Steam vs. Hot water

M. Sines

Installing a new heating system. Curently a gas-steam boiler system. Was told by a few plumbers that I would see a 20% to 30% savings by changing system to gas-hot water because it takes less gas to heat the water to its operating temp than it does to boil thw water to steam. Was also told by other plumbers that this isn't so and both units would use the same amount of gas to heat the area. So, who is right and who is wrong? Thanks far any help!

Brad White_2

Hot water is more efficient than steam

in general because you can modulate the temperature of the hot water relative to outdoor temperature as one reference.
Steam by definition at sea level must be 212 degrees F. PLUS the heat of evaporation which turns water at the boiling point actually in to steam.

Steam moves without a pump so that is one economy.

J.C.A._3

Brad,

Did you just open a can O whoop-butt? On this site, you know your going to be challenged!Could be interesting. Chris

Steamhead

Given similar boilers and heat transmitters

and well-maintained and well-insulated distribution systems, (which is the only way to make an apples-to-apples comparison) steam and hot-water are closer than you think.

The higher water temperature in the boiler needed to produce steam is offset by the much lesser amount of water that needs to be heated. The modulation that takes place in a steam system is done by varying the amount of steam that is generated.

Changing a steam system to hot-water can be a risky proposition. Go to:

http://www.heatinghelp.com/newsletter.cfm?Id=22

for a discussion of this.

We've had people post on the Wall that they've saved up to 75% on their fuel bills, simply by fixing their troubled steam systems. "Your mileage may vary", but this is far more cost-effective than trying to convert to hot-water.

If your system is two-pipe and doesn't use vents on the radiators, it's probably Vapor. This was the Cadillac of heating in its day and is still one of the best systems out there.

I'd keep the steam.

J.C.A._3

And the FOLLY begins!

Robert O'Connor_7

without knowing...

Apples to oranges? There can be certain situations where steam would prevail although be it few and far between. I'm a steam guy deep down, but, I gotta go with forced hot water, being that I no not of ye details..Robert O'Connor/NJ

Mark Eatherton1

Well said...

Frank, as usual, hits the nail squarely upon the head.

As with ANY heating/ hydronic question, the most applicable anser is, "It depends..."

Frank, in your experienced opinion, which system is more maintenance free?

TIA

ME

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

jerry scharf_2

get some quotes

Get the following quotes:

best case water conversion: almost all piping and radiators can be reused. What's the efficiency?

worst case water conversion: most of the radiators can't be reused and there it much more piping work than the first csae assumes. same eff as above.

steam rejuvination: Find a real steam pro and get them to work up what it will take to get your system in top notch condition. What's the final efficiency?

Each will have an efficiency associated with it. If one is cheaper and more efficient, then you're done. If one is more efficient and the other is cheaper, figure out how long it will take to make back the difference. Also look at investing the difference in something else to improve efficiency and see if that can make up the difference in efficiency.

It sounds basic, but it's the way I would attack this.

jerry

Brad White_2

Well, not exactly, Chris

but the basic physics remain that a pound of water heated from 68 to 212 but not vaporized has 144 Btu's potential. In a steam system, it will sit in the boiler and give only the boiler a warm, fuzzy feeling.

You have to add 960-970 or so additional Btu's to get that stuff to move. Sure, you get it back upon condensing, but in the meantime, I can take that pound of water in a hot water system and put it to work while I am waiting for steam to form. Just the facts. And I can heat that water to any temperature I like depending on demand.

Don't get me wrong, I love steam, understand it, and learned from Dead Men before I heard the term. (God Bless Ray Stevens).

Steam is great, can be tamed, tuned and tickled to perform exceptionally well. But I like to play with the temperature of my fluids without resorting to drawing 20 inches mercury vacuum in my heating system. :^)>

Brad White_2

Hey ME

Thanks for welcoming me back, by the way, a few months ago. My attendance has been sporadic.

I agree with your subtext premise that an efficient steam system will beat an inefficient hot water system every time. I was responding to the basic premise of comparison, one fluid to another, with all other things being equal. I kept it basic (perhaps too much so).

jerry scharf_2

I don't get your physics comment

Brad,

You made some comment that it takes all this energy to convert the water to steam and that makes it less efficient. You put the energy in to make the steam, it flows to the radiator, gives off the heat and comes back as hot water. That's not inefficient, that's the desired heat transfer in action.

There are reasons why you can't get steam as high in efficiency as a low temperature radiant/condensing boiler setup, but it's not what you describe. Since the steam pipes are hotter, you lose more heat from the pipes on the way to the emitter. Also, in general you give away a good number of points of efficiency at the boiler by not being able to condense.

jerry

Steamhead

It Depends (couldn't resist that)

If you include things like bleeding radiators, oiling circ motors and blowing down low-water cutoffs, they're about equal.

If the systems have been modernized with air separators, Pumping Away, wet-rotor circs and probe-type LWCO units, maintenance is reduced.

We must also consider the number of moving parts. If you include things like air vents on radiators which both systems use, steam has fewer moving parts.

The system with the absolute least number of moving parts is Orifice Vapor. On this system (assuming a single main and return) you have two large air vents, a Vaporstat and a LWCO. That's all. So this would be my choice for "lowest maintenance".

Brad White_2

Jerry

that is but one point in a series of conditions. There are many as you pointed out others. I wanted to keep it simple and to the largest single physical difference, the change of state factor.

The physics comment is just that, a physical fact that it takes energy to effect a change in state of a material (fluid- liquid water in this case to a gas, -steam). While this is occuring in a comparitive steam system, I can use the water beneficially in my distribution. I did acknowledge that you get that heat back, but there is inefficiency in the process. I'd rather put my Btu's in the house, not up the chimney waiting for steam to form.

Your point about additional radiation losses from hotter surfaces is well taken (assuming that they are not in spaces where heat is not intended to go anywhere. Even if in a heated space, it is uncontrolled.)

I think we agree, not sure any of your comments point to disagreement, am I right? I mean, I was comparing garden-variety steam to garden-variety hot water, even at higher temperatures approaching 212. The condensing boiler comment you made just adds to the contrast.

Steamhead

Brad, if you compare the amount of water

in a hot-water system with that in a steam system (again, assuming similar boilers) you'll find that it's at least twice as much on a modern system with small pipes, and much more on an old gravity system.

Sure, "a pound of water heated from 68 to 212 but not vaporized has 144 Btu's potential" but there are so many more pounds in a hot-water system that it pretty much erases the difference.

jerry scharf_2

Now I know you don't get it

Brad,

You said the one thing that is just wrong. You said "but there is inefficiency in the process." Phase change is a thermodynamically reversable process, and as such as no energy loss in conversion to steam from water and back. That's the physics! I'll point you to some physics references if you have any doubt of this.

That's why I listed some of the real efficiency losses.

jerry

Brad White_2

Oh, Jerry...

This is supposed to be a simple answer for the benefit of a general question as to which is more efficient.

I am not ingoring the laws of thermodynamics. Ultimately nothing is lost, we both know that in a theroetical and absolute sense. (I measure my temperatures from a base level of room temperature not absolute zero. Kelvin scale may techically be more correct for absolute terms, but I do not keep my house that cold :^)>)

The inefficiency of which I speak is relative to the heat delivered to the space served versus the fuel consumed in the process. Sure the heat generated by burning fuel all goes to atmosphere ultimately, but I want it to linger by my couch for a spell first, as much as possible.

Factually, while my hypothetical steam system is coming to a boil, I can be delivering hot water to my space at much lower temperatures with my hypothetical and comparative hot water system. I can modulate those temperatures without affecting a change in state within the fluid. This is physics, not religion.

M. Sines

Thanks but still confused.

Thanks for all the responses but I'm still a little uncertain to which would be more efficient. Please bear with me, I am but a homeowner and not a plumber. Our problem is this, we live in a large (4,000+sq ft), old, non-insulated, Brick home. The current gas bill is eating us alive (over 4k a year). We have insulated the attic and started replaceing windows. The walls can't be insulated. The furnace is an old gas steam boiler(1 or 2 pipe, i dont know, there is only one pipe going to each radiator) We want a new more efficient furnace. All radiators can be converted to hot water. our objective is to save money on the gas bill. All things being equal, which is going to use the least gas to operate?

Steamhead

You have a one-pipe system

which tilts the balance of the economics further away from converting, since you must install a full set of return pipes to use hot-water.

New steam boilers have annual efficiencies (AFUE) anywhere from 81 to 85%. Depending on how old your current boiler is and what type it is, this by itself may cut your fuel use in half- some old clunkers can't manage better than 40% on oil or gas.

There are some "condensing" boilers for hot-water out there whose AFUE ratings are in the 90-95% range. These are best in systems with lower water temperatures (around 140 degrees and lower) such a radiant floors. But if you convert a steam system, due to the smaller radiator sizes used with steam, you may need to run such high water temperatures that these units won't run in condensing mode for any great period of time.

Once the boiler has heated or boiled the water, its job is done. From that point, the system must move the heat to the radiators. I have found that many one-pipe steam systems don't do this efficiently because they can't get rid of the air in the steam mains quickly enough. Properly sized main vents will cure this, EVERY time.

Also, steam pipes must be insulated to keep the steam from condensing in them. You can lose a lot of heat from bare steam pipes. Of course, it's well to insulate hot-water pipes too.

If I had your house, I'd put in a new steam boiler and fix any system problems. This would give you the best return on the money you would spend. It costs much less and is less risky to fix a steam system than to try to convert it.

jerry scharf_2

admit it

Brad,

Don't "Oh jerry" me. It's time to admit you said the wrong thing. It has nothing to do with the phase change, and I can prove that. Arguing that it was trying to keep is simple is hogwash. You can keep it simple without getting it wrong.

I studied physics for many years, and it's a bit annoying when people waive physics around without really understanding it or getting it right.

jerry

Brad White_2

True,

but I do not have to change the state of the fluid from liquid to gas to get useful (read: delivered) heat from it. On a per-pound basis, you are correct, no question. And by volume (1700 to 1 roughly) steam wins.

Me? I just merrily circulate the coolest water that I can, enjoy the heat and not change the state of anything except natural gas and air into carbon dioxide and water vapor...

But remember, I do love steam. Use it all the time in my work (and run out of it from time to time):^)>

Brad White_2

Lets reduce the heat loss first

What city and state do you live in? It would seem that your costs are average for a 0 F degree winter design area for the structure you state. (Here in eastern MA, I use about 900 to 1,000 therms a year in my 130 year old insulated house. At $1.40 a therm that works out to a little less than $1/SF, about what your house is doing. But this includes dryer, gas log, domestic hot water off the boiler and cooking.

For your larger house, I would expect you to have a heat loss (uninsulated and at 0 degrees F outside with 68F inside) of about 50 to 55 Btu's per square foot at design. This is just empirical for discussion purposes. So your total heat loss would be maybe 200-220,000 Btu's per hour at design. Let's say 210,000 average. And let's stipulate that you are in an area that has 6,000 heating degree-days. I could see you using 4100 therms of gas per year and that you have a good price too. Until I know your rate and locale, I would assume you live in a more temperate area than I described.


Remember if you convert to hot water from steam, you will lose significant capacity of your radiators as has been pointed out. Each square foot of radiator surface with steam, emits 240 Btu's per hour to a 70F room. If you go to 180 degree HW, this drops by over a third to 150 per square foot.

If we assume that the building meets temperature now with steam, then simply stated all of your envelope improvements must offset the radiation diminished output. If you cannot meet the heat loss difference or add radiators to compensate, then stick with steam as Steamhead has suggested.

A key thing to keep in mind (as may have been pointed out) is that the new steam boiler must be sized for the connected radiation, not the "new, improved" lower heat loss.

Steam can be made to work beautifully and enhanced in all sorts of ways (Thermostatic vent valves on radiators, well-insulated mains, fine-grade pressure (vaporstat) controls all of which are detailed and referenced on this site.

You ask which will use less gas to operate? I would say hot water, but that presumes that you are not factoring in the cost to convert radiators, just comparing apples to apples.

I had rental property with both (3-decker here in Boston), steam on the bottom floor and hot water on the upper two. Even with the roof losses, (whole building was insulated) the cost premium for the steam, with well-insulated pipes and very low pressure, was about 20% higher than hot water heat. This is my experience. From T-stat "on" to steam at the radiators took about 10-15 minutes from a cold start and about 5 minutes with the hot water. Granted the hot water was warm then went to hot, but in the meantime the steam system was warming the chimney and outdoors giving up nada to the space to be heated.

Steamhead

How long did it take

before that steam boiler started making steam? If the "burner on to steam at the boiler outlet" period was short, you had a venting problem. It should only take a minute or two at the most to vent a steam main.

Steamhead

We're not trying to confuse you here

but it seems your inquiry has re-sparked an ongoing debate.

You best bet may be to go to the Find a Professional page of this site and speak with someone who knows your system and the area you live in. If you're in the Baltimore area, e-mail me!

Brad White_2

From a cold start

the burner on-time was timed at between 5 and 10 minutes of combustion before the pressure in the boiler got off the mark. The main vented of non-condensibles rapidly. I had nice Gorton high capacity vents. As you stated, the mains vented in a minute or two, but the rollback kept the boiler going.
Sort of like Sysyphus and the stone up the hill. :^)>

The comment of burner on to steam at radiators was about 15 minutes on average. Before I insulated the mains in the basement, this was about 35-40 minutes! When they abated the insulation they took everything. I had a supply of one-inch sized for 2-inch pipe (should have been two, I know) but it was free. Still, cut the delivery time easily in half.

When cycling, I had a 2 psi cut-out and 3 psi cut-in. I did not think to crank it down as is current wisdom. But it would cycle on a cold day (20's) about 4 times an hour, on for five minutes, off for 10 when the place was insulated.

The boiler was a Burnham Series 4 if memory serves, installed in 1974 or so and retrofitted with EI and vent damper in 1978 when I bought the place.

I sold the property in 1985 or so, and have no idea what the current status is. But I left it better than I found it!

Christian Egli

Think steam, think thermostatic vent, think efficiency, thank us

Dear M. Sines

It seams to me you are doing exactly the reasonable thing, and you are certainly not confused.

You've been getting advice from contractors and you've been wondering about it since it doesn't all make sense to you. To me, the proof that your head is screwed on right is that you came to this website. Trust your instinct. Thanks for asking.

You want to save on your gas bill, right?

The obvious is to lower the thermostat. Right?

Otherwise, you've already done the best thing by insulating your attic and you are replacing windows. That will save you on your heat bill - a lot! It would be nice to do something to the walls too, but it is not as important as the attic, so you're still OK. Have you checked to see if you really can't squirt in some insulation between the bricks and the furring, there is such a thing as foam that does not expand with the pressure urethane foam has.

Your heat bill is high, but not completely out of line with a house as big as yours. After all, if we consider a home one fourth the size of yours, a 1000 ft2 home(which is decent), a $1000 heat bill would not be too horrifying. But since none of us can resist making some savings, here are a few points I'd like to share.

First, before you even consider ripping out the entire steam system, which is what a "conversion" is, think hard and long because it will be expensive. I understand you've got one pipe radiators, which means fitting a second tapping for a hot water conversion will be either difficult or traumatic.

The less traumatic and more rewarding solution is to find a heating expert that will tune and repair your existing system as is. Your air vents, valves and pressure control need to be looked into. The work is not extensive and the heat savings can be gigantic. There are numerous reports by elated home owners on this website who do not regret doing just that. It is important to find the right company and it is important also that you yourself learn about steam heat. It is a fascinating subject, and Dan Holohan has the most excellent books. "You've got steam heat" comes to mind.

About the boiler, it might be possible to get it running as good as a new one, and that would mean giving it a very thorough clean up, fire side and water side, plus giving the burner a good revision. The work is probably the same as for installing a new boiler, but you won't get a new boiler and, if a crack appears from under the scale you'll still have to make the agonizing decision to change the boiler. Change the boiler if you want, but give your system a tune up first.

Lastly, while you're having your radiators checked, look into installing some thermostatic air vents. For instance, if you do this on the radiators in the parts of the house you use less, you could heat those rooms less and save on fuel. This is one of the nice things you can do with steam (note, it is also done with hot water)

Changing the way you deliver heat to your home, by converting, will not change in any physical way the amount of heat you need to deliver. That means that changing from steam to hot water or even hot air will not change the amount of heat your house requires on any given winter day. Only insulation, the thermostat setting and thermostatic valves can change the amount of delivery.

About the efficiencies of each system, well it is a can O whoop-butt, like J. C. A. guessed it. In truth, all systems are very much equivalent with 20% that can't be used and gets dumped to the atmosphere via the flue. You can make marginal gains by using more fans, more pumps and more electronics, and the trade off is these devices use more electric power, sometimes a lot more, which you'll have to pay for out of your pocket.

Did I spill the beans?

Good luck with your home. Enjoy the steam heat. It was the deluxe thing to do when the house was built, it still is the deluxe thing to do today. Think of it this way: when you bought your home you looked into the garage and you found a distinguished old Rolls-Royce parked there; but it had flat tires, so that made driving it around rather inefficient. So you think about it and decide for yourself it scraping the Rolls-Royce and purchasing a brand new Yugo is the thing to do. A shiny brand new Yugo will look impressive in your garage, don't you think? Neighbors will be envious. Hmmm, what else could you do, you do have some flat tires there... I just don't know...

GO STEAM

Brad White_2

What a thoughtful

response!

Brad White_2

This must be

about other issues. My fuel consumption for both kinds of systems (steam versus water) in multi-family properties I have owned, tell the tale. About 20% more usage for steam with properly sized systems. Those are facts. The hot water system was constant circulation with TRV's on the radiators versus one-pipe steam with TRV vent valves and good pipe insulation. Each system was as good as I could make it. So which uses more fuel? Steam, in the end. The difference? Fuel to room efficiency, basically.

jerry scharf_2

thanks for the added information

To convert to hot water, you will need to do the following major surgery to your house:
1) route new pipes to the radiators. You only have 1 pipe now, and hot water needs 2. Since you're going to the expense, I would replace both and not worry about the possible leaks on the original pipe

2) replace all the radiators in the house with ones that are about 2.5 times larger. This number comes from the fact to get the higher efficiency out of the hot water system, the radiators should be run at about 140-150 mean temperature to assure the condensing boiler actually does condense during the cold times.

Even with all this, I would expect not any more than a 10-15% saving over a well set up steam system, and probably less. If I take a wild guess and say that you're going to cut your bill by 25% with the improved insulation and a top notch system, then you're looking at a best case $450 per year saving, probably a good bit less. If the conversion costs you $20,000 or more (it's far worse than a new install) you'd be looking at best case 40+ year payback based on the guesses above and current energy rates!

Now weigh that against tearing up your house. It might be cheaper and better to tear off a few of the worst walls and insulate them. That would probably be less surgery to the house.

I think anyone would be hard pressed to recommend the conversion based on financials.

There was also a link posted by ME to a company out of British Columbia who claims to have a condensing steam boiler, www.gasmaster-ind.com. The units look large, but it might be worth a call, then you could have the higher efficiency and not have the huge impact. Others have said a condensing steam boilers are possible.

best of luck,
jerry

Christian Egli

Thanks, that's nice

That's what happens when your dreams are made of steam. Sometimes you get a nightmare and it involves a mean old furnace.

Just trying to wake up steam heat owners.

Christian Egli

Fascinating stats, more about ratings - a whole can...

Loved following the numbers in your report. You did a good job of keeping track of what was going on.

Knowledge is power!

So it would seem the units that have steam heat take 20% more energy to heat than the top floor units that have hot water.

Are we sure the 20% difference is due to the only fact that we have steam? Could it be possible that if the lower level had been heated with hot water, you would have seen a need for perhaps 30% more energy instead of the 0% difference you assumed you should have had with the upstairs unit?

Here are a bunch of reasons to explain the difference.

Upstairs, downstairs. Downstairs units always require more heat. The top units just live off of the heat that rises from below, both through the hallways and through the floor boards. This fact is so dramatic that in high rises only the lower dozen-or-so floors really need heating, the rest of the building is heated by convection while the top floors might even need some air conditioning! Your 20% difference between 3 levels seems benign in comparison.

Other people have it worse, but they don't all have steam, ha!

Mains in the basement. Your steam mains are in the basement which means that all the heat they leak warms up the basement. So we could say that for a mere 20% you can heat a bonus floor with steam. That's value added! I know you did
mention that you insulated your mains, and I fully expect that that changed your measured heat difference a lot.

Who's in charge of the thermostat? A 20% difference can easily be due only to thermostat settings. Even at the same setting, two thermostats could behave very differently just because of the different location they are in.

Size matters. Where the upstairs and downstairs units all identical in volume and number of windows? I am hoping you'll tell me the downstairs unit was exactly 20% larger...

See, all these reasons have nothing to do with whether you have steam or not.

Lastly, some smoke:

Lets assume the steam boiler you had in those days had a rated 80% efficiency. That's standard. Lets also believe the 20% increase in energy use is only due to the heat mode and nothing else. Then, if the difference in only due to the supposed increased efficiency of hot water, that means the hot water boiler had to have had an efficiency of 80 + 20% = 96%.

96% efficiency is possible nowadays with condensing boiler and all electronic ignition and fire modulation, but not in the 70s nor the 80s. Therefore I really think there are other reasons for the difference. Again, I am hoping you won't tell me your hot water boiler.

I fully embrace ultra-modern technology, but I think it is a shame that we are resorting to selling boilers (and furnaces too) on efficiency numbers only, AFUE, DOE, I=B=R, whatever, it's turning into a meaningless number soup because it is very nearly impossible to measure how true the figures are on site. I see more value in proper maintenance, in durability and in flexibility.

Look at it this way: steam was and still is so good and so efficient that hot water boilers can't stand up to being compared to steam boilers unless you come up with "new" rating methods that give some kind of an edge to hot water.

There, now I really spilled the can O whoop-butt.

You know how everyone says: "heat pumps are so efficient", you know, free heat and phenomenal percentages? Well what do heat pumps rely on to move heat from one place to the other? They rely on the fantastic transformation of a liquid into a vapor -- just like the oldest steam boiler. Efficient.

One day, we'll see "new" AFUE ratings that give steam a 200% advantage...

M. Sines

What work should we do?

Thanks again far all the responses. they have been trully helpful. I believe we are going to stick with the steam. From the sounds of things I believe thats the best bet for us. However, you mention doing particular work to the steam system to get it operating at peak. Would you please elaborate on what exactly should be done so that I can discuss it with our plumber. I know you mentioned vents and valves and pressure controls and so on, but is there any particular type or name brand I should be looking for or stay away from? Again, Thanks.

dean_6

steam

As a homeowner who restored a steam system last year let me suggest this. Order dan's books The lost Art of Steam heat, We got steam heat, and EDR (every darn radiator)they explain how your system was originally designed how it is supposed to work what components are supposed to be there and what may be missing from your system. They will enable you to talk to your contractor knowledgeably. My gas bills were over $200/month last year and that was after I replaced my boiler with a Burnham Independence PV. The savings the new boiler should have produced were not there.
Then I found this web site. By using Dan's books I learned what was missing from the system. I replaced the main vents (4) and all the radiator vents. The pressuretrol was also adjusted to run the system at 1/2 psi. Doing this resulted in a Feb. 2004 gas bill of $57.00. This was 75% less than the Jan. 2004 gas bill. After a Mar. gas bill of $48 the gas company sent someone out to check the meter. I live in northwest lower Michigan on Lake Michigan with cold northwest winter winds of the lake so it's not that warm here in the winter.obvoiusly the savngs here were significant and I don't see how a system could be more efficient. I think you could realize significant savings by restoring your system too.

jerry scharf_2

get a steam expert

You say you have a plumber already. Are they a steam expert?

If so, they should be able to guide you. They should come here and hang with the wise steam people. If they aren't and are willing to learn about the finer points of steam heat, have them buy a copy of the lost art and send them here. If they aren't willing to learn new stuff, you will need to switch. You can find some good steam folks with find a pro. You can also hire on of the steam wizards here make a trip to see your system and make recommendations.

It's a partnership to have a heating system operating at it's peak. You need to educate yourself, and you need to work with contractors who are committed to you and the system.

I'd love someone to check out the condensing steam boiler, maybe you could be the one. A new boiler is quite probably in your future. the rest depends on what is found in your house.

best of luck, jerry

Steamhead

\"Condensing Steam Boiler\"?

Tell me more, Jerry. As far as I knew these were only available in large commercial/industrial units. Is someone making them for residential use now?

jerry scharf_2

I have never called them, and have no idea how small they go

Frank,

It was from a link posted by ME for something else. http://www.gasmaster-ind.com/ is the link, and it may indeed be bigger than any residence could use. I'd love it if you found out more info from them and posted the results.

jerry

Geno_15

depends on the house

Is your house old, 100-200, 50 years old???? Do not I repeat, DO NOT ALLOW SOMEONE TO SELL YOU BASEBOARD!! You'll be sorry, you'll be cold, the system will have to run constantly and up to 200* which will not be efficient. In an old house you cannot match the output of the radiators even if you wall to wall the baseboard.

Did they do a heat loss?? How old are your windows?doors?insulation in walls or attic?? This all needs to be adressed.

Geno_15

see above

see my response above entitled-depends on the house. From what you just said stick with steam.

Clay

steam heat

I seen it you mention insulating ceiling and walls what about floor is it a slab or raised floor you can cut heat load buy alot by insulating the floor in my part of the country we have alot of raised floors