Under size or over size stove in a home?
- Thread starter wmbriano2grad
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
- Status
Trader here is my suggestions the 3 or 4" vent from the hot water heater is too small cross-sectional wise to heat that flue to create a positive draft, without the augmented assistance of your furnace. There is a good chance the hotwater draft can back draft threw the draft hood. Another factor is heat distrobution in other parts of the home and miniumal heat may be needed to protect your plumbing pipes from freezing Just like your learing curb with the wood stove, you have to find that fine balance as to where to set the thermostat
it could be 62 drgrees 60 more or less let your wood stove usage dictate your thermo setting. I would not shut the system down, but control it with the thermo. Motors, gears, to run right need a certaint amount of usage as well
it could be 62 drgrees 60 more or less let your wood stove usage dictate your thermo setting. I would not shut the system down, but control it with the thermo. Motors, gears, to run right need a certaint amount of usage as well
Sandor said:
I think that's good advice. I will be on the lookout for window unit AC. This summer when I was scrounging wood off a new home construction site I noticed a brand new built home (was a large two story home, I'm sure quite expensive) with a window AC unit for the master bedroom. It surprised me to see this, and my friend said "that's actually a really good idea"). So maybe this is becoming a trend. As was mentioned in that hearth & home mag article - space heating (AND COOLING) is pretty much always more efficient. I guess the major drawbacks to window unit AC is the noise and the appearance factor.
p.s. castiron - I replaced all my light bulbs with compact fluorescents YEARS ago. I also have a high efficiency washer/dryer. One of the big problems I think (besides inefficient HVAC) are vampire appliances (everything from TVs, set top boxes, telephones, computers & routers, printers, monitors, various cradles and chargers, etc.) that stuck down electricity even when not in use. I want to get a kill-a-watt meter to see how many vampires I have and how much energy they are wasting.
p.p.s. I'm not convinced yet those "on demand" tankless water heaters are a good idea. I read a great article I will try to find - but basically it said that the massive energy used for on demand hot water ends up being just as much as leaving the pilot going on a well insulated traditional tank water heater. In the real world customers were finding that not only did they often not get enough hot water, but they also didn't conserve any energy. There were comments left to the article from actual customers (most of whom were not happy with their overpriced, overhyped, underperforming tankless water heaters).
UPDATE: Here's the article!
Tankless Water Heaters - Some Surprising Facts
tradergordo said:
Hi, Those vampire losses are also known as "parasitic losses" and you're right, they're a BIG problem and manufacturers have left the consumers "holding the bag" and paying the bills for their design laziness..... Basically, parasitic loses are electric power drains that occur even when a device is "off" or not being used....... A TV in the "off" position still consumes power 7/24/365...these are parasitic loses. Only way to stop these is to unplug an item or design it better to minimize these loses. Same for VCR's, DVD's, battery chargers, etc. Over the course of a year, this adds up to real costs! A study in California estimated that up to 30% of a homes power consumption is due to parasitic loses!
As for the tankless water heaters, I don't have one simply because the initial cost is horrendous and you generally need 220V at your bathroom and most people don't have that. When compared to an electric water heater though, they should save $ because they're only consuming energy when you demand hot water......mMy bet though....they probably also have some parasitic loses and the payback period must be many years since they cost big bucks to buy and install.
tradergordo said:
Just read the article. I liked it but was wondering if the author was trying to make a joke (but seemed serious) when he said this:
"Some people who have tankless heaters have reported to me that their utility costs stayed the same (my note....I think he meant "costs increased") because they used more hot water. Why? Since there was now an unlimited supply of hot water they stayed in the shower longer. Not only did they use more gas, but they also used more water than they would normally. While researching the column, I didn't see any warnings on the tankless heater literature about this possibility....."
Comment: OK, so you get a new toy (tankless water heater) and for the first time in your life you have unlimited hot water and consequently you use far more water AND gas than you did before and now there should be, what, a warning lable on the tank about this possibility?....LOL
That's like getting a sports car and enjoying it so much that you double your annual mileage and then complain to the manufacturer that there should have been a warning sticker saying you might use more gas......
Anyway, I liked it. I also said they use electricity....appears most are gas.....
hijack?
Getting back to the original question. We've had or have both stoves in a 2000 sq. ft. so, so insulated home in a milder climate. The biggest difference right away is the size of the log you can put in the stove. If that's important to you, then go with the Castine. I don't think it will drive you out of house and home. We're finding it regulates pretty well, so you can just burn smaller, hot fires and not worry about buring dirty. And so far it seems like the heat output is pretty close to the same as the smaller 3CB, regardless of specs. The 3CB burned a bit hotter and seemed a bit more efficient. This may not be solely the stove, but due to the larger splits that we are now burning. They burn much more gradually. But so far, it seems like we are consuming more wood to do the same job with the Castine. And we definitely haven't experienced it overheating the house. The F400 hasn't gone a season yet, so time will tell.
Getting back to the original question. We've had or have both stoves in a 2000 sq. ft. so, so insulated home in a milder climate. The biggest difference right away is the size of the log you can put in the stove. If that's important to you, then go with the Castine. I don't think it will drive you out of house and home. We're finding it regulates pretty well, so you can just burn smaller, hot fires and not worry about buring dirty. And so far it seems like the heat output is pretty close to the same as the smaller 3CB, regardless of specs. The 3CB burned a bit hotter and seemed a bit more efficient. This may not be solely the stove, but due to the larger splits that we are now burning. They burn much more gradually. But so far, it seems like we are consuming more wood to do the same job with the Castine. And we definitely haven't experienced it overheating the house. The F400 hasn't gone a season yet, so time will tell.
- Nov 21, 2005
- 827
I think it's been hi-jacked. I have a tankless that uses oil. I love it! Is it me, as I see frequently articles of people calling tankless systems on-demand. That article is about an on-demand system, I have a tankless. It stores several gallons of water inside.
Mine works like this. The several gallons inside is always kept hot between your two set points. It periodically will flick on to keep it heated. There's no "waiting for hot water by running it for a minute", and more efficient to maintain 3-5 gallons of water than 40-120. I can use 3 gallons of hot water and my tankless likely doesn't kick on. When I start taking a shower it's about 10-15 minutes before my tankless kicks on to rewarm. Their example is crap about the 2.5 gpm for a shower while simultaneously running a kitchen sink faucet at 2 gpm you'll lose ground. It makes me question the validity of the article because tankless systems have a flow limiter, often times adjustable. In summer you can increase the amount of gpm's it allows to 4+ gpm's to offset higher incoming water temps and in winter lower it to 4- gpm for the lower incoming temps. The boiler will reduce the water flow to whatever you allow and then split the hot water between the appliances, you'll experience around a 16% reduction in water pressure if running the shower & sink with your flow control limited to 3.8 gpm but NEITHER will experience cold water, they'll have the same temperature water as if it was the only appliance indefinetely, but just the pressure slightly less.
Tankless lets you do some neat things. From tap cold water it will heat the several gallons to full temperature in about 7-10 minutes. That's fast enough to turn it on only when we need it. We get up, turn it on, eat breakfast and hear it click off, we shut it off, then take a shower and have 15 minutes before the water gets cold. We then go to work... not a lot of loss we used exactly what we heated and there's no idling. We don't normally turn it back on at night unless we're doing dishes, or we may turn it on when we get home and shut if off. That easily gives us enough hot water for the night for washing hands, etc. I really like tankless systems. I'm not certain yet about on-demand.
Mine works like this. The several gallons inside is always kept hot between your two set points. It periodically will flick on to keep it heated. There's no "waiting for hot water by running it for a minute", and more efficient to maintain 3-5 gallons of water than 40-120. I can use 3 gallons of hot water and my tankless likely doesn't kick on. When I start taking a shower it's about 10-15 minutes before my tankless kicks on to rewarm. Their example is crap about the 2.5 gpm for a shower while simultaneously running a kitchen sink faucet at 2 gpm you'll lose ground. It makes me question the validity of the article because tankless systems have a flow limiter, often times adjustable. In summer you can increase the amount of gpm's it allows to 4+ gpm's to offset higher incoming water temps and in winter lower it to 4- gpm for the lower incoming temps. The boiler will reduce the water flow to whatever you allow and then split the hot water between the appliances, you'll experience around a 16% reduction in water pressure if running the shower & sink with your flow control limited to 3.8 gpm but NEITHER will experience cold water, they'll have the same temperature water as if it was the only appliance indefinetely, but just the pressure slightly less.
Tankless lets you do some neat things. From tap cold water it will heat the several gallons to full temperature in about 7-10 minutes. That's fast enough to turn it on only when we need it. We get up, turn it on, eat breakfast and hear it click off, we shut it off, then take a shower and have 15 minutes before the water gets cold. We then go to work... not a lot of loss we used exactly what we heated and there's no idling. We don't normally turn it back on at night unless we're doing dishes, or we may turn it on when we get home and shut if off. That easily gives us enough hot water for the night for washing hands, etc. I really like tankless systems. I'm not certain yet about on-demand.
Sounds like the way that you use it is what makes it efficient (turning it on to heat only a few gallons of water before you need it, then turning it off after). I can't see many people using it the way that you do. Your average person is also going to be annoyed by fluctuating water pressure and/or low pressure showers for example.
But just out of curiosity what type of water heating did you have before this and have you actually computed the overall difference in energy use? Seems like an extremely long payoff time for the folks that actually save anything at all.
But just out of curiosity what type of water heating did you have before this and have you actually computed the overall difference in energy use? Seems like an extremely long payoff time for the folks that actually save anything at all.
Rhonemas said:
This is a key point - go with oil or gas. The electric tankless water heaters are bad news. If everyone takes a shower in the morning and instantly demands hot water all at once, that is a HUGE electrical load for utilities to absorb. That drives a new peak demand, and that drives more powerplant construction, which raises rates for everyone because it's only needed to meet that brief demand peak. Oil or gas doesn't have the same problem.
Personally, I think if the utilities had smarter metering, people could use low value electric generation in the middle of the night to charge up a well insulated 100 gallon tank with minimum adverse cost or impact. Same reason plug-in hybrid cars have so much more potential to make a real impact.
-Colin
As to the subject of the thread, oversize it.
On the point about window air conditioners. Our heat pump crapped while I was extremely busy a few years ago. To keep my wife cool until we could get it fixed I stuck a little window unit in the bedroom uptairs. I was amazed. The electric bill dropped like a rock and the house was more comfortable. I had always hated that you paid to freeze to death downstairs just to keep the upstairs tepid. Since we have always heated 100% with wood anyway I cancelled the service call.
The heat pump is just an old wart on the side of the house.
Except if the insurance agent asks. Then it just broke last week. Something a lot of woodburners don't know is that pretty much no insurance company will insure a home that only has wood heat.
On the point about window air conditioners. Our heat pump crapped while I was extremely busy a few years ago. To keep my wife cool until we could get it fixed I stuck a little window unit in the bedroom uptairs. I was amazed. The electric bill dropped like a rock and the house was more comfortable. I had always hated that you paid to freeze to death downstairs just to keep the upstairs tepid. Since we have always heated 100% with wood anyway I cancelled the service call.
The heat pump is just an old wart on the side of the house.
Except if the insurance agent asks. Then it just broke last week. Something a lot of woodburners don't know is that pretty much no insurance company will insure a home that only has wood heat.
- Status
Similar threads
