From: davek@informix.com (David Kosenko)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers.house
Subject: Re: Heating a house
Date: 7 Jan 93 19:20:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

Stuart Lewis writes:
>As far as the hot water radiators you mention, you just don't see
>that in new construction (moderately old either, for that matter).
>But.... this falls back on what method is used to heat *that*, i.e.
>oil, natural gas, or electric boiler.  You still fall back to "what
>do I want to use."  Some of the reasons you don't see hot water
>radiators any more are that they are very big, very heavy, and take up a
>lot of room.  They must use metal pipe rather than plastic and are
>thus prone to rusting at the couplings.  And, there's just plain
>better systems out there today.

Obviously you have not looked at hydronic systems lately.  For the most
part, you will not find the radiators you mention anymore because they
have been supplanted by baseboard units. Some of these are so slim and sleek
now that they look like the baseboard itself.  As far as the radiators go,
some of the Euro designs are pretty sleek too, though you don't often see these
in the U.S.  None of these  take up the room the old bohemouths did, and
they tend to be a bit lighter due to new materials and designs used.  As
far as metal pipe being required, you have obviously NOT been watching
This Old House, where Richard Trethewey's fave is the flexible pipe (it looks
like plastic, but I can't say for sure) that can be routed with an 
electrician's snake.  These puppie's hooked up to a manifold give you a
great system, with room-granular zones (if desired) with only a single
circulating pump (which is not so easily doable with forced air, as I
understand it).  The major drawback with baseboard units is that you will
typically require a major portion of the perimeter of the room have them,
as their surface area is small.

As per "better" systems, I'd venture to say that is open to discussion.  I'd
also venture to say that you don't see hydronic for 2 major reasons: first,
they are somewhat intrusive, even with the low-profile baseboard units, since
you need to be careful with placing furniture (don't want your couch against
the wall with the heating units, as it would block the heating); and second,
they are considerably more expensive.

BTW, my Dad, who is the engineer for a big retirement home and who has
a Black Seal (boiler operator's) license claims that hydronic systems
are the best way to heat, as they are more even and quieter (though
intuitively, I think less efficient, since you heat the water which
then heats the air, as opposed to heating the air directly).

>Unless power is real cheap, like here in the northwest, electric can
>be real spendy; oil is moderately inexpensive right now, but that is

	On the other hand, easy zoning with electric can be a win in
some situations.

>a market that can change very rapidly - it's a choice you have to
>make with respect to future supply, really.  Personally, I'd hate to
>have my heating bill depend on some sand baron in the gulf.

I lean toward gas, although my current (old) boiler is oil.  However
consider that oil is a commodity, and demand and supply controls much of
the price.  Gas, being a utility, does not have this free market benefit,
so your heating bill is going to depend on a bunch of fat cats in the U.S.
who make big contributions to Senators and Representatives to allow them
to raise the rates whenever they want.  Pick your devil; either way you
pay.

>
>Just my opinion but, I'd bet you'd be real happy with a natural gas
>fired radiant floor heat - quite efficient, pretty cheap, but spendy
>installation.  In a nutshell, you have a central boiler fired by gas
>(or electric), and a manifold with valves for each room.  The

This is not unique to under floor; any hydronic system will use this.

>manifold is in line to a closed system of flexible pipe which is
>routed throughout all the floorspace of the home, "weaved" all over
>(sort of like an electric burner pattern, for lack of a better
>definition) and stapled down.  This is covered with ~1 to 2
>inches of lightweight concrete.  The heated water is then routed
>through the system.  The concrete acts as a heat sink and heating is
>from the floor up, rather than the top down; i.e., it may be 75 F at
>the floor, but maybe 65 F at the ceiling instead of 85 F at the
>ceiling and 75 F at the floor.

Such a system is very good for large, high spaces (every This Old House
"great room" seems to wind up with under floor radiant).  For smaller rooms,
it probably costs more than it is worth.  I also believe it limits your
flooring options, as you don't want to carpet on top of a heated floor.
It does give you the advantage of having all your walls free for furniture
placement.  I plan on putting under floor in my bathrooms when I redo
them this spring.  BTW, there is one system out which does not require
lightweight concrete; rather the pipe is placed in special subflooring with
routed channels.  It is supposed to be as efficient as the other.

Contrariwise,
Dave
-- 
Disclaimer: These opinions are not those of Informix Software, Inc.
**************************************************************************
"I look back with some satisfaction on what an idiot I was when I was 25,
 but when I do that, I'm assuming I'm no longer an idiot." - Andy Rooney
Newsgroups: misc.consumers.house,misc.legal