I think the advantage in an RV is not ever running out of hot water. Of
course that would mostly be in situations where the water is in unlimited
supply. As for a home I KNOW that the savings is real. We use about a
third of the gas to power our tankless hot water heater compared to the old
one, which was just an ordinary hot water heater. Also, I never have to
wait for the water to reheat before I take a shower, run the dishwasher or
clothes washer. The third advantage is that these things have very little
parts that ever need replacing because you are removing the corrosion prone
tank of water. I paid about $600 for mine and have probably have more than
recouped my money's worth with the gas price hikes. Oh, and by the way, I
never have a shower where I wish the flow was stronger, in fact it's better
flow than most regular showers I've been in. True Story.
Jodi
Laramie, WY
PS, we also have a "clothes processor", the kind that washes and dries in
one unit and doesn't have to be vented. Talk about New Age...
At 10:13 AM 3/19/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>Robert (and others),
> What is the REAL-WORLD advantage to tankless water heater? The problems
>you cite in an RV situation look like very real disadvantages to me.
>
>I personally can't much see the supposed advantage in a home
>installation, either. The big claim to fame is the lack of heat loss
>from the normal water heater tank, but I've shut off the power to my
>electric heater in the shop and found the water just about as hot 24
>hours later. It's still warm 48 hours after the power's been off, and
>this is a heater that's over 30 years old. Presumably, the new heaters
>have better insulation and even less heat loss. If you used hot water
>only very intermittently, say every other day, I could see a slight
>advantage to a tankless outfit, but not the way most families live.
>
>Sorry to be a heretic, but in this case, I think the Emperor has no
>clothes.
>
> <<Jim>>
>
>
>Robert C Townsend wrote:
> >
> > As I understand it, the compressed air and demand pump systems both
> maintain
> > around 35 psi... a good question and an important consideration, though...
> > however, for the kinds of hot-water use for which the tankless systems are
> > 'best', i.e. 'unlimited hot water', a city-water supply would clearly
> be the
> > preferable source. In 'boondocking' situations - where one's water
> supply is
> > necessarily limited to what one carries with - the traditional small
> propane
> > fired systems seem more suitable for 'navy showers', since the initial cool
> > water is that which is in the hot-water line between faucet and heater...
> > the tankless systems take a few extra seconds (pints? gallons?) to get the
> > water flowing through it up to temperature....
> >
> >-
>--
>
> <<http://www.oldengine.org/members/jdunmyer>>
> <<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
> <<lower SE Michigan, USA>>
> <<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe or to change to a daily Digest, please go to
>http://www.airstream.net/vaclist/listoffice.html
>
>If replying back to this message, please delete all the unnecessary original
>text from your reply.
>
>
To unsubscribe or to change to a daily Digest, please go to
http://www.airstream.net/vaclist/listoffice.html
If replying back to this message, please delete all the unnecessary original
text from your reply.
