# Waterheaters- tankless or not?



## memphislawyer (Mar 2, 2007)

Thinking my heater is shot, it is about 13 years old, maybe older. The decision is now whether to replace it with a tankless on demand model or go back with the gas 40 or 50 gallon. I am told that the gas heaters are more efficient, better insulated and have a quicker recovery time. Daughter is out of the house, but even in highschool, we had few problems with hot water and doing laundry and taking a jaccuzi at night. Since then, we have a front loading HE washer for the laundry and a Bosch energy efficient dishwasher. I am told that the gas heater, 50 gallon model, may run $1350 to install and about $1200 more for a tankless.
I dont know how long we plan to stay in this house, so that is not of a concern as much as saving on utilities and a more comfortable bath. I am thinking that unless we save $150 a year in utilities, or unless the tankless lasts twice as long, it may be best to just go with the gas heater.
Thought I would get feedback. Any?


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

It doesn't take a whole lot to save $12/month in utilities, depending on your gas rate there. I've saved quadruple that by replacing a window air conditioner that failed; it paid for itself in one season.

While I can't comment specifically, if you EVER have had an issue with running out of hot water with a 50 gal model, I'd go for the on demand. I'm a hot water whore (leave it running when I'm shaving, etc.), so I feel your pain.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

I have no boiler, no immersion tank, no water heater. I have district heating: as much hot water and heating as and when I need it, piped in from the heating plant for the whole town.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Our gas fired, tanked water heater was installed in October, 1979. Needless to say, it has far outlived any projected service periods proclaimed by the manufacturer and over time we have wrapped insulation around the tank and the output piping to improve efficiency. However, I have been waiting for the past ten years or so, for it to die so we could install an uber-efficient on-demand, tankless heater. Tankless heaters are the way to go, given todays energy costs and our seemingly insatiable demands for hot water! :thumbs-up:


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

Our plumber recently said he's had nothing but problems with the tankless water heaters! I can't see how that's possible with much less, in my opinion, to go wrong.


----------



## RM Bantista (May 30, 2009)

Memphis,
When this is looked into thoroughly, it is not a simple problem. My first thought was to go to an European style of on demand water heating, which is very at the point of use deployment of equipment for heating the water. This is highly efficient and worth doing in new construction where this is the plan from the drawing to the build. It is much less effective as a retrofit.
Similarly, deep ground and lake water space cooling systems are best from the start. Electrical generation and solar water heating are also only most effective when their are additional benefits from government for their deployment. 
When similarly required to replace extant systems, it has been most expedient to go with similar though improved similar systems as were present from the start. The savings to expense have never justified a major alteration of methods. Some day when all things are better they will.
'Next year in Jerusalem,' as the sages say.
YMMV,
Regards,
rudy


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*It depends*

When remodeling/rebuilding our house we installed a standard large gas water heater at the suggestion of our contractor. It has worked well for several years. Last month we experienced 100 MPH winds and had no electricity for a couple of days. The pilot light stayed on and we had hot water and bathed by candlelight. Our neighbors, who just rebuilt their house, have a tankless heater and were without hot water and in the dark.

I have a tankless heater in my studio in northern California. It performs satisfactorily. I haven't been there when the power is out, so I haven't had to contend with electricity dependence. If power outages happen where your house is located, I'd consider getting a generator, particularly if you like to bathe daily.

Hope this is helpful.

Gurdon


----------



## MacTweed (Oct 30, 2011)

I am in the same boat at MemphisLawyer; our water heater is on the fritz. I tried to call a plumber Saturday, but apparently in Charleston plumbing is a 9-5 Mon-Fri job. So tomorrow I will find out my options. I was hoping for a tankless, on-demand water heater. 

Our problem is the amount of time it takes to get hot water to the fixtures: over 1 minute to the shower (and I have an average sized house for the 1970s). Is that amount of time normal?


----------



## sbdivemaster (Nov 13, 2011)

Given the OP's described situation, I'd recommend getting the 50 gallon replacement. If you really think you might want more than that, consider getting two 30's or 40's. The added costs will be less than the added cost of a tankless.

We have a tankless; came with the house when we bought it. The previous owners had it installed in 1998 - 14 years old. Works like a champ. As RM Bantista points out, the economies don't make sense as a retrofit, but it came with the house, so it's worth it.

3 years ago, it started malfunctioning. I got in there and discovered that the water intake valve's seat pin had thick hard water deposits. I cleaned it all up, put the valve back in and haven't had problems since. Andy, I see you're in my region, and I suspect that's what your plumber is experiencing - SoCal has some serious hard water. The tankless heaters are actually very simple; ours uses a gas pilot light, so it would not be affected by power outages.

MacTweed, if you're having a long wait for hot water, consider a hot water circulator for the fixture (e.g. bathroom sink) furthest from your water heater.

If anyone wants more info, feel free to PM. :icon_smile:


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

sbdivemaster said:


> Given the OP's described situation, I'd recommend getting the 50 gallon replacement. If you really think you might want more than that, consider getting two 30's or 40's. The added costs will be less than the added cost of a tankless.
> 
> We have a tankless; came with the house when we bought it. The previous owners had it installed in 1998 - 14 years old. Works like a champ. As RM Bantista points out, the economies don't make sense as a retrofit, but it came with the house, so it's worth it.
> 
> ...


I agree. If this was new construction I'd go with the tankless. The build quality is much better than it was in the 50's and 60's. You don't save much money with a tankless. So why get it? Convenience. You never run out of hot water. However, it's better to install it near the point of most use i.e. the shower or kitchen. If it's down in the basement then you still have to wait for hot water to show up. I agree with the OP, just go with a 50-gallon or more energy-star rated gas water heater. If you want instant hot water with a tank; use a circulation pump with a timer (see link).
https://www.hvacquick.com/products/...Laing-SM-Series-Hot-Water-Recirculation-Pumps


----------



## Semper Jeep (Oct 11, 2011)

I'd agree with the others that recommend just replacing with another 50 gallon hot water heater and avoid going tankless especially since you didn't seem to be having any major problems with running out of hot water.

Our hot water heater is about 15 years old and we will be replacing it this year as well but will probably be going tankless. Our justification is that our house is very large ranch (about 3,500 square feet) and the hot water heater is at one end of the house in the garage (we are on a slab so it cannot go in the non-existent basement) and even on good days, we waste a lot of water trying to get hot water in the bathrooms at the opposite end of the house. With the tankless, there are a couple of large interior utility spaces that we could fit the unit and have it more centrally located. This would have another benefit of opening up some more storage space in our garage. We are also planning to do some significant renovations in our bathrooms at the same time and are hoping that will help mitigate any added expense associated with switching over from a tanked system to a tankless one.

We've thought about a traditional hot water heater with a timer to recirculate the hot water at certain intervals but that would still present us with the problem of reheating enough water to send it all the way through the house a few times a day and that just doesn't sound efficient to me.

If we had a smaller house or could fit a traditional hot water heater somewhere more convenient, I don't think it would even be a question about going to the tankless, but I think in our application this may be the way to go.


----------



## memphislawyer (Mar 2, 2007)

First plumber said $1500 to install the regular 50 gallon tank, and $4500 for a tankless. A heating/air guy who will do it says closer to $1200 for the 50 gallon, and $2500 to $3000 for on demand. I see that I might save $150 a year at most, current gas rates, for the tankless, but doubtful since we use less water now that daughter moved out. We have a 40 gallon now, and it is older technology, built in 1999. My HVAC guy says go with an energy efficient 50 gallon, wrap it and we will have better than what the 40 gallon was brand new.


----------



## Ekphrastic (Oct 4, 2009)

A divergence, if I may: when I lived in Costa Rica at the onset of the last decade (2000-2002), water heaters were rare luxuries. More often than not, the places where I rented had "duchas," the Costa Rican term for an electrically-powered showerhead. 

Yes, you read that right: electrically-powered showerheads.

Basically, there was a heating coil inside the showerhead; it was just like the heating coil on your stove, only not as substantial (and hot). It rarely did a fantastic job of heating water, but, sometimes, it could take the edge off. (Contrary to popular thought, it can actually get rather chilly in Costa Rica, depending on where you are.)

The problem (aside from the problem that they don't work all that well) is that, since they're electrically-powered, they electrocute your head if you get too close. Since I'm taller than the average Costa Rican...

Anyway, I'd go with the regular tank.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Re Post #12: "...My HVAC guy says go with an energy efficient 50 gallon, wrap it and we will have better than what the 40 gallon was brand new."

Second.:icon_study:


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Obviously American prices are different, but in the UK I would suggest that an "on demand" system is cheaper, more convenient, and, perhaps more importantly, saves space, as you don't need the space for a lagged 40-50 gallon water tank!


----------



## doc (Feb 3, 2012)

My first post, but this is a topic that is near and dear to my heart. At my home, I have the luxury of free gas, courtesy of my own private gas well, which is connected to both the house and my two outbuildings as well as a 12.5kW generator which kicks on automatically immediately there is a power outage. Thus I have a 75-gal conventional tank fast-recovery unit, and I too am something of a hot-water hog. However, 6 years ago when the 40-gallon water heater in my office died, I opted for a tankless. It's mounted on a wall directly over a floor tub and drain, so that if it ever leaks, it won't flood my office. At the time, it cost about US$1400 more than a 50-gal conventional unit, but I was more worried about the flooding issue way off in the future. I have to say that the energy savings is not sufficient to justify the additional cost at current natural gas prices. My major complaint is that it takes a full 2 minutes for hot water to reach my most distal faucet, and that is a major annoyance. I am advised by my plumber that the proper way to do this is wrap the hot water pipes with insulation and electric heating wire, but that would seem to be even more cost-prohibitive. So while I'm not lamenting the purchase, I don't believe I'd advise anyone else to follow my lead, and I certainly wouldn't have one in my house, where on-demand hot water in the morning is second only to breathing in priority.


----------



## RM Bantista (May 30, 2009)

Semper Jeep said:


> I'd agree with the others that recommend just replacing with another 50 gallon hot water heater and avoid going tankless especially since you didn't seem to be having any major problems with running out of hot water.
> 
> Our hot water heater is about 15 years old and we will be replacing it this year as well but will probably be going tankless. Our justification is that our house is very large ranch (about 3,500 square feet) and the hot water heater is at one end of the house in the garage (we are on a slab so it cannot go in the non-existent basement) and even on good days, we waste a lot of water trying to get hot water in the bathrooms at the opposite end of the house. With the tankless, there are a couple of large interior utility spaces that we could fit the unit and have it more centrally located. This would have another benefit of opening up some more storage space in our garage. We are also planning to do some significant renovations in our bathrooms at the same time and are hoping that will help mitigate any added expense associated with switching over from a tanked system to a tankless one.
> 
> ...


Sir, 
In this particular situation, It would seem to oneself that tankless is indeed a reasonable and financially sound solution. It is a technological advance in some instances that is a reasonable expenditure, though not at present in every instance. A bit of math is involved which has not been a great help to some of us who have avoided the unpleasantness of figures. Not speaking of any of our gentlemen here, who have all made well reasoned decisions as evidenced in their postings.
This is a great credit to the group of persons who elect to frequent these fora, as it may not always be so in my experience. Here we have thoughtful people with some regard and respect for our fellow participants. Well done.
Regards to all gentle persons and thank you for your contributions,
rudy


----------



## fishertw (Jan 27, 2006)

We've been in our current house for nearly five years. The house has two water heaters, one for kitchen and one that feeds into bathrooms on the other end of the house. The house is large with a south facing roof on the end of the house where the bathrooms are located. We replaced the water heater in the kitchen first with a 40 gal electric. On the other end of the house we installed a solar water heater that has an electric backup. Both are more efficient than the previous ones. The solar heater really seems to supply all the hot water we need for bathing/shaving and for use for laundry needs without using the electric backup much at all. Savings have been pretty good over prior costs with older water heaters. IF you have a south facing roof with good angle, you might consider a solar hw heater.
Tom


----------

