Steam heat is amazing...

Gordy

People have to look at total system efficiencies that means the envelope also. No good having HE heating if everything else is garbage.

ChrisJ

Hatterasguy said:

ChrisJ said:

Yeah @Hatterasguy

Stop being a buzzkill.

Chill out MR. STEAM.

Mark Eatherton

Thanks for keeping it civil. Your enthusiasm shines through.

Major cities (NYC, Chicago and others) have begun a program called "benchmarking". The intent is to be able to look at the historic utility consumption of a given building, and be able to compare its energy consumption with that of equivalent buildings. The problem that I see with their efforts, is that it doesn't take into consideration the one major variable to energy use, that being the occupants, and the way they use the building. The problem is, by the time you get done taking into consideration every factor necessary to get to an apples to apples comparison, you have a number that is so diluted that it is tough to extrapolate it into a usable energy value.

BTU/Sq Ft per degree day is useless, unless the occupants and heat loss factors for the structure are taken into consideration, for direct comparison reasons.

BTU/Sq Ft/Degree Day/occupant/average U value per square foot of heat loss surface gets you a number that few people would recognize as being a valid number. But that IS where we need to go in order to fairly compare one system to another, and getting to that point is going to have a lot of pitfalls from the GIGO principle. I suspect you understand that principle quite well if you have had any programming experience.

BTW, the current benchmarking programs are limited to commercial and multi family buildings.

And for sure, if a person wanted to use a microscope analysis on a given retrofit, they'd be able to see the reduction potential per variable, but then its really only applicable to THAT property, unless you can find its identical twin (same exposures, same solar gains, same occupants, same ages, etc)

As Hat pointed out, we are dealing with some basic unavoidable known thermal efficiency factors that can't be ignored, and they are not.

Trust me, if steam were just as efficient as a good hydronic radiant system, we'd be seeing a lot more of them installed on new build outs. And we're not. Sad but true fact.

And that is not to say that some combination of variable vacuum system, connected with a good modulating burner steam boiler (as I layed out above) might not bubble to the top of the pile. We have the technology. We just need to apply it and document it.

ME

Charlie from wmass

if only we had a way to modulate the pressure in regards to the outdoor temperature, you know like they had in the 1940's

Gordy

Heating degree day per square foot is very universal in finding heating demands. Variables are wind, and solar influence on the structure.

ChrisJ

Hatterasguy said:

Mark Eatherton said:

As Hat pointed out, we are dealing with some basic unavoidable known thermal efficiency factors that can't be ignored, and they are not.


ME

The zealots of steam have a burning desire to avoid the known thermal efficiency factors. An "inconvenient truth" comes to mind.

I also enjoy a well running steam system. But I am certainly not blind to its efficiency limitations.

Negative.
I'm arguing the extra cost associated with buying and maintaining a modcon. Not whether or not they are more efficient energy wise. I know they're more efficient. I don't know if they're cheaper to own.

I'm also arguing the fact steam is a hydronic system.

Definition of hydronic
: of, relating to, or being a system of heating or cooling that involves transfer of heat by a circulating fluid (as water or vapor) in a closed system of pipes"


And, I'm not a zealot in any regard.
Well, maybe when it comes to my severe dislike of forced hot air.

Hot water heat is just fine in my book.

Steamhead

ChrisJ said:

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?

This is the biggest reason why these comparisons don't hold water. They don't tell us what condition the steam system was in, just that they ripped it out and put in mod-cons. In the thread I linked to, the OP did not supply any more specific info (and didn't seem to want to). But- and this is key- my answer (which referred to our Find a Contractor ad) did. This was the existing situation, All Steamed Up did this, this and this, and the result was a 1/3 fuel savings. We would never post anything along that line unless we could share the full story with the Wall community. To us, doing any less would be a disservice.

In a couple of cases- school buildings- I've been able to find out what was going on before the conversion. The steam systems were on the verge of total failure- control systems not working, boilers being cycled manually, bad traps, pipes leaking etc.

Anyone reading this would conclude, correctly, that it all came back to poor maintenance, not the fact that these were steam systems. It will be interesting to see how these shiny new mod-cons will be working five years from now with the same lack of maintenance. ME, do I recall you tried skipping maintenance on one of your mod-cons to see what would happen, and its efficiency dropped precipitously?

Oh, and BTW, according to one of my Dead Men's Books it is possible to run a steam main perfectly level and have it work properly, as long as every runout also acts as a drip. I have never tried this, but if done right I don't see a reason why it wouldn't work.

Hatterasguy said:

There is massive waste of fuel on a steam system to get it up to temperature each time it starts. And it starts at least once every hour.

If the steam system is well insulated it won't lose nearly as much heat between cycles, and if the boiler is cycling properly it'll be even less likely to cool down completely between cycles. We frequently see a steam boiler that has run recently start up and produce steam in a minute or two, and the steam appears at the rads much more quickly because the pipes are still quite warm. We're not talking about having to heat the whole system up from room temperature on every cycle. Again, it's a simple matter of understanding how these systems work and taking full advantage of them.

ChrisJ

The "massive waste of fuel" in my case isn't massive.
My boiler is in my basement directly below my livingroom which has an uninsulated floor.

That massive waste of fuel is the time it takes to get the water to boiling, and then the time to get the steam down the mains which also, are directly below uninsulated flooring. Even if I fire the boiler for a minute and shut it off before any steam hits my radiators I will get heat in my house and I've proven it on warmer days. I'll even get some heat if I don't even let the boiler start boiling.

That "massive waste" is dissipated into the surrounding air, around the boiler, around the mains, which rises up into my house.

Fact is that waste is taking place the entire time the system is running. It's just when no steam is at the radiators it seems the majority of people assume it's a total loss, and it's not, at least in my case.

I'm willing to bet most residential systems are similar.


My system on a typical day takes 2 to 3 minutes to get steam to every radiator from the time the thermostat calls for heat. But, I don't think those first 2 to 3 minutes are a total loss. maybe 20% of the heat is lost?


That's my opinion based on my observations.

Charlie from wmass

Until it needs a blower or the heat exchanger fails. Or the gas valve. Oh yeah then there is the " we can have that blower in 2 days, 5 tops" in January. As I said they all stink, you just need to find which stink bothers you less.

Jamie Hall

Charlie from wmass said:

Until it needs a blower or the heat exchanger fails. Or the gas valve. Oh yeah then there is the " we can have that blower in 2 days, 5 tops" in January. As I said they all stink, you just need to find which stink bothers you less.

Quite so. Or move to... San Diego, maybe? But then there are other stinks!

I'll go with whatever works.

jumper

Here are some more ideas to argue .
•You can recover lost energy from an inefficient boiler with recuperators.Even down to condensing if gas is that precious to you.We did that in the seventies.
•People have plenty of problems with HWH.This website demonstrates it.
•You can improve ancient steam systems. With modern windows and insulation the load is considerably less. So you can throttle the radiators to eliminate conventional traps.
•My POV is that radiant heating is superior to air but servicing hot water or steam continuously becomes more problematic for homeowners.Phone the outfit in Toronto yellow pages who says that they're HWH specialists.A young guy will come out who has never seen a non-bladder expansion tank.
• Speaking of diaphragm tanks,I've decided that they're a bad idea.
Go to it gentlemen.

ChrisJ

jumper said:

Here are some more ideas to argue .
•You can recover lost energy from an inefficient boiler with recuperators.Even down to condensing if gas is that precious to you.We did that in the seventies.
•People have plenty of problems with HWH.This website demonstrates it.
•You can improve ancient steam systems. With modern windows and insulation the load is considerably less. So you can throttle the radiators to eliminate conventional traps.
•My POV is that radiant heating is superior to air but servicing hot water or steam continuously becomes more problematic for homeowners.Phone the outfit in Toronto yellow pages who says that they're HWH specialists.A young guy will come out who has never seen a non-bladder expansion tank.
• Speaking of diaphragm tanks,I've decided that they're a bad idea.
Go to it gentlemen.

No expansion tanks on a steam system.

Charlie from wmass

I see Jamie once a year, I would not call that continuously needing service. Most of my customers I see no more than yearly because their systems are simply in proper working order. I truly expect to never have to change out any of the steam boilers I have install in the last 20 years as I did them properly. The hot water boilers, especially the wall hung units I am positive I will be replacing before my eldest leaves college.

ChrisJ

Charlie from wmass said:

I see Jamie once a year, I would not call that continuously needing service. Most of my customers I see no more than yearly because their systems are simply in proper working order. I truly expect to never have to change out any of the steam boilers I have install in the last 20 years as I did them properly. The hot water boilers, especially the wall hung units I am positive I will be replacing before my eldest leaves college.

There goes your modcon savings!

Charlie from wmass

Chris the whole system is your expansion tank, lol

Charlie from wmass

Granted most modcon change outs ( once you have one) require three unions and a few wires.

Charlie from wmass

http://forum.heatinghelp.com/discussion/154115/there-is-hope
Working on the cloning part too.

Gordy

My bike is better than your bike...........

NewtoSteam2

I am probably off topic here, but it sounds like the best place for my question. I have just bought an older home (1930) with steam heat and the largest boiler I have ever seen in a home. I am hoping to keep the working steam heat system, but replace the boiler. What brand of boiler would you suggest . I attached a photo of the existing unit in case that provides any detail. Also, the home has a separate oil fired hot water heater. Can I expect a new system to be able to do both or should I keep them separated. Thanks

Steamhead

Where are you located?

Is there natural gas available in or to the house?

NewtoSteam2

Uxbridge Ma. no gas available, so expecting to stick with oil.

ChrisJ

Gordy said:

My bike is better than your bike...........

Ok Francis.

bob_46

a boiler that's not firing is a radiator.

Mark Eatherton

Frank said "ME, do I recall you tried skipping maintenance on one of your mod-cons to see what would happen, and its efficiency dropped precipitously?"

Yes, it did drop, but its efficiency was still above that of an atmospheric appliance. Think modulation...

And THAT (lack of service) is going to be the downfall of mod con appliances. No service = short life expectancy.

Before people with atmospheric appliances jump on to that note and try to beat the modcon boilers up, YOU TOO are supposed to be having an annual visit from your service company... and they are supposed to be doing more than applying a coat of racing wax (WD40) to the exterior jacket of the appliance and initializing the service tag.

As has been proven in a court of law many times, our society has resorted to a modus operandi of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". and are applying it to all but their automobiles, regardless of what the owners manuals say.

People that service every boiler they sell, are an extreme rarity, and are probably citizens of this site. Most install and walk away.

I've been quoted before stating that if you want to have a blossoming business, change your company name to "ModCon Service Only" and give your company cards out to all the other contractors out there installing that are not servicing what they sold, and watch your phone catch on fire...

ME

ChrisJ

bob said:

a boiler that's not firing is a radiator.

Especially the ones with 1/2" fiberglass insulation.
Because we know how expensive fiberglass batting is. Can't possibly make a new boiler with 1" or 2" thick fiberglass, god no.

Sorry, that's something that really annoys me.
That and the VisionPro not being programmed to look ahead to see if it's doing a setback in the next 5 or 10 minutes before firing a boiler for little to no reason.

ChrisJ

Mark Eatherton said:

Frank said "ME, do I recall you tried skipping maintenance on one of your mod-cons to see what would happen, and its efficiency dropped precipitously?"

Yes, it did drop, but its efficiency was still above that of an atmospheric appliance. Think modulation...

And THAT (lack of service) is going to be the downfall of mod con appliances. No service = short life expectancy.

Before people with atmospheric appliances jump on to that note and try to beat the modcon boilers up, YOU TOO are supposed to be having an annual visit from your service company... and they are supposed to be doing more than applying a coat of racing wax (WD40) to the exterior jacket of the appliance and initializing the service tag.

As has been proven in a court of law many times, our society has resorted to a modus operandi of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". and are applying it to all but their automobiles, regardless of what the owners manuals say.

People that service every boiler they sell, are an extreme rarity, and are probably citizens of this site. Most install and walk away.

I've been quoted before stating that if you want to have a blossoming business, change your company name to "ModCon Service Only" and give your company cards out to all the other contractors out there installing that are not servicing what they sold, and watch your phone catch on fire...

ME

How dare you!
My boiler gets two coats of Meguiar's!

Gordy

ChrisJ said:

Gordy said:

My bike is better than your bike...........

Ok Francis.

Ya know why?

Gordy

Do radiant cooling with that steam system, or harvest the sun, or harvest the ground, water, and air to heat.....

ChrisJ

Gordy said:

ChrisJ said:

Gordy said:

My bike is better than your bike...........

Ok Francis.

Ya know why?

Why I called you Francis?
Or why your bike is better than mine?

Gordy

My bike is better than yours .........because it's mine.

ChrisJ

Gordy said:

Do radiant cooling with that steam system, or harvest the sun, or harvest the ground, water, and air to heat.....

Hmmm.
Harvest the sun, they're working on that with mirrors.
Radiant cooling could work if setup right but you'd need a fairly strong vacuum pump and a way to get the water back where it needs to be.

The rest we can do with refrigeration and as far as I'm concerned heat pumps and refrigeration systems in general have far more in common with a steam system than a hot water system.

That's the best I've got.

Gordy

You can do steam heat with solar panels, ground,water, or air source heat pumps??

ChrisJ

Gordy said:

You can do steam heat with solar panels, ground,water, or air source heat pumps??

Solar panels yes, apparently.
Steamhead posted an article on it, though it was for power generation but my point was it's possible to make steam with sun.

Heatpumps work similar, just backwards as does geothermal. They of course don't use water but it's still a phase change system which is what I like.

ChrisJ

Jamie,

Your thread died off.

Gordy

That's steam......end of the cycle

Bob Bona_4

He's down changing the leaking/clogged wet return piping, Chris. Give him time

ttekushan_3

I still agree with @Jamie Hall 's original premise. Steam Heat is Amazing!

However, since this thread has been dragged a bit into a "lets poop on steam heat fest" by a poster or two, [and I am NOT referring to M.E.'s cogent and thoughtful critiques-- just the mean spirited contentious postings] Let me bring up a couple Inconvenient truths.

-There's nothing "green" about central heating at all. Keeping a largely unoccupied space nicely conditioned for all our stuff is very nice and all, but it is not "green." Don't get me wrong-- I do the same, but I'm not going to go all sanctimonious on someone for doing what I'm doing, but in a slightly different way.

-Manufacturing of our favorite heating equipment takes a tremendous amount of energy. The more sophisticated or rare the materials, the higher the energy and environmental impact their manufacturing costs. Just because the mining and manufacturing occurs in in 3rd world countries where we can't see it, doesn't mean that our 7% or 8% in-use fuel consumption reduction doesn't have a tremendous cost outside our homes or even our country particularly if it requires a complete change-out of an already-existing serviceable heating system.

-The more complex the heating system, the more of these high-environmental impact/energy intensive technologies get utilized. Technology is not energy and the existence of a microprocessor is not a "free energy" card in the game of global "energy monopoly." Even if it gets you a marginal reduction of in-use energy consumption, there's a price to be paid somewhere, whether we choose to acknowledge it or not. A wall full of computer controlled pumps and valves is not the picture of low total energy embodiment. It's wonderful but it is, in fact, the picture of a high energy intensity lifestyle.

-Generally speaking, when you drive a technology to the point of diminishing returns, total efficiency suffers- i.e., the marginal outcome is not all that impressive when you consider the amount of technological energy applied to get it. Now, if we deleteriously confine our heating system to the system as it appears within our four walls, then yes-- we can define ourselves as successful and feel good about it. Looking at it globally? Not so much.

-ROI and lifecycle costs, when looked at with the above perspective, is actually a decent indicator of how much energy went into the product to begin with. With IC manufacturing and rare earth metals, and the manufacturing of more sophisticated metallurgy typically outsourced to low wage countries, the remainder of the cost is roughly equivalent to the energy intensity embodied in the total of a "thing's" manufacture. And if you want to throw cost-based pricing out the window and go with perceived value- the price of a sophisticated heating system is not necessarily defensible in terms of efficiency!

-Renewable energy technology is not manufactured with renewable energy sources. There's a good reason for that. Our economy is based on fossil fuel energy intensity. Renewables are a valuable supplement, and there's plenty of room for improvement. But statistical outliers can't save the day even though we can find examples of renewables providing for total energy requirements for a select area for a day or a week somewhere. Typically, the savings in fuel use in one place is offset by externalities displaced in time and place.

-If replacing natural gas or oil usage in a heating system comes at an increased cost in electrical usage, chances are the increased electrical usage won't even be measured by anybody. And if it is, electricity is always somehow determined to be 100% efficient since the energy is measured only from the meter on the wall. So if I have a natural gas 83% steamer, and the replacement "whatever" uses a lot more electricity to get an improvement, consider that power generation using the same natural gas is a LOT less efficient. Burning natural gas to run turbines has efficiency losses, the latent heat of expansion is literally thrown away [I'm not seeing cogeneration out there very much], large scale turbine efficiency in terms of conversion to electricity, while being excellent compared to everything else is still in the 65% range. And then there's the transmission losses which amount to 50% of the generation output. IMO, electrical consumption should be weighted by a factor of 3 to compensate for the losses to get to the meter to begin with. I also think heat pump COP should be adjusted accordingly. With this in mind, burning the gas on location with minimal electrical usage starts to look not-so-crazy.
-Finally, if this were all true, surely as we get more efficient our carbon footprint is getting smaller. And it would show up in statistics somewhere. Or not. According to per capita CO2 emissions, our Per Capita Carbon Footprint has been increasing since 1981. That's according to data.worldbank.org
Our total per cap CO2 output in the USA has held fairly steady from 1981-2008, even though per cap manufacturing CO2 output has been declining significantly over the same period. The difference worsens since the financial crisis of 2008. The net result is that our lifestyles have resulted in an ever-increasing per capita carbon footprint over time. Nevermind that CO2 output in the nations where our manufacturing is outsourced to has skyrocketed.

So how is that increasing energy efficiency working out?

As a friend of mine said as we were comparing notes on some vintage appliances:
"If my old well-built equipment would only crap out, I could increase my carbon footprint like everyone else!)

Don't get me wrong. I'm no different than anybody else in this country.

But please don't lecture us steam people on the basis of "carbon footprint" when, in fact, saving the embodied energy of a steam system and getting excellent total energy consumption numbers is truly reducing it in some small measure.

Gordy

So @ttekushan by you giving me a disagree I must have offended you. That's fine the taunting started on the steam side with efficiencies. If you go back to the beginning.

Nothing's free. Bottom line.

ChrisJ

Gordy said:

So @ttekushan by you giving me a disagree I must have offended you. That's fine the taunting started on the steam side with efficiencies. If you go back to the beginning.

Nothing's free. Bottom line.

I don't see any disagree from him?
Was probably an accident. Come on, we're all friends here.

ttekushan_3

@Gordy, I've retracted the "dislike" in the spirit of "benefit of the doubt." I may have misinterpreted your "end of cycle" in a "good riddance" sort of way. You could see my being a bit sensitive about that if that were your actual meaning.