Steam heat is amazing...

Jamie Hall

As I look through the various threads, I am sometimes struck by just how amazing steam heat is. Yes, it can be a bit difficult to get it running really really well, and some of us are, perhaps, a bit fanatical on that -- but the fact of the matter is that we constantly see systems which are knuckleheaded to the point where one can't even figure out how it is supposed to work, and yet it does (or with relatively minor tweaks and improvements it does!) and folks are warm and cosy.

And when it is brought up to speed -- one pipe, two pipe, vapour, vacuum, whatever -- it has efficiencys which are close to the very best and fanciest mod/cons (and if one takes into account power plant efficiency, even heat pumps).

What's not to like?

ChrisJ

Hatterasguy said:

Obviously, you've never seen a mod-con purring away continuously 24/7 with varying SWT's from 130-165F depending on the OAT.

Makes the giant beast the breathes massive fire into huge pipes for a few minutes every hour look like a dinosaur.

No, you don't get anywhere near the efficiency of a mod-con. Just put that thought right out of your mind.

Prove it.


Also prove the mod-con saves you anything in the long run between increased purchase cost and maintenance costs.


And you know as well as I do, you can't.


The only realistic thing a modcon has going for it is increased comfort.

ChrisJ

Hatterasguy said:

As far as proving the efficiency, we know the following points absolutely exist:

1) The lower the SWT, the more system efficiency is obtained.
2) The longer the cycle time, the more system efficiency is obtained.
3) The lower the heatloss in unconditioned space, the more system efficiency is obtained.

There really isn't any argument about system efficiency of a steam system versus a mod-con. If there was, you'd have to make the argument that a fixed output CI boiler would also match the efficiency of a mod-con. It is generally agreed that won't ever happen.

In fact, the exact same contractors who are in love with steam disputed a 10% efficiency differential between CI and a mod-con. They all claimed MORE.
So, unless these contractors are two faced, they all would have to agree that the steam system is also far behind the mod-con regarding efficiency.

A mod-con does have some increased maintenance and repair costs over the long run. However, steam is not without the need for annual attention as well. Sometimes, as clearly evidenced on here, it has the need for much greater attention due to the vagrancies of the system.

No, those that continue to claim that a steam system is "efficient" as compared to a well running mod-con are simply denying the physics that are well documented.

I see no proof here.
Give us some data from your own systems.

Besides, I suppose my main beef is with your generalization. Vacuum systems are also "steam" and did someone not recently make a vacuum system using pex running at very low temperatures?

I realize Jamie was talking about conventional steam systems but when I talk about steam I picture all types including vacuum systems.

Jamie Hall

Aw c'mon guys. I was being happy about steam, not trying to start an argument!

But, since you're here... on efficiency. I will grant that a beautifully set up modulating/condensing boiler, running a perfectly calibrated outdoor reset, in a setting where there is no need to compensate for varying wind loads or solar loads, can achieve efficiencys greater than an equally well set up steam system. No argument. But can it do that all day, every day, with the wind at 40 mph from the northwest and the still air temperature at -10 F?

For that matter, it is possible to build a semi-passive solar house in New England which, with the exception of a half horsepower low speed high volume fan, uses no outside energy at all. I've done it.

However.

I challenge anyone to find a system which will run as long, as well, and as efficiently as a steam system will on minimal maintenance (such as the average homeowner might give it). And that, together with comfort, was my point...

ChrisJ

Yeah @Hatterasguy

Stop being a buzzkill.

Jamie Hall

OK, OK. Efficient... I quite agree, hatterasguy, that a properly set up, properly running, properly designed mod/con will be more efficient (over much of its range, anyway -- so long as it is actually condensing) than a ditto steam system -- or, for that matter, a more ordinary hydronic system. No argument. None at all.

The whole thread was prompted only by sitting here in comfort this morning (6 degrees outside!) and enjoying my 86% efficient steam heat -- which has had nothing done to it except annual tuneups and 2 new boilers (one failed because of an idiot contractor -- that was before I got to know Charles!) over the last 80 years... oh yeah, and one new vent (a Gorton #2).

And also thinking about some of the disasters we see, which are still heating the place even though they clank and hiss and who knows what. Something to be said for that...

ChrisJ

From what I've been seeing there's plenty of disaster forced hot nair systems out there too.

Fred

@Jamie Hall , So much for good intentions!

ttekushan_3

To @Jamie Hall 's point about the joy of steam heat, what really turned me into a steam heat junkie is its self regulation of temperature within a structure of differing uses. In my pre-steam life, I rented a shop with steam heat in a building of 3 floors: 1st with stores (opening and closing doors) and apartments on 2&3. Thermostat in the super's apartment. The heat was wonderful, especially given the "loose" nature of the front display windows and doors. Our first order of business in that empty space was the horrifyingly dirty basement. So we pressure washed it. It was early March and a windy 25 degrees out. We had the front doors wide open for a few hours which provided tons of fresh air blowing off Lake Erie right in there and down the basement stairs. When done, it was about maybe 45 or so in there due to the wind. We figured we'd be waiting all day for the place to warm back up. Grabbed a carry-out and returned an hour later and it was 72 degrees again. "What the heck happened here? We don't have a thermostat or sensor here." At that moment it dawned on me that, given that the radiators in the building were properly sized for their respective spaces and a boiler with enough headroom, a radiator that encounters differing conditions from all the others will radically change output in equal measure-- it will condense a LOT more steam and quickly restore the room to homeostasis within a cycle or two.

Or there was the time, in a 110,000 square foot industrial building being rehabbed where I saw this again, in sharp relief. Several of the temporary 2x4 frames and plywood (that were covering the 8'x18' window openings awaiting new windows) on the north side blew in on a 25 degree night with gale force winds. So a 25,000 square foot open floor area of the building was treated to snow blasting at those biiiiig looong CI 2-pipe wall radiators (they were like 40' long on those roller hangers). Well, the oversized firetube boiler wasn't oversized anymore! Get this- there was not enough steam for that amount of heat loss so the system --being well balanced-- could only heat the radiators about 2/3 across. ALL OF THEM throughout the place only heated part way across, even those in the warm part of the building. The steam redistributed to the cold side by virtue of the differential condensing rates!
The 1-1/2" radiator supply valves were silent in the warm area of the building, but were hissing very prominently on the cold side. What is that, >20,000 FPM across the valve seat to make that much noise? While there wasn't a peep on the warm side? And funny enough, the unit heaters could only run about 2/3 of the time before shutting off to recover enough steam to turn back on.

All of this occurs without a single sensor (or many!), a microprocessor, a wifi connection, global feedback, or any other active devices. Just a boiler with a "gas pedal" controlled by steam system pressure at the header. The steam pressure response is just so exquisitely sensitive to all the connected "areal parts" of the system's condition.

I certainly do love steam heat!

Charlie from wmass

I work on both ends of the spectrum and a vacuum system has the ability to equal the condensing hot water systems efficiency if you can control the system vacuum in relation to the heat demand and someone made a boiler that could handle condensing conditions and produce 2 psi steam when it was -20 F outside. Vacuum systems were designed for 90 F temperatures supplying the heat emitters under low vacuum. Forced hot water is cheaper now to install than a vacuum system so they won the technology race. The same change of state that gives condensing boilers such great efficiency is at work in vacuum systems only at the receiving end of the system. You can thank Bell and Gosset for killing the advancement of vacuum heating by making the circulator pump.

ChrisJ

Charlie from wmass said:

I work on both ends of the spectrum and a vacuum system has the ability to equal the condensing hot water systems efficiency if you can control the system vacuum in relation to the heat demand and someone made a boiler that could handle condensing conditions and produce 2 psi steam when it was -20 F outside. Vacuum systems were designed for 90 F temperatures supplying the heat emitters under low vacuum. Forced hot water is cheaper now to install than a vacuum system so they won the technology race. The same change of state that gives condensing boilers such great efficiency is at work in vacuum systems only at the receiving end of the system. You can thank Bell and Gosset for killing the advancement of vacuum heating by making the circulator pump.

What about the guy that built a vacuum system using pex?
Sounds like that would be fairly cheap to install. And still no pumps or bladder tanks to fail. No bleeding to deal with which is and will always be a PITA for hot water.

Charlie from wmass

Not convinced pex will last long-term. Vacuum systems should be able to reach pressure levels in extremely cold weather to help reduce heat emitters costs for those in Northern areas, IMHO

ChrisJ

Charlie from wmass said:

Not convinced pex will last long-term. Vacuum systems should be able to reach pressure levels in extremely cold weather to help reduce heat emitters costs for those in Northern areas, IMHO

Depends.
I was seeing 0.25 - 0.37" WC last night with an ambient of 5F. That's obviously too hot for pex, but with larger radiators I may be able to get away with lower temps.

Charlie from wmass

ThaT is my point. Vacuum systems allow smaller heat emitters as they have a wider temperature range. It can all be controlled by pressure from a central point as well.

Charlie from wmass

Copper and flared fittings would do wonders for this.
@Jamie Hall I thought I could start a rowdy thread, you have me beat with this one. Lol

ChrisJ

Charlie from wmass said:

Copper and flared fittings would do wonders for this.

@Jamie Hall I thought I could start a rowdy thread, you have me beat with this one. Lol

Oh wait, we were arguing heat, I'm sorry.






.

Steamhead

Here's a thread on the subject, where someone thought he could amaze everyone by tearing out steam and installing mod-con hot-water (at what must have been a horrendous cost) and reducing their fuel consumption by a third. But he couldn't beat the savings we got from de-knuckleheading a steam system:

http://forum.heatinghelp.com/discussion/145002/actual-savings-over-steam-heating

Nice try.

ChrisJ

Like I said I want to see data showing a mod con is cheaper to own and operate over it's life than steam.

Charlie from wmass

When cars are compared they use mutiple years of expenses to determine cost of ownership. Perhaps we should do that for several systems for a decade and see what happens?

Charlie from wmass

Chris can figure your fuel usage as per degree day? Hatterasguy can you do the same for a mod con of similar size home as Chris has?

ChrisJ

It's an attempt but no good. You'd need to test both systems under controlled conditions and that doesn't mean a house let alone two completely different ones with different weather.

Steamhead

Hatterasguy said:

With all due respect Frank, there is no data on that thread that confirms or denies what he supposedly achieved.

And, there is certainly no data to show what a properly functional steam system will do when compared to a mod-con.

Which is exactly the point. There is no such scientifically accurate data. But we continue to see people make these wildly overblown claims that tearing out steam and putting in hot-water will produce these incredible savings. That is just not true. Yet there are those that promote it as gospel.

Conversely, no one has ever said that steam is more efficient than hot-water either, because again, there is no data to support it.

In the thread I linked to, a 1/3 savings allegedly was the result of completely tearing out steam and installing mod-con hot-water. We never did know the details, such as whether the figures were adjusted for degree-days, or most importantly, what condition the steam system was in.

But that really didn't matter, because we achieved the same savings by fixing a steam system. You can find the specifics in our Find a Contractor ad. And our way certainly cost less than a complete tear-out and replacement, both in terms of raw dollars and also taking into account the embodied energy in an existing steam system.

So which is the better way? I think the answer is obvious.

Abracadabra

I've been sitting reading thru all the comments in this thread and what popped in my head is that comparing steam heat to a mod/con is similar to comparing a DHW hot water heater tank to a tankless

Gordy

Everyone loves their own child like no other

Gordy

My how times have changed around here. I remember when it was due diligence to decrease our carbon foot print to the planet. Seems now it's to decrease the foot print to ones wallet.

Gordy

My point is we all look at ROI.

The problem is some day that will not play into it for the consumer. It will just be mandatory. It already is in some countries across the pond. Be thankful you don't have to pay for government inspections as they do over there.

Heck there really is hardly anything out there worth the ROI for decreasing carbon foot prints other than insulation.

I can buy 10 years or more of NG at current prices in DHW for what it costs to set up a nice solar hot water system. Still no guarantee I'll use no gas. That's for the average joe who has to hire it done.

PV forget it.

Just sayin sooner or later the cost to maintain a HE boiler, and even its life expectancy, compared to standard equipment has to be pulled out of the comparison. Systems will need to be designed to extract its highest possible operating efficiencies.

As far as steam compared to hydronic. If it's a system that's already in place great keep it. But to design new from scratch unless possibly a mini tube forget it.

ChrisJ

Steam is hydronic.

Charlie from wmass

If we have two homes and we know the degree days we can find the btu usage per square foot per degree day and have two homes of very similar insulation properties we can extrapolate the numbers we need. If the mod con is that amazing on saving fuel it should be crystal clear. The issue is no one wants to gather the information that would make their horse loose the race. Carbon foot print is not reduced by ripping out 1500 pounds of iron actually closer to 2500 in most systems I come across to install 1000 pounds of copper and electronics. I will install the take us to the moon control the heat from the other side of the globe 100 F fluid temperature systems as easily as the Steam and vapour systems, I just will not install a warm air system. Why? Because there is no market to do a proper installation of it. The reason we all hate forced air is we have never seen a properly install forced air system. I also seldom see force water systems installed properly. Faulty installation is more to blame for energy loss in this nation than heat transfer medium in every system I come across. The fear or disdain of government inspections makes me shudder. Why not have properly train, properly paid, impartial judges of our work?
We all want rid of the scabs, hacks, and Knuckle heads. Do you think that will be done out of the goodness of their hearts? Do you think every consumer out there is going to say " Yes I will pay your 20% more to do the job perfectly because it is the right thing to do" ?
US arguing heating fluid is like arguing who has the most reliable truck, Guess what they all stink when utilized poorly and maintained worse.
I come to the wall really for one reason, to know I am not alone in this business in doing what I do properly.

ChrisJ

There is something I'd still like an answer to and the last time I created a thread asking, I basically got nothing.

Why and how does a boiler become less efficient when it cycles? Because there are other variables with steam, let's use hot water for this one. An atmospheric cast iron boiler used for hot water cycling on at 160F off at 180F. Why is this less efficient than one running continuously at say 170F?

Where is the energy being lost?

I'm asking this because I'm being lead to believe my steam boiler is less efficient because it's an ON \ OFF device that fires at full rate. My beef is, it fires at full rate, dumps a bunch of energy into the cast iron radiators which act as a buffer and then they slowly dissipate it into the structure. On cold, and especially very cold days those "buffers" are continuously dumping heat into the structure even though the boiler runs for 20-40 minutes out of 60. The radiators act as filter capacitors do in a power supply, they suck up energy when they can and then fill in the gaps. I very often see guys say steam systems were designed to run continuously off of coal and don't do well with a full ON \ OFF boiler but from what I've seen, they do incredibly well with it. After seeing what massive cast iron radiators can do, especially when combined with something like the Ecosteam I doubt I'd ever change for something low mass regardless of the medium carrying the heat.

So, where is the energy being lost in this scenario vs a boiler running continuous for the same output? I'm not saying it's not there, right now I'm asking where and what it is. I'm not getting it, help me.



Charlie, I believe I figured out there's approx 4000lbs of cast iron and steel in my steam system.

Charlie from wmass

The cooling as the boiler prepares to fire. Be it a power burner or a gas boiler with an automatic dampers. There is cold air running through the boiler that is simply robbing the heat from the boiler as it starts and stops. Like traffic light versus highway cruising

ChrisJ

Charlie from wmass said:

The cooling as the boiler prepares to fire. Be it a power burner or a gas boiler with an automatic dampers. There is cold air running through the boiler that is simply robbing the heat from the boiler as it starts and stops.

But that heat is being robbed while it's running as well?

Charlie from wmass

your car is using fuel as it runs. If your gas pedal was binary you would use a lot more fuel right? Most boilers and all over sized boilers, even modcons are binary in function.

Mark Eatherton

Wow, talk about a lightning rod... Seems no one will leave this conversation without somehow being offended. Such is life.

I've said this before, and will say it again until someone takes the initiative to do the deed. If a person were to take,say a Burnham MPO, and place a nice chain mail burner assembly with a neg-reg gas train on the combustion chamber, AND place a sensor in the center of the steam drum to sense temperature instead of pressure (archaic method of control), AND return leg AND the OSA, and program its operation to modulate around a floating steam set point temperature (rather narrow range, understood) that you would then have a modulating steam boiler with a nearly infinite modulating range. The ultimate in efficiency might then be achievable with significant energy reduction potentials as it pertains to low pressure steam applications.

Add to that the potential of a Gerry Gil vacuum system and you could have a pretty dynamic duo. (You don't have to get to 212 to produce steam under a vacuum, thereby increasing the range of set back)

The efficiency of this type of system (as noted above) would never be capable of matching the comfort and efficiency of a well designed, installed and maintained hydronic radiant heating (pick a surface) system, but that really isn't a fair comparison, is it?

For the record, I have converted probably 1/2 a dozen steam systems to hot water reset using mod cons and have seen the 30% reduction cited by others, so I know it can be done. I didn't document it, but confirmed it with the consumer. I have nothing to prove there, because too many other folks are seeing the same thing, BUT, 30% is the same reduction potential that is commonly associated with the direct replacement of a conventional boiler with a modcon boiler, so that adds validity to Franks statement that he can probably generate the same energy savings with a lot less material and sweat equity...

In general, per the Jamie's original statement, steam is a fascinating, flexible, forgiving system that even under the worst of conditions can produce HEAT, but heat is but one component of comfort, and having pipes hammering like the hammers of hell does not fall within my definition of true "comfort".

But then again, we see the same conditions with hydronic (pick a methodology) systems.

I have personally seen systems that were installed against every recommended practice in the book, to the point that it shouldn't have been capable of producing ANY heat, but it was and did and the consumers were rallying around the radiators, thankful that they had "heat".

Now, if we can clone the likes of some of the long time participants of this world famous steam forumn (Dan H, Frank, Gerry, Terry, Charlie and all of their partners) and could scour their brains and assemble another clone from the sum of their parts (call it a DanFranTerryGerryChar) we will have it made.

Until that time happens, we can rejoice that the world has access to their brains, field experience and the hundreds of years of rich history they and their systems bring to the table.

Interesting conversation for sure, JAMIE ...

Next.....

ME

ChrisJ

Charlie from wmass said:

your car is using fuel as it runs. If your gas pedal was binary you would use a lot more fuel right? Most boilers and all over sized boilers, even modcons are binary in function.

Look up "Pulse and Glide". Car engines work much more efficiently at high output than low output.

This is also why Diesel electrics are more efficient, they run at a set RPM.

ChrisJ

Mark Eatherton said:

Wow, talk about a lightning rod... Seems no one will leave this conversation without somehow being offended. Such is life.

I've said this before, and will say it again until someone takes the initiative to do the deed. If a person were to take,say a Burnham MPO, and place a nice chain mail burner assembly with a neg-reg gas train on the combustion chamber, AND place a sensor in the center of the steam drum to sense temperature instead of pressure (archaic method of control), AND return leg AND the OSA, and program its operation to modulate around a floating steam set point temperature (rather narrow range, understood) that you would then have a modulating steam boiler with a nearly infinite modulating range. The ultimate in efficiency might then be achievable with significant energy reduction potentials as it pertains to low pressure steam applications.

Add to that the potential of a Gerry Gil vacuum system and you could have a pretty dynamic duo. (You don't have to get to 212 to produce steam under a vacuum, thereby increasing the range of set back)

The efficiency of this type of system (as noted above) would never be capable of matching the comfort and efficiency of a well designed, installed and maintained hydronic radiant heating (pick a surface) system, but that really isn't a fair comparison, is it?

For the record, I have converted probably 1/2 a dozen steam systems to hot water reset using mod cons and have seen the 30% reduction cited by others, so I know it can be done. I didn't document it, but confirmed it with the consumer. I have nothing to prove there, because too many other folks are seeing the same thing, BUT, 30% is the same reduction potential that is commonly associated with the direct replacement of a conventional boiler with a modcon boiler, so that adds validity to Franks statement that he can probably generate the same energy savings with a lot less material and sweat equity...

In general, per the Jamie's original statement, steam is a fascinating, flexible, forgiving system that even under the worst of conditions can produce HEAT, but heat is but one component of comfort, and having pipes hammering like the hammers of hell does not fall within my definition of true "comfort".

But then again, we see the same conditions with hydronic (pick a methodology) systems.

I have personally seen systems that were installed against every recommended practice in the book, to the point that it shouldn't have been capable of producing ANY heat, but it was and did and the consumers were rallying around the radiators, thankful that they had "heat".

Now, if we can clone the likes of some of the long time participants of this world famous steam forumn (Dan H, Frank, Gerry, Terry, Charlie and all of their partners) and could scour their brains and assemble another clone from the sum of their parts (call it a DanFranTerryGerryChar) we will have it made.

Until that time happens, we can rejoice that the world has access to their brains, field experience and the hundreds of years of rich history they and their systems bring to the table.

Interesting conversation for sure, JAMIE ...

Next.....

ME

Well,
My opinion just dropped like a rock.


I may be wrong, but I believe @Steamhead was saying he can get a customer a 30% savings just by fixing the steam system. So I'm not sure what that has to do with replacing a conventional boiler with a modcon?

Jamie Hall

What a lovely discussion! I'm glad I started it!

On efficiency, since that seems to be where the main thrust is...

It seems to me that one of the key things to recognize is that one must -- absolutely must -- try to separate some of the variables. To do that is very difficult, because there are so many of them.

I don't think, however, that it is unreasonable to try and look at the various systems over a typical year, rather than best case or worst case days. Nor is it unreasonable to suppose that the various systems will all be properly set up and adjusted for their applications. In which case I think it is also reasonable to say that a modulating/condensing hydronic system will be slightly -- note, slightly -- more efficient. Nobody has the numbers exactly, so I will give a ballpark -- on the order of 90% efficiency for the mod/con, and on the order of 84% efficiency for the conventional steam or conventional hydronic.

I will be more than happy to grant that converting from a 1950s or even 1960s boiler and burner to a 2010s boiler and burner could easily boost the efficiency from say 60% up to those values -- but that is in the technology of the boiler and burner, not in the heat transfer medium, so let's get over that one.

I'd very much like to also get over the idea that the cycling of a boiler is a major loss. It is a minor loss, no argument -- but the pre and post purge which is used for oil burners results in a minor loss, as can be seen from the very short time lost in a cycling boiler from when the burner fires to when steam is produced (on the order of perhaps 10 seconds, on mine). It is so small because the pre and post purges only remove combustion products; they are totally ineffective at cooling the boiler and the water in it.

The major difference in efficiency -- that 84% to 90% (please forget the government's 96% figure; that's not achievable in real life, any more than that your car's EPA gas mileage estimates are) -- lies in the ability of a condensing furnace to condense, and thus recover the latent heat of water vapour in the combustion gas. What this means in practice is that when we design an hydronic system using mod/con technology, and expect to consistently achieve that higher efficiency, we must design it so that we are getting condensation -- which means lower circulating temperatures in the boiler and bigger emitters (I might point out that radiant systems have a real advantage here) and sufficiently sophisticated controls to keep the system in that range.

Can this be done? Sure -- we have any number of folks on the Wall who, I dare say, do it routinely. Can it be done by the average HVAC guy? I'm not so sure. Is the additional cost of the controls and the emitters over a modern steam system recoverable? I'm not so sure about that, either. Is the cost difference from upgrading an old creaky clanky steam system to a modern steam system recoverable? I doubt it very much.

Some of commented on the European systems, so many of which are shiny new contraptions. This shouldn't be a real surprise. In the United Kingdom, for instance, with which I am tolerably familiar, very very few houses had any central heat at all until the mid to late 50s, and there are an astonishing number which still don't. In many central European cities, much of the housing stock is at least post WWII (for obvious reasons). That should be taken into account.

Just some thoughts... there is much virtue in simplicity!

Mark Eatherton

Sorry to disappoint Chris. All jobs were major remodels, and the consumers wanted to recover the head space lost due to steam piping considerations in their basements. No possible way to economically do that and retain steam.

And that was my point. If the consumer is looking to save energy, in certain situations, just undoing the doings of other can achieve that reduction goal. Fixing steam problems is not always as easy as correcting near boiler piping issues and turning it down. As with hydronics, the only correct answer is "It depends..."

I appreciate your and all the other steamsters exuberance, but the basic fact is that you are dealing with a dying system, and an even faster dying trade. How many brand new steam systems have been installed recently? I'd bet you can count them on one hand. Kudos to you and others for keeping these grand systems alive.

ME

ChrisJ

Mark Eatherton said:

Sorry to disappoint Chris. All jobs were major remodels, and the consumers wanted to recover the head space lost due to steam piping considerations in their basements. No possible way to economically do that and retain steam.

And that was my point. If the consumer is looking to save energy, in certain situations, just undoing the doings of other can achieve that reduction goal. Fixing steam problems is not always as easy as correcting near boiler piping issues and turning it down. As with hydronics, the only correct answer is "It depends..."

I appreciate your and all the other steamsters exuberance, but the basic fact is that you are dealing with a dying system, and an even faster dying trade. How many brand new steam systems have been installed recently? I'd bet you can count them on one hand. Kudos to you and others for keeping these grand systems alive.

ME

That's ok Mark, by your logic hot water both baseboard and radiant are dying systems too. All hydronic systems in the US are what, 7% of the market and dropping every day? As I said before, steam counts as hydronic.

I guess every professional on this site is going extinct and pretty soon everyone will have itchy eyes and constant cold and hot swings all winter long.

Mark Eatherton

"That's ok Mark, by your logic hot water both baseboard and radiant are dying systems too. All hydronic systems in the US are what, 7% of the market and dropping every day? As I said before, steam counts as hydronic.

I guess every professional on this site is going extinct and pretty soon everyone will have itchy eyes and constant cold and hot swings all winter long."

Trust me Chris, I don't want to see the hydronics industry go away, but there are some forces out there that are much larger and stronger than our hydronics industry that have every intention of taking over every known method of heating and cooling, and it isn't water based....

And, why the snarkiness? I don't make this stuff up, I only track it and report it. Just the facts man, just the facts.

Our industry as a whole needs to wake up, or some day we will wake up, and it will all be gone, except for service and repair.

www.hydronicsindustryalliance.org

ME

Charlie from wmass

Noisy radiators are a cry for help Marc. If the system is hammering it is wrong.

ChrisJ

Mark Eatherton said:

"That's ok Mark, by your logic hot water both baseboard and radiant are dying systems too. All hydronic systems in the US are what, 7% of the market and dropping every day? As I said before, steam counts as hydronic.

I guess every professional on this site is going extinct and pretty soon everyone will have itchy eyes and constant cold and hot swings all winter long."

Trust me Chris, I don't want to see the hydronics industry go away, but there are some forces out there that are much larger and stronger than our hydronics industry that have every intention of taking over every known method of heating and cooling, and it isn't water based....

And, why the snarkiness? I don't make this stuff up, I only track it and report it. Just the facts man, just the facts.

Our industry as a whole needs to wake up, or some day we will wake up, and it will all be gone, except for service and repair.

www.hydronicsindustryalliance.org

ME

Mark,
My main problem is I didn't see any facts.

So far, no one has provided multiple systems tested in the same structure under the same conditions.

For example, something similar to what was done with steam systems comparing different sized boilers and pickup factors. Conditions weren't perfect, but at least they used the same building.

I'll never argue facts. You had customers tell you they say a 30% savings. How was this data collected? Were the conditions the same? Was anything else changed during the "remodeling" such as windows, insulation etc?

I'd bet my life savings I can leave my steam system alone, rip the siding off of my house, replace the windows, insulate the walls, put sheathing and siding up, insulate the attic and see far more than a 30% savings. I'd probably cut my heating bill down by 60% and never touch the heating system.

Not meaning to be Snarky.