Instantaneous vs Indirect

Dobber

 I am currently quoting a radiant job that the homeowner wants an instantaneous water heater (Bosch) as opposed to an indirect. He has one now and likes it and believes it will be cheaper to run than an indirect with the boiler.

 I have never been a fan of instantaneous water heaters but I'm not stubborn enough to give a customer want they want as opposed to what they need.

 My question is, is there any operating cost comparison studies out there that I can use to  show  customers?



Thanks

Dobber

CMadatMe

Here Ya Go

Enjoy the reading.



http://www.map-testing.com/assets/files/Minnesota%20Tankless%20WH%20study-2010.pdf

Robert O'Brien

I too would lean toward indirect

The local utility offers a rebate on indirects but not tankless? The indirect should last longer,need less maintenance and repair and IMO the operating costs are so close as to be neglible. Since the customer already has one,I'll leave out the quirks of DHW delivery with tankless heaters .

http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/musings/are-tankless-water-heaters-waste-money

R Mannino

Synopsis

How about your take on that paper Chris, I have some beer to drink and don't have time! :')

CMadatMe

In a Nutshell

Drink to your hearts content! No savings, but ya get 5 cents a can or bottle..

Canucker

Indirect

I skimmed the article but it appears that they compared stand alone natural draft WH to a tankless and found a long payback? That would make an indirect an even better option, unless I missed that part, no?

gennady

Indirect

Indirect tank allows to size boiler to heating load and decouple DHW load from heating load. And because of that there is no need to oversize boiler. Also, post pumping allows to use heat otherwise be wasted. Also peak of DHW might be a huge btu draw, and gas line has to be sized accordingly. Instantaneous heater representatives try to convince it is not true, but in my opinion it is a big factor.