Posted By sundbergtoday on 09/30/2009 12:02 AM
Posting a reply since my situation seems very similar, but with a little nuance.
I live in a housing complex where our HOA just won a huge settlement against the master builder, Seattle Housing Authority. I'm in the somewhat awkward position of doing informal RFPs with two primary vendors who will replace our hydronic heating systems. Owners will be able to go with one vendor or the other. One is proposing a tankless Rennai and the other a Triangle Tube boiler. The boiler people say that the tankless heaters really aren't up for the job. . .they understand why they are getting used in this way, but are concerned about short cycling. The Rennai people have no such concern.
Could you give your advice in the briefest and most laymen of terms? And soon, please. Things have happend almost overnight; settlement checks will be distributed on Monday. We're not going to be trying to presuade homeowners with one solution or another, but I personally would like direction and I plan to influence as many others once I've come to a conclusion informed by the clearly very bright and seasoned professionals who have posted on this thread.
Details similar for all 150 affected homeowners: Many of us live in attached townhouses; sq. footage 1450-1800; well insulated and 7-8 years old.
My personal situation: Townhouse is 7 year old; I share walls with a townhouse on either side of me; average therm usage is .8 May-Oct, 2.0 therm Nov.-April. 1 dishwasher load/day; 5 loads of warm laundry/week; 4 showers; 2 bathes. 4 very young children so # of baths and showers will increase over next 5-10 years.
Would you go with the Rennai or with a triangle tube? Why?
Thanks so much.
Both Rinnai & Triangle Tube have good products & reputations, (IIRC, Rinnai is the worlds largest gas fired appliance vendor) but what models are we talking about here?
And the answers to NRT.Rob's questions?
Are there any tanks (even tiny ones, internal to the product) involved with either/both?
The definition of short cycle depends on many things, but in a low-mass burner like a tankless or a modulating-condensing boiler it means any burn where less than 5-10 gallons runs through the heat exchanger. In most heating systems that's not a very long time, but it's a handful of minutes, not 150 seconds. I doubt the Rinnai would ever short cycle on a call for heat unless it's set up incorrectly so that heating is always at it's highest output. The minimum-modulated fire, the pumping rate, and the amount of water in the system determines how short the shortest heating cycles are, whether it's a boiler or a tankless.
During small hot-water draws << 5 gallons (say, a coupla quarts for hand washing, or a quick-rinse in the kitchen sink) the efficiency is quite low- under 50%(!). Some units are designed with small internal tanks to pre-determine a minimum-burn (as well as avoiding the "cold water sandwich" effect of delayed ignition in a tankless), which increases the short draw efficiency significantly, at the expense of a small standby loss.
Heating loads in Seattle are relatively small, and even baseboards can usually deliver the heat at low enough temps to take advantage of condensing burners. But if it's costing $2000 more to go from ~83% standard-efficiency tankless to 93% efficiency condensing boiler and you're only burning ~500 therms/year the payback is longer than the anticipated lifetime of the equipment. (At the current ~$1/therm delivered retail I'm paying in New England that would still be only $50-60/year, which even on a simple-payback scenario is over 30 years , and in a present value financial analysis the payback never.) But if costs are about the same, higher efficiency is allways better....but...
...the efficiency of the system is only as good as the system designer, and the RELIABILITY of the equipment is only as good as those who maintain it. (And they'll both need maintenance at least every 2-4 years to keep them up to snuff.) There are plenty of ways to screw up either- get references.