Radiant Heat Article, Denver Post

Duncan_6 · November 2003

What part of the country are you from, -p? Sounds like you live in an area with a real heating load, your insulation levels are similar to this area (Rocky Mountains @ 9,000 feet).

I'm VERY interested in running some degree-day adjusted numbers, a before and after energy use audit on your home. Among other efficiency studies, I took part in a Colorado Office of Energy Conservation accelerated energy use monitoring program in Denver in the 80's. Basically, we attempted to measure energy use *accurately* in a short period of time, before and after weatherization measures.

The only problem I see in your case is the water heaters. If the heat source for that SUBSTANTIAL heating load is changed at the same time as the space heating system, there may be no truly accurate way to compare space heating loads only.

But if we were to measure hot water use and temperatures in and out, we could try get an idea of that portion of the load. It's a bit more complicated than that, but if you'd like to pursue it, I'm interested in working with you on it.

Will you be changing the water heaters at the same time you install the Munchkin? Is the retrofit already underway?

Please tell us more!

Also... if you're not comfortable discussing this here, please feel free to email me at duncanwjunk@mindspring.com. Take the junk out of my email address.

Thanks,

Duncan

Mark Eatherton1 · November 2003

Radiant Article hits local news paper...

To bad he quoted HIS prices... There ought to be a law.

Congrats Leon Dracis.

ME

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%7E33%7E1737334,00.html?search=filter

hot_rod · November 2003

Plumbers installing radiant - gasp!

Wait'll they get that regulated(G).

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

Duncan_6 · November 2003

Savings claims... SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!

Quoting the article: "While putting in a radiant-heat system is generally more expensive than forced-air heat, you save in the long run," Goldstein said. "Most people save 10 to 30 percent on their heating bills."

Bwah-hah hah hah hah hahahaha!!!!!

I love the way these figures are tossed around!

This reminds me of the claims solar heating companies used to make. Didn't matter what size home, how well or poorly insulated the home was... the claims remained the same. The same system would save you 20% -or whatever- whether in a 1,400 square foot home or a 3,000 square foot home.

Your pard Tom Olds and I got a fair chunk of our heating knowledge and experience working for a non-profit, consumer-oriented company whose purpose was to prevent people from getting ripped off by companies that made unsubstantiated solar savings claims.

Can anyone tell me how installing emitters (tubing) and then insulating the emitters (with joist space air, subfloor, flooring, and floor covering) can be more efficient (10 to 30% savings) than a system that uses a more direct and more efficent medium of heat transfer (like forced air or baseboard heat)?

SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!

Or the before and after energy use study. Or comparative energy use studies of identical structures with different heating systems. Or the website with the hard numbers.

Seriously... anybody out there have some hard numbers that prove these "savings"?

I'm talking about personal experience, or serious scientific studies, not some flawed apples-to-oranges comparison like the radiant-unfavorable study that the RPA questioned.

If there are no proven savings studies, shouldn't radiant be sold on comfort rather than savings?

For the sake of discussion. Call me skeptical.

George_10 · November 2003

I questioned the article from a different point of view

I sent the newsroom at the Denver Post, an e-mail suggesting that they should do a follow-up article on the care and treatment of such a system.
This is of particular interest in that area of the country as there are so many installed systems and people considering their use in a new installation.
Now, granted my company offers water treatment for such systems; but we are the people that get the calls when a system is leaking due to corrosion problems or not working and the contractor needs reliable info on water treatment.
As Hotrod said in his article, these new systems with these hi-tech components need special handling so as not to have unintended problems.
I do know one fact for sure, preventative maintenance is cheap compared to replacing components or having to tear out a fouled system. Replacing a boiler with less than two years use is not a myth, but an example of the wrong or no treatment of the water.

George@rhomarwater.com

Radiant Wizard · November 2003

Look at the obvious

Just for starters, the heat loss for a radiant heat space is 35 percent less than a space heated by baseboard or forced hot air. Why? Infiltration factor is less. You have less convection in radiant meaning that air movement around the room is less. How about the fact that we are not using 180 degree water all day long all heating season to heat the space. How about the fact that we are not heating air but are controlling the heat loss of the objects in the building. It's a simple conclusion. You do not need as much energy to heat a home in radiant. I'll give in on one thing. It's not just radiant heat that gives savings it's the "System".

Give me the exact same identical spaces with the exact floor coverings, insulation and so forth and I could easily design a radiant system that will easily save 25-30 percent in fuel over conventional baseboard or forced hot air.

I bet your one of those guys that thinks a Pin-Typed Boiler and a 3-pass Boiler have the same efficency because AFUE says so.

Mike T., Swampeast MO · November 2003

http://hem.dis.anl.gov/eehem/93/931114.html#93111424

http://hem.dis.anl.gov/eehem/93/930922.html

http://www.caddet-ee.org/infostore/details.php?id=2523

http://oikos.com/esb/37/radiant.html

http://www.pathnet.org/sp.asp?id=8000

http://www.eere.energy.gov/power/tech_access/docs/r_99_502.cfm

http://www.esim.ca/2001/documents/proceedings/Session1-2.pdf
(Not directly related but interesting graphs in the above. Scanty references to a number of different studies from different sources but with almost nothing regarding testing conditions. Of particular interest--to me at least--one showing an increased heat loss with increasing radiant "injection" into a test chamber due to increased loss through warmer surfaces; another comparing a number of radiator placements, radiant panels, and a "best available model" forced air system shows "radiators on inside walls" to be the most efficient placement. Hmmm. Will try to find that actual study later.)

http://www.bso.uiuc.edu/publications/Strand2.pdf

------------------------------------

I did my best to find objective sources in the above. While I only scanned through the above, I believe these statements are fair:

Q: Does radiant heat save energy compared to other sources, and if so how much?

A: Very often yes, there is reduced energy consumption, but it depends on the types of systems being compared, the climate, the construction of both and the habits of the occupants.

In forced air systems, losses through the ductwork (both air leakage and transmission) are a MAJOR source of loss of efficiency. This loss is significant in even the best systems and tends to increase over time.

Those who favor radiant tend to compare the best radiant systems with the worst forced air systems and vice-versa.

Laboratory- and mathematical-based studies tend to oversimplify constructions and offer little or no subjective data related to human comfort.

Forced convection in real-world construction is essentially impossible to model mathematically to any reasonable degree of accuracy.

The more that a laboratory model relies on forced convection, the less it represents reality.

Highly radiative models tend to demonstrate their areas of inefficiency while highly convective models tend to hide them.

Manual "J" heat loss calculations tend to hide much of the transmission loss in forced air systems.

AFUE ratings of furnaces and boilers assume that both are "perfect" in that all of their rated output is delivered as useful heat to the structure.

Studies of transmission loss in ductwork find that forced air furnaces (at least electric and gas) consistently deliver significantly less than their rated output and that their efficiency numbers would be markedly lower if they were actually producing rated output. Hmmmm....

Bob Bona_4 · November 2003

"direct and efficient heat transfer" By scorched air??

Come on now, Duncan.

Typical radiant heating thermostats are set at the 65 degree mark vs. 70-72 @ scorched air systems to keep people comfortable. Infiltration is much, much lower.

Given the fact alone that hydronic heat fuel savings is around 18.6% over scorched air, it's pretty hard to agree with your statements..although yes, radiant's comfort is a huge selling factor...along with it's efficiency.

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

Mike T., Swampeast MO · November 2003

The last document referenced above...

http://www.bso.uiuc.edu/publications/Strand2.pdf

...seems to be a gem. It's "protected" so I can't physically print the thing to take to the reading room--crap!

Something I found HIGHLY interesting. Current models cannot model low-temperature radiant panels because they only consider the heat coming from the surface of the panel, not from the heating medium itself. (parapharse, not a quote but on pages 3-4)

There are models for HIGH temperature radiant panels like produced from electricity where all of the heat produced by the source goes to the space... But when used for low temperature panels such results in a surface temperature that is too high. (again some paraphrasing from a few different pages)

If you go back over my recent thread titled "Please Explain" I think you will better understand what I was really getting at and why the "difference in delta-t" doesn't seem to be the "real" answer, but an indication of something else...

Mike T., Swampeast MO · November 2003

Here's the link

Comparing convective losses with different heat sources and radiator placements.

http://www.esim.ca/2001/documents/proceedings/Session7-2.pdf

Duncan_7 · November 2003

Seriously...

With scorched air, the heat transfer paths are: A burner flame, a sheet of thin, highly conductive metal, and forced convection to the living space air.

With a stapleup installation, you have: A burner flame, a thick, also highly conductive metal wall, water, tubing, joist space air driven by weak natural convection, subfloor, finish floor, and possibly floor covering.

How can the source-to-load heat transfer in the second paragraph (radiant) POSSIBLY be more efficient than forced air?

OK, air only carries 0.018 btu/hr per cubic foot, so the bulk of the load in the stapleup must be met by radiation, but a portion is also convective.

True, lousy ductwork is a major efficiency thief - I know, I've taken part in some ductwork sealing programs, and the gains from sealing ducts are remarkable. Lots of infil- and exfiltration and pressurization-related problems solved.

But I still haven't seen the apples-to-apples comparison of radiant heating energy use to forced air or hydronic baseboard use.

I'm skeptical not only because of the intuitive understanding above, but also because I've heard stories from heating contractors who keep track of the numbers tell me it can actually cost more to heat with radiant than forced air.

I keep hearing numbers like 10% to 30% fuel savings, and even though I confidently design with a 15% derating factor for radiant... I wonder WHERE these figures come from??? I'm skeptical of numbers being bandied about. I can't just blindly accept them.

Just a radiant believer lookin' for the facts.

Maybe I'll change my tune after I look at all the sources cited by Mike T.

By the way, where'd you get the 18.6% savings of hydronic over forced air?

Thanks Bob, and everyone, for the thoughtful replies. To be continued...

Mike T., Swampeast MO · November 2003

Unfortunately I don't think you'll find the "proof" you are looking for in those links. Those precious few studies that have tried to make "apple-to-apple" comparisons seem to be generally regarded as skewed depending on the point of view of the reviewer and the supplier of funding for the study.

What I do think you will find though is my confidence base in making those general statements.

Your comparison seems to be one. You are compared JUST a furnace with a bare-tube radiant system. I don't want to rekindle the debate about such radiant systems but they seem to have the lowest potential for efficiency and highest potential for improper engineering and installation.

It is radiant systems where the intermediate heat exchanges are nearly pure conduction and the heat source is low in temperature that seem to have the highest potential for efficiency and the least potential for major differences in output from minor changes in engineering/installation.

heatpup · November 2003

forced air VS radiant

Hello. I am not a heating contractor. I DO read this forum often. There are many here who are true professionals and know what they are talking about. I agree that radiant is far more comfortable than forced air, I have been to homes where the floors are awesome and warm. I also agree that efficiencies can be better realized with radiant due to facts of construction. (i.e. infiltration, etc.) When I built my home in 1999, I wanted the best I could afford in every aspect of building. Decent dual pane low-e windows, insulated doors, 2x6 walls, R-40 attic insulation, and yes even dual high efficiency (92%AFUE....dare I say it?) forced air heating units. At the time I chose to do this because I wanted central air and was under the impression that radiant floor heating was too expensive. I did do the building of the home and all the systems were installed by me. Including the forced air system. So far I have been pleased with the forced air system's capability to heat the air in my home. Having said that, that is where the system fails. I have extensive hardwood and tile in my home and consequently, cold floors. My children tell me that the floors are too cold. I agree. In terms of heating my home, I was now at the point where I was when I built this house. So I have decided to install, yes as a retro fit, a staple up system. I will be using a munchkin 140 as my heat source and will be zoning with circulators and using 5/8"OD pex-al-pex on 8" centers. I have to heat about 5200sqft so I will most likely be able to make a comparison between radiant and forced air. I have run the numbers and figured my heatloss, my infiltration, my loss via glass etc.
I have researched many systems. Also, as an added bonus, I will be able to utilize my boiler for domestic hotwater. This, in turn, will allow me to either eliminate or reduce my need for two 50 gallon natural gas fired water heaters (and the infiltration associated with them) that will be replaced by one 60 gallon hot water maker. I will try to post my results once I complete the installation and get a bill or two under my belt. I will also try to post a few photos for your comments/input...once this is installed, my only problem is, how do I measure comfort?
From time to time I may be asking for questions and advice from this forum. I am sure someone will guide me in the future as they have in past postings. This is truly a group of knowlegdgable professionals.

thank you all,

-p

Mike T., Swampeast MO · November 2003

Shaggy Dog Story

For what it's worth.

Around here we have a VERY mixed climate, officially called "continental". 99+% of new residential construction uses combined forced warm air/cooling systems. Supplies and returns are almost always low on walls or in the floor.

The typical home around here with such a system costs more to cool than to heat.

The remaining hydronic systems mainly use cast iron radiators, convectors or baseboard. Those with forced A/C systems (VERY rarely original) invariably have the supplies/returns high on walls or on the ceiling. In these homes, it typically costs less to cool than to heat.

Most of the residential boilers around here are ancient. As best I can tell between homes of similar size/construction those with hydronics cost somewhat less to heat than those with forced air, even when comparing the newest most efficient furnace with the oldest boiler.

While both heating and cooling costs in a home with hydronic heat and PROPER ductwork for the A/C seem to be lower, the marked decrease in A/C cost is quite interesting to me. I'd LOVE to find a new multi-gable monstrosity with bell-tower entry and volume ceilings with radiant heat and A/C from the ceiling, but so far no luck.

heatpup · November 2003

efficiency comparison.....

Duncan, I do live in the Rockies....I live in southern Colorado. but only at 5000 ft. We do have cold days but we have lots of sunshine and very cold nights. I will have to figure out a way to separate the heating load and water heating load in this comparison. However, the bottom line as far as fuel consumption is concerned should be some indication. I am using two 75000 Btu forced air units and two 47000 Btu powervented 50 galllon water heaters. I have a large dump load for hot water in the mornings and evenings but all things being even, the overall gas consumption should be lower.
I plan on doing the heating first, but for convienience purposes I can take one hotwater heater off line while I install the heating and hot water maker in place of the other one and not go without hot water during the installation. I am in the process of building my manifolds now and framing up a "boiler room" so I can get this ball rolling. I am pretty sure just the fact that taking the power vented hotwater heaters off line will be a significant improvement as far as infiltration is concerned. The efficiency gains from the boiler over the forced air units might not be double digits. Combining boiler efficiencies with a hot water maker and lower thermostat settings will be the true test of savings.
My secondary motivation for this installation is that we are faced with a 73% rise in gas cost. My stand by losses will diminish and at the same time, my comfort level will dramatically improve.
Comments happily accepted.
-previn

Mike T., Swampeast MO · November 2003

Assessing Comfort

Yes, comfort is HIGHLY subjective and hard to determine objectively. Here are some things you might be able to do to better objectify "comfort".

Get a digital indoor-outdoor thermometer with hi-low temperature memory. Install it in a place where most of the family generally spends some time--but not directly in the kitchen. Don't let it be exposed to direct sunlight.

Get in the habit of resetting the memory as part of your routine and write down the hi/low temperatures both indoors and outdoors occasionally but ONLY when you are certain that you cleared the memory the day before! If you feel like it, you and your family members can make little subjective comments like "air warm, feet cold" or similar.

Continue once the radiant is installed, but play "how low can we go" with the thermostat controlling that space. Make SMALL adjustments down and about two days apart until you or your family starts saying something like "feet warm, air too cold" or "feet and air cold".

Once you've "homed in" on your setting, leave the thermostat be and for a long period so that you can make the best possible comparison between energy use.

The comparisons will be VERY difficult to make if you currently set back the thermostat. The forced air and radiant have WILDLY differing setback abilities.

With radiant heating there is generally MUCH less tendency to want to change the thermostat once you achieve a good setting--even as outdoor conditions and activity levels vary.

---------------------

A bit about my person subjective comfort.

Right now a have a very nasty cold and slight fever. My boiler is not yet on for the season so I'm relying on the forced air system for heat. Supplies are on ceiling, returns high on walls. NOT a good way for heat, but reasonable for shoulder season.

My ceiling fans have four speeds and I am using the 2nd lowest (the lowest speed is an "extra-low" setting compared to 3-speed fans) yet just that very small air movement is making my shivver and shake. I generally keep the air system thermostat at 68°, but have bumped it up to 72°.

A thermometer on top of my desk credenza reads 75° and one about 8" lower on an opposite wall reads 71°.

Thermally, I am EXTREMELY uncomfortable but it's NOT just due to the head/chest cold!

When I have the boiler on and the radiators (TRVd) running, AND have a cold with slight fever, I'm much more thermally comfortable. I STILL keep the TRV set at about 65°. I keep the ceiling fan running on extra-low and am NEVER aware of air movement. The two thermometers I mentioned have readings close enough to be considered within a margin of accuracy except when the space is recovering from setback when it will vary as much as 2°. If I start shivvering and shaking I realize it's not just a cold and crawl into bed.

I have radiant floors in all the baths but they're not on either. My head isn't the only thing running, so the trips are frequent. Printed a number of the postings above to study there, but can't do it right now because while the air is warm all the tile, the woodwork and the soapstone are cold and I shivver even worse.

Sel Goldstein · November 2003

Denver Post Artical

Can anyone say something nice about the artical in the Post about Radiant Heat.The writer wanted to know how much radiant heat costs. I think that is a reasonable request for a newspaper artical. At least I am exposing the public to the benifits of radiant heat and I am trying to expand the market. I should be congradulated, not critizied. What has other companies,installers and supplier, done to expand the market.Forced air is 95% of the market and it is inferior to radinat, what does that tell you about Wetheads. When was the last time you called on a builder that uses forced air, and tried to convince them to try radiant heat.Rad installers and suppliers should try to expand the market. I guess you read past that quote "bring it to the masses" instead of focusing on the price. Larry Drake mentioned price as well!

heatpup · November 2003

denver post article

Sal, your point is well taken. I cannot tell you how much an installed system will cost. I will tell you that I have about 10K invested in materials, to include a boiler, DHW maker, tubing, controllers, thermostats, and pretty much all my materials. This will be for heating about 5000 sqft of home. This is does not include any labor for installation, or the pain of calculating the heat loss or the layout of the manifold, tubing and whatever else I may encounter. That is what a heating contractor can tell you and will know in advance (where a homeowner will not) of all the things that can go wrong in an installation. I am sure that some of the headaches of self installation will manifest themselves as I progress. I do feel, however, that as a homeowner and engineer, that since I will have to live with my own installation, I will be able to do the "little things" that may or may not enhance an installation and will not be in a situation where "time is money" and must finish a job within a typical time constraint or schedule.

Bob Bona_4 · November 2003

The 18.6% figure was culled from data from the Dept of Energy. In that study, piping loss was figured at 7.5% vs. duct losses of 20%. They took an 80% AFUE boiler (minimum DOE goverment efficiency) which equals around a 74% system efficiency with the piping loss, and put it up against a 78% AFUE (minimum DOE rating for furnasties). The furnasty clocked in a dismal 62.4% system efficiency rating.

Hard numbers are tough to pin down..

"Your mileage may vary"

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

hot_rod · November 2003

Sal,

Every time a magazine or newspaper calls for an interview, they hound me for installed pricing. If I tell em it's a range, they'll quote just the lower number.

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

Radiant Wizard · November 2003

Here lie's the problem.

Lack of education to the public by the manufactures, installers and wholesalers. This isn't only for radiant heat but for the heating industry as a whole. When was the last time you saw a consistent ad campaign in Sports Illustrated, Time, Life, Newsweek and so forth on the equipment that is used in the HVAC field. How about the fact that most of your oil companies still push 1950's technology and shy away from 3 pass boilers. Why? It's less expensive for them. How? They don't have to take men off the job for continuing education. They train inhouse. What's so much different about a pin-type boiler today than a pin-type boiler from the 70's? Pretty much nothing.

If the European boiler manufactures started an ad campaign as the Japanese did in the mid seventy's with the automobile you would see a change in this industry as we so a change in the automobile industry. Wasn't that about fuel savings?

The 10 percent of the industry that voices there opinion here are an exception to the rule. Most continually educate themselves on how to strive better but that's not the norm. Most installers are not educated enough to give customers a choice between why system 1 is better than system 2 and system 3. They don't know how to "Sell". There mechanics and only know what they know. They are like robots and to change them takes an overhaul.

As far as the cost for radiant heat. It depends on the application and what type of control strategy you are using that is going to dicate cost. Give me the same exact house and I can come up with 3 different costs.

DaveGateway · November 2003

Sal, nice article

I don't think anyone was really trying to say this article was bad (it's not). The discussion just got side-tracked on energy efficiency.
Congrats on the article.
John

CG_2 · November 2003

SAVINGS

Interesting points, I have often looked for the information myself and there are not many good places that do a fair analysis of savings between radiant and forced air. However as I continually seek out this information I have come across this senario. I live in Colorado, in the Rocky Mountains, 5500 foot, I built my own house using staple up with a manual mix set up. [ not the most effiecient way] 2400 sq ft 70 degrees 247. I was in a tract of homes where all places were new construction, I had a friend who lived in a home 1500 sq ft with forced air, set back his stats every night and conserved where he could. His gas bill, 125-150 per month...... my bill was 110- 125 per month. I will admit two homes are never alike and we don't do enough studies on this topic but what I have seen and expereienced is radiant beats the efficiency market by about the factors they use or close to it. We all know that there are too many variables involved but we all do have educated opinions that don't always come from ?????????????????

PJO_3 · November 2003

Did anyone else notice....

the misuse (I think) of "thermal mass"?

Funny, I always believed the thermal mass was one of the advantages (or disadvantage I suppose) to radiant...flywheel affect and all. This article uses it right next to insulation (?), which merely confused my feeble mind.

In reference to comparing two houses with radiant vs. forced hot air, I have compared my total energy use with another house that was built just before mine and has the same layout with one added space of 600 sq.ft. (18% more).

My house is heated with radiant in the garage (there's is not), and the load is 16% of my heat load...can we call the two even?

Their house is forced hot air, 92% AFUE rated forced hot air from (egads!) propane, with an 80 gallon electric HWH. The ducts are low for feed and return.

My house is radiant first floor (mostly hardwood) and garage, and baseboard second floor (all carpet except baths...getting radiant there soon). I heat with oil using an Ultimate/Dunkirk 4 section direct vent boiler. My original heatloss calculation - from the first house minus the additional space - was 108,000 BTUH. I added 15,000 BTUH for the garage, and my AC ducts are low feed w/ high returns.

Consider the difference in habits (hot water use, t-stat settings, etc) even because my house is set at higher temps and we have a very large tub used almost daily by management...we also have a hot tub outside that is electric, but is hooked to my off-peak meter (along with the dryer and my two air units).

Drum roll please...my utility costs - including electric - are just under half. My heating costs are just over half of the other house.

Fair comparison? 1) By size/type of house; definitely (exact same specs in each, with extra size for other house)...should be slightly higher heating costs for larger house. 2) By fuel source; not fair...oil crushes propane...initial cost is fairly close around here, but the BTU difference is key IMHO. Plus, I don't have a submarine parked in my yard :-) 3) By electric cost; not fair because I have a second meter for major users and lots of compact flourescent bulbs.

The most important factor? We are VERY comfortable.

Take Care, PJO

Mark Eatherton1 · November 2003

No congratulations in order...

Now, every time the phone rings from people having read the article, we have to explain to them that the prices quoted in the article are low and that we know for a fact that the contractor quoted has no idea what he's doing business wise and really shouldn't be in business because he has no idea what his direct and indirect costs of doing business are.

We know be cause he was an employee of ours for a very short 3 week period. Just long enough to bail him out of trouble because he couldn't get anyone else to install the systems he had sold. The reason no one wanted to do the jobs is because they had ZERO profit in them.

Just long enough to get completely into our confidence and find out how WE figure OUR jobs, then turns right around and goes back into business for themselves only to go out and cut our first head to head bid by 50%. Then we have to listen to him snivel and grovel at the annual spring home and garden show as he complains that "he has never been this busy in his whole life and he STILL is not making any money". What's wrong with this picture?

Face it pal. Hydronic heat is not for the "masses". Not everyone can afford the luxury of a Mercedes or Cadillac. You have no idea what you're doing. You have "a dream" and you think you should be able to do the job for as much as forced air is being done for and you are wrong.

That, coupled with mis-statements like 'fuels savings of 30%' and "In addition to running the pipes close to the floor or wall surfaces of a room, insulation - referred to as a thermal mass - is installed behind pipes to keep the heat from traveling in the wrong direction." You should have stayed for the whole 15 week radiant course instead of slipping in for the first two classes for "free" and then deciding you knew enough about radiant heat to go into business for yourself, against my recommendations...

When you truly know your cost of doing business, and you charge to cover that and get a reasonable profit margin, maybe then you will get congratulations.

If I were asked publicly what radiant heat costs, I would have said something to the effect of it being 3 to 4 times as much as a properly installed forced air system. Let them do their own homework.

Quoting a price publicly will always come back to bite someone in the least desirable location.

An educated consumer is a smart consumer, and we welcome smart consumers. But when the public is miseducated, as it has been in this article, it doesn't do the trade a whole lot of good. The only price they see is the bottom price, and they expect you to do it for that price.

There is no right way to do things wrong...and that includes doing business.

ME

Paul Pollets · November 2003

Well said...

When the studies are completed and manufacturers have included fuel cost savings analysis in their software, or perhaps comparative system analysis software, I'm sure radiant will come out on top. I hope it happens in my lifetime. In the meantime, it seems we're in the early development of the marketplace. I'm totally convinced that better marketing and advertising would change the tides...but that will also depend on fuel costs. As Dan H. has often said..."People are selfish..." What's in it for them?? Especially if the messenger can't send the message correctly.

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

kenneth · November 2003

Im attempting to specify a (preferably #2 fuel oil) combo boiler for a slab-on-grade Legelett heating system. The Legalett system is an enclosed forced air system that runs air duct in the 8 thick concrete slab. The system includes an air handler heated with either water or electrically heated coil. I want to use oil fired hot water combo boiler that also heats the domestic hot water. (2000 sq. ft., 4 bedroom, 2 bath house). Legalett air handler requires only 20,000 BTU/hr and I am unable to find a boiler unit (except kerosene)that will go this low without constantly cycling on & off (this will cause noise and shorten the boilers life.). Any recommendations?
Kenneth

Radiant Heat Article, Denver Post

Comments

Categories