Is Steam Heat still a Viable Option?

Cyclist77 · January 16

Though I don't have it we recently stayed somewhere that did and it was very comfortable.

So I was wondering if this type of system is still being installed? And as I was pondering this it made me think is copper ever used or is it too $$.

DIYorBust · January 16

In Manhattan they still have steam plants operating. I believe the make electricity and steam by cogeneration. Some modern buildings still utilize the service. There are other industrial situations where steam discharged as waste heat can be used for heating purposes. However steam generated on site by boiling water at home is no longer efficient enough to use. Boiling the water uses a lot more energy than pumping it. These systems haven't been installed since probably the 40s. Maybe there is an exception I don't know about.

ChrisJ · January 16

https://forum.heatinghelp.com/discussion/203450/is-steam-heat-still-a-viable-option

Roughly where are you located?

How old is the house and what type of construction? Is it drafty new windows etc?

JaymeHart · January 16

"Boiling the water uses a lot more energy than pumping it."

Yep, significantly more energy is needed to make steam vs hot water. Like 5x more.

I love my single pipe steam heated house from 1927. Brand new boiler. The warmth and the sounds that go along with that heat are very pleasant to me.

But if my system was 2-pipe steam, I long ago would have converted it to hot water for the efficiency alone.

ethicalpaul · January 16

Boiling the water uses a lot more energy than pumping it.

This is faulty logic. The energy is indeed required to boil the water, but then the energy is in the steam. That energy is released when the steam changes back to water in the radiator when it releases its heat.

So this argument is incorrect.

What you CAN argue is that typical residential steam boilers are only about 83% efficient, in that about 17% of the energy goes up the chimney in the form of heat that is wasted. High efficiency boilers can get to what, about 95% in optimal conditions?

But they cost more to install, way way more to maintain, and they fail a lot sooner (given proper maintenance on all boilers involved) than a cast iron boiler.

Steam has its difficulties, mostly in terms of balance, and definitely in terms of finding good contractors, but it is not inherently less efficient.

Intplm. · January 16

From a new installation standpoint, no. There are not any (that I know of) residential steam system put in from scratch. Many are fit, refit and maintained for the greatest heating comfort there is. I agree that steam heat is the best. I grew up with it and still miss it.

Copper is occasionally used for repair purposes on some parts of residential steam systems.

Commercially and industrially steam is used for many purposes.

ChrisJ · January 16

https://forum.heatinghelp.com/discussion/comment/1882539#Comment_1882539

I agree with Paul,

It takes zero energy to generate steam, 100% of what you put into it comes back out when you condense it into water. Phase change is 100% efficient. Ok, it's not 100%, but it's close.

You can argue the boilers aren't as efficient as condensing boilers, but neither are hot water boilers if they're running at 180F.

hot_rod · January 16

Another thought would be steam radiator at or against an outside wall.The heat loss based on the delta across the wall construction and insulation would be higher than say a 82° radiant floor panel. Maybe @ethicalpaul could do an infrared scan of the outside of his home and see if radiator locations "light up"

Boiler efficiency would be another point, 90% plus is certainly available with mod con radiant systems.

Probably a big question is finding a knowledgable contractor and the cost to design and install a system properly.

A bigger market may be converting steam radiators to HW, I think Dan wrote about that maybe in a 1988 issue of This Old House Journal?

ChrisJ · January 16

https://forum.heatinghelp.com/discussion/comment/1882553#Comment_1882553

In a modern house with 2x6 construction etc, would that be as noticeable as it is in an older house like ours?

Mine doesn't even have sheathing…………

But it sure does breath good, so plenty of fresh air.

ethicalpaul · January 16

Maybe @ethicalpaulcould do an infrared scan of the outside of his home and see if radiator locations "light up"

Given that my stud bays have next to no insulation I don't think the radiators' direct heat would get past the external sheathing, the 1" foam under my aluminum siding, and the siding itself

EBEBRATT-Ed · January 17

@ethicalpaul

Your next video!!! We need proof!!!!

Weather the heat source is steam or hot water there is nothing like a warm chunk of cast iron.

jumper · January 17

There are ways to use energy from inefficiencies to help heat a building. An example is heat recovery device to heat combustion air with exhaust. Technically you can make a condensing steam boiler that way. New houses built in Canada are so tight that they don't need much heating. If I was a gazillionaire builder I'd opt for steam heat. When USSR collapsed buildings lost heating and HHW pipes burst.

Steamhead · January 17

@Cyclist77 , the short answer is yes, it can be done. The reason builders don't install steam (or hot-water also) is because heat pumps are cheaper. Comfort doesn't matter to them- they just want to build as cheap as they can, sell for as much as they can, and scram.

I think if I were building a house, I'd do a Tudor orifice system with cast-iron baseboards. In a smaller house that would need exactly two moving parts, other than what's on the boiler.

mattmia2 · January 17

though hot water can in some cases be about 15% more efficient than steam, i suspect the systems that get designed, built, and configured to make that happen are the exception rather than the rule. it is also more costly to build a hot water system that is 95% efficient vs 80ish percent.

mattmia2 · January 17

https://forum.heatinghelp.com/discussion/comment/1882553#Comment_1882553

but it isn't that simple. a higher delta will transfer more energy but a lower temp emitter will need more surface area so if both emitters are on the exterior at least the larger size will at least partially cancel out the smaller delta. i'd have to think about it some more but i have a sort of intuitive feeling that the larger size vs larger delta have to exactly cancel each other out.

hot_rod · January 17

https://forum.heatinghelp.com/discussion/comment/1882638#Comment_1882638

In my comparison I had a steam radiator compared to a 82° low temperature radiant floor. That is how I got to 90% boiler efficiency and less loss through the wall.

mattmia2 · January 17

technically that increased loss will come through the floor but if you are using standing ci radiators you would probably construct the floor differently so both the floor would be different and that loss might be to conditioned space below or to the ground…

maybe the overall difference is that with radiant you end up with more total insulation

hot_rod · January 17

the fair comparison would be two identically constructed homes, I suppose.

Is Steam Heat still a Viable Option?

Comments

Categories