are in conditioned living
spaces. In all the condos and homes I've lived in, I have never had
a water heater in the living space. I know they exist, but the point
is, they are not the majority of cases. Even where you have one in a
utility closet, it's not clear to me how much of that waste heat gets
into the living space itself, as opposed to just raising the temp of
the closet that it's in.
Now, even hallerb apparently conceeds that most of the standby loss is
up the flue. And the rest of the loss, that escapes the tank sides,
doesn't by some miracle all go into the living space above. In fact,
I would bet that in a water heater in the basement, which is a typical
case, only a small amount, probably unmeasureable makes it up there.
tra...@optonline.net
wrote:
So your views are jaundiced. Taking experience from electric and
applying it to gas tankless is like comparing apples to oranges.
It may
> very well have been undersized (I don't honestly know), but the water
> never got what you would call "hot" even though the shower was
> equipped with a low-flow head and I was the only user at the time.
> Based on this admittedly limited experience, I would be hard pressed
> to recommend an electric unit, unless it was a high capacity model and
> that, in itself, opens up another can of worms.
And that has what to do with gas which has far higher output
capability?
>
> If someone could tell me that a conventional gas water heater with an
> EF of 0.60 would use X cubic metres (or therms) of gas per year and
> that a state-of-the-art tankless version would use Y, it would help me
> to better compare these two technologies.
>
> Cheers,
> Paul- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The EF is a measure of how much hot water the unit produces per unit
of energy. It isn't that hard to calculate. If you know the EF of
your current unit, what your bills are and the EF of the other unit,
the math is straightforward.
RicodJour
>
> No, it's not clear at all to me that is the case. Because contrary
> to your claim, in my experience most water heaters I've seen, from NJ
> through New England are NOT in conditioned spaces. Most are in an
> unfinished basement. That's where mine is. Some others are in
> garages. I would say only a minority are in conditioned living
> spaces.
And even if it's in conditioned space, it most assuredly is not where
you want it nor when you want it.
R
Paul M. Eldridge
>No, it's not clear at all to me that is the case. Because contrary
>to your claim, in my experience most water heaters I've seen, from NJ
>through New England are NOT in conditioned spaces. Most are in an
>unfinished basement. That's where mine is. Some others are in
>garages. I would say only a minority are in conditioned living
>spaces. In all the condos and homes I've lived in, I have never had
>a water heater in the living space. I know they exist, but the point
>is, they are not the majority of cases. Even where you have one in a
>utility closet, it's not clear to me how much of that waste heat gets
>into the living space itself, as opposed to just raising the temp of
>the closet that it's in.
>
>Now, even hallerb apparently conceeds that most of the standby loss is
>up the flue. And the rest of the loss, that escapes the tank sides,
>doesn't by some miracle all go into the living space above. In fact,
>I would bet that in a water heater in the basement, which is a typical
>case, only a small amount, probably unmeasureable makes it up there.
As is true of most every home in my neighbourhood, my DHW tank is
located in a finished basement so 100 per cent of its heat loss is
usable over the course of the heating season; in this case, a span of
some seven months -- eight for thermal wimps.
Even unfinished basements, unless the floor joists are well insulated,
are thermally connected to the conditioned space above. In fact,
according to one Ontario Hydro study, 25 per cent of a home's heat
loss occurs through the basement. Until it reaches equilibrium, heat
will eventually migrate throughout the building structure, regardless
of its point of origin.
Cheers,
Paul