standing pilot vs. intermittent - Murph'

Online Sheriff \"Murph\"

does any one know what kind of savings can be realized from an intermittent pilot vs. a standing pilot on average boiler with lp. gas at approximatley 90 cents a gallon??

Bob Morrison_2

standing vs. intermittent pilot - estimated savings

Murph,

The estimated savings is 3-4% of annual consumption. However, load and appliance type have a large impact. At my (yet to be renovated) house in MA (1000 SF @ 75MBTU/SF-yr) at $0.90 per gallon, I'd estimate $29 per year savings for the intermittent pilot.

1. 75 x 1000 = 75,000 MBTU per year
2. 75,000 MBTU divided by 93 MBtu/gallon LP = 806 gallons
3. 0.04 x 806 = 32 gallons saved annually
4. 32 gallons x $0.90 = $29

This is not a huge savings from the point of view of one homeowner, but would be a large and (I believe) important resource savings if all future appliances were required to be intermittent pilot.

Bob Morrison

Online Sheriff \"Murph\"

this may get a little tricky, but i could see the appliance type, and the climate itself figuring into play, but what feul usage (or say a percentage of a btu) would a pilot consume??

I mean a pilot on a 150,000 boiler would burn approximately the same amount of feul as a 65k water heater but i would imagine the boiler would use much much more feul per year especially if say the water heater was seldom used??

Herb

pilot on LP boiler

If the boiler in question has a conventional atmospheric burner set-up [no combustion blower] I would never consider changing it to an intermitant pilot. In fact our company will install a constant pilot on equipment that vents naturally. The extra cost of maintaining spark ignition far exceeds the cost of the gas consumed during the off season. Remember the constant burning pilot is an advantage during the heating season and the cost of replacing a 3 dollar thermocouple beats a spark module for 150! Also the cost of the gas burned during the summer is much cheaper than a service call to replace a corroded pilot orifice in the fall.

Bob Morrison

estimate of pilot savings - I agree with you

Murph,

The 3-4% estimate is a general number. I agree that what's needed is the gas flow rate of a pilot for a better estimate. Does anyone have this information?

Bob

Bob Morrison

standing pilot issue and question

Herb,

Your points are well taken: there's a good argument based on maintenance cost savings for natural draft appliances.

Based on your experience, what percent of natural draft burners orifices, which have been retrofitted to spark ignition, draft will corrode?

Thanks

Bob Morrison

steve gates

> If the boiler in question has a conventional

> atmospheric burner set-up [no combustion blower]

> I would never consider changing it to an

> intermitant pilot. In fact our company will

> install a constant pilot on equipment that vents

> naturally. The extra cost of maintaining spark

> ignition far exceeds the cost of the gas consumed

> during the off season. Remember the constant

> burning pilot is an advantage during the heating

> season and the cost of replacing a 3 dollar

> thermocouple beats a spark module for 150! Also

> the cost of the gas burned during the summer is

> much cheaper than a service call to replace a

> corroded pilot orifice in the fall.

steve gates

> If the boiler in question has a conventional

> atmospheric burner set-up [no combustion blower]

> I would never consider changing it to an

> intermitant pilot. In fact our company will

> install a constant pilot on equipment that vents

> naturally. The extra cost of maintaining spark

> ignition far exceeds the cost of the gas consumed

> during the off season. Remember the constant

> burning pilot is an advantage during the heating

> season and the cost of replacing a 3 dollar

> thermocouple beats a spark module for 150! Also

> the cost of the gas burned during the summer is

> much cheaper than a service call to replace a

> corroded pilot orifice in the fall.

steve gates

pilot vs

anyone ever figure out the electrical cost to start a spark?

Steamhead

One advantage of intermittent

is added convenience for the owner- the pilot is lit automatically so they don't have to worry about it going out. This is especially useful in non-owner-occupied buildings.

We have a lot of spark-to-pilot boilers out there and have yet to replace an ignition module.

To Learn More About This Contractor, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Contractor"

Herb

intermitant pilot

Bob, my LP company is located in western New York in a rural setting. We find the most trouble with intermitant pilot systems, whether boiler or furnace, in older homes with high humidity levels in their basements. Since we deal exclusively with LP systems I'm sure we find this more than would general contractors. Since LP pilot orifices generally run .010 .011, their sizes alone makes them more prone to trouble than the larger NAT ones.

Mark Eatherton1

Standing pilot gas consumption...

Check out this link http://energy-publications.nrcan.gc.ca/pub/home/All_About_Gas_Fireplaces_Section03.cfm

They claim between 600 and 1500 btuH for pilot consumption on a typical gas log fireplace. I've seen numbers as high as 2,500 btuH on pilots for boilers up to 3.5 mill.

You'll have to do the math as far as % consumption is concerned for your application. We've pretty much standardized on the standing pilot in our company to avoid problems. We've had 2 t-couple failures in 5 years versus having 2 electronic ignition failures per year.

ME

To Learn More About This Contractor, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Contractor"

Duncan_2

Relighting device with standing pilot?

Wow, that's TEN times as many electronic ignition failures! And consider that there's a LOT more thermocouples out there than electronic ignitions.

But also consider: that's just what you serviced, not what's actually happening out there. If the new Advanced Hydronics clients are as smart as the Sun Power clients were, you can bet a lot of them replace their own thermocouples. Anyone (exaggeration) can replace a thermocouple. Correct application, availability, and black box mystery factor enter into electronic ignition replacement, making a service call more likely.

I think it's awesome that Advanced Hydronics tracks stuff like that. It just blows me away, how many facets there are to running a biz.

As heating experts, your company still brings value to even minor repairs like t-couple replacement, like a quality heavy-duty thermocouple vs. a deepo cheapo.

You'll get no argument from me that thermocouples are more reliable than electronic ignition in the long run.

I have to fall in with Steamhead on this one. Assuming seasonal checkups... electronic ignition for unoccupied homes (or wind conditions that resist even self-orienting vent caps). Also, in this neck of the woods, a power outage can kill a gas solenoid cutoff to the entire house, which also kills standing pilot lights.

Maybe a standing pilot with a simple re-lighting device is the best of both worlds?

Anyone have any experiences in this area?

Mark Eatherton1

Experience with pilot re-lighters

I've installed probably a half a dozen of them. The problem with them is that if you don't get the pilot relit before the thermocouple cools off, you'll drop the magnet out anyway. I've used them in settings where wind induced pilot outages were a nuisance, and I assume they're working great 'cause I've never heard back from the consumer.

I'm going to install one on the water heater and furnace at my other home on the western slope, not as a maintenance device, but as a convenience device so I don't have to get on my hands and knees to re-light the pilot on the water heater or furnace every weekend I go up there. Just push the pilot button and flip the ON switch to the ignitor.

I'm one of those people that Al Levi referred to in his post about people that unneccessairly abused their bodies, and regrets it now. Now I look for ways to work smarter, not harder...

ME

To Learn More About This Contractor, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Contractor"

gas man

live pilot, warm boiler is a happy boiler !

I've always believe the benefits of a live pilot far outway the costs ! Circulator gaskets , air vents , and boiler fittings are less likely to become nuisance leaks over the summer down time season ! Interrmittant spark systems' also need as much servicing if not more than live pilots , and one of the most important points is moisture , damp basements raise havoc with spark modules and sense rods , live pilots are far better in these conditions ! ol gas man !

John@Reliable

I'm mostly a oil guy, do work on gas and you took the words right out of my mouth, I sometimes have to put aquastats on cold start boilers just for all your reasons

Online Sheriff \"Murph\"

I was looking for comparable figures

as far as cost to operate, the 2000btuh sounds a little high, but may be workable. round numbers or a wild guess.
I would have to agree with the standing pilot is preffered (don't tell floyd) for reliability and up front cost.

Online Sheriff \"Murph\"

Online Sheriff \"Murph\"

Online Sheriff \"Murph\"

Online Sheriff \"Murph\"

oops!!

trying to clean my keyboard!!

Unknown

Pilots

Most pilots used on boilers burn about 575 to 1025 BTU's per hour. On LP.p gas systems that use .011 or .012 orifices on the pilot at 1.52 specific gravity and 2550 BTU the .011 will give at 11" w.c. pressure 951 BTU's the .012 will give 1,131 BTU's. If you figure out your local Propane equivalent BTU's per gallon (ask local dealer) and find out the cost multiply x 365 days per year. That will give you standing pilot usage. Intermittent pilot will be 2.5% less per year. Those figures are from AGA and LP Gas handbook. Some useful info:

BTU's per gallon for LP at 60° (F) = 91,690
BTU's per lb = 21,591
Cubic foot of Vapor at 60° /gal of liquid at 60° = 36.39
Cubic foot of Vapor at 60° /Lb of liquid at 60° = 8.547