new boiler help


  #1  
Old 12-25-11, 08:02 PM
J
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 13
Upvotes: 0
Received 0 Upvotes on 0 Posts
new boiler help

Replacing 30 yr+ old Utica hot water, oil-fired boiler with either Peerless, WeilMaclain or Burnham. House is 2 floors, 2 zones, 2000 sq ft. with 135 ft baseboard radiators. R49 in attic. I figure I need 81,000 btu's for current needs. May want to expand to 3rd zone or to indirect dom. hot water. Currently and new system will be tankless coil. Installers have recommended BOTH the Peerless 3 section and the Peerless 4 section. what size boiler do I need. Which brand is better? And what about a Riello or a Becket burner? I hear the
Riello's are loud.
 
  #2  
Old 12-25-11, 08:15 PM
lawrosa's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Galivants Ferry SC USA
Posts: 15,984
Received 79 Upvotes on 71 Posts
135 ft baseboard radiators
Copper finned baseboard, cast iron baseboard or rads?
I figure I need 81,000 btu's
How did you figure this. Do a heat loss calc of the home before you do anything else. Without a heat loss why take a chance to oversize with the price of oil???

Currently and new system will be tankless coil
.

Most inefficiant. You will be better of with a indirect. Because of fast recovery I would suggest 30 gallon range.

The burnham mpo is the recoomended boiler from the posts from the oil pros here from what I have read through the year. Ease of service and controls.

Burner? The oil pros will let you know. I think its the riello that is the better one.

Mike NJ

 
  #3  
Old 12-25-11, 08:50 PM
J
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 13
Upvotes: 0
Received 0 Upvotes on 0 Posts
The baseboard radiators are 3/4" copper pipe w/fins.
My btu calculation is based on 135 ft of baseboard at 600 btu's per foot.
Also, I know a coil is considered inefficient but our dom. hot water use is pretty low.
 
  #4  
Old 12-25-11, 09:17 PM
NJT's Avatar
NJT
NJT is offline
Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 19,710
Upvotes: 0
Received 8 Upvotes on 6 Posts
My btu calculation is based on 135 ft of baseboard at 600 btu's per foot.
The amount of installed baseboard in the home has NOTHING to do with the actual heat loss of the home. Do not trust anyone who tells you that it does. If you size a boiler based on this, you will end up with a boiler that is likely too large for the home for at least the next 20 years.

That said, there really aren't many oil boilers that are much smaller than about 80K...

After you do, or have done, a REAL heat loss calculation, take a look at the Burnham MPO.

U.S. Boiler Company is a leading manufacturer of home heating equipment, water boilers, steam boilers, hot water heaters, radiators and boiler control systems.

At 2000 sq feet, I believe that the smallest model will meet your needs. (MPO-IQ84)

If a contractor is trying to sell you a 4 section boiler, steer clear. He just wants to install the boiler and be done. Remember, he doesn't have to pay your heating bills!

Also, I know a coil is considered inefficient but our dom. hot water use is pretty low.
There is no good reason to go with a tankless coil in the boiler. It is simply the 2nd worst way in the world of making domestic hot water. The 1st worst way is a kettle on top of a wood stove.

Think about it... you are going to keep a boiler at 140 24/7 all year long, summer and winter so that you can draw a few gallons of hot water a day? How silly is that? Why not just leave your car running in the driveway with a brick on the accelerator pedal when you aren't using it?

It really has nothing at all to do with your usage... waste is waste...
 
  #5  
Old 12-25-11, 10:00 PM
J
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 13
Upvotes: 0
Received 0 Upvotes on 0 Posts
Thanks for the suggestions. I am doing a heat loss estimate but am uncertain as to how to use the resulting numbers. Also looking into the MPO Burnham you mentioned. Don't know why installer suggested the V8H3 instead of the MPO-IQ?
 
  #6  
Old 12-26-11, 05:16 AM
S
Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: pittsburgh pa
Posts: 121
Upvotes: 0
Received 0 Upvotes on 0 Posts
I recently inherited builings with lots of weil mclain boilers and I could not be happier. they are 20-30 years old and I have not had a single problem. Burnham has had some problems in the recent past with units cracking when they were not very old. I would not hesitate to put weil mclain in my own house.
 
  #7  
Old 12-26-11, 06:04 AM
rbeck's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 2,394
Upvotes: 0
Received 61 Upvotes on 51 Posts
The reason he probably suggested the V8h due to your request of a domestic hot water coil. The MPO-IQ does not offer the coil option due to efficiency's. The MPO-IQ is a triple pass boiler which means the flue gasses are in the boiler longer to make three passes in the boiler before they exit the boiler. The V8h and most other boilers the flame is in the bottom and the gasses go straight up and out the top of the boiler. The IQ control has plug in option cards that make it easy to meet codes your state may have like low water cut offs and also plug in ODR control to add fuel savings. I also like the pre-purge on the circulator feature built into the IQ control.
I also would suggest to stay away from the domestic hot water coil. It is not the use of hot water that is expensive but maintaining temp all the time in case you want hot water.
Follow this link.
Domestic Hot Water Coils....Why Are They Still Being Sold?
 
  #8  
Old 12-26-11, 10:10 PM
J
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 13
Upvotes: 0
Received 0 Upvotes on 0 Posts
You're correct about why he recommended the V8H. I know that people advise against the coil but for my use I think it works. Very low hot water demand, not installing a cold start boiler so my boiler will go on and off throughout the day to maintain temp, if boiler is already hot and I call for hot water, the water is heated by the already hot boiler and the boiler does not come on again until the main temp goes down. If I had an indirect tank, that water would be reheated throughout the day, even when I didn't need it.
 
  #9  
Old 12-27-11, 03:03 AM
rbeck's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 2,394
Upvotes: 0
Received 61 Upvotes on 51 Posts
You are right that if you had an indirect it would fire even if you did not need it. The difference is that the chimney is constantly stealing heat from the boiler that you have to recover. The indirect is well insulated and has a standby loss of about 1/2f per hour. It probably won't run all day while you are at work while the hot boiler will cycle multiple times an hour. As the water volume in the boiler decrease the standby chimney loss will cycle the boiler even more. The indirect has gained much popularity over the years due to the fuel savings it creates by using a well insulated storage tank.
 
  #10  
Old 12-27-11, 11:31 AM
J
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 13
Upvotes: 0
Received 0 Upvotes on 0 Posts
It seems that the boiler will go on several times a day just to maintain it's home heating function. It will do this even with an indirect tank, won't it?
One more question. Peerless WBV or Burnham V8H?
 
  #11  
Old 12-27-11, 12:05 PM
lawrosa's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Galivants Ferry SC USA
Posts: 15,984
Received 79 Upvotes on 71 Posts
Warm start boiler.

A tankless coil has a Hi/Lo aquastat that will keep the boiler at say 150F even if there is a no heat call or HW call. It will cycle several times a day basically for no reason. Its kept warm incase there is a call for HW. If it did not do this you would have cold water when you HW was used.

Coldstart boiler.

A indirect is piped as a sepeate zone. The boiler is basically a cold start and will only fire when there is a call for heat or HW. Now once the indirect tank is hot you will have 40,30,20 gallons at your disposal. depending on size indirect. And once its hot there is very little heat loss. If there is no call for HW the boiler may fire once during the day to raise the temp back up in the indirect. If that!!!

So basically why have a boiler run all summer maintaining 150f temp for a HW coil you use in the morning and say at night? Its a waste of fuel IMO. And if you have low water use, and because indirects are fast recovery, a 20 gallon tank is probably a good option. Most homeowners oversize them anyway IMO.

If I was to install a indirect in my home it would be a 20 gallon. Lets put it this way. A 20 gal indirect @ 180F boiler temp has a 168 gal first hour recovery rate @ 115F. Do the math, what does that tell you?


Possibly you need to do more research to compare the differences.

If all the installers are offering and pushing a tankless coil its time to find different installers. They are not offering whats in your best interest and probably want to just make a larger profit from you.


One more question. Peerless WBV or Burnham V8H?


Neither......

Mike NJ
 

Last edited by lawrosa; 12-27-11 at 01:11 PM.
  #12  
Old 12-27-11, 12:54 PM
J
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 13
Upvotes: 0
Received 0 Upvotes on 0 Posts
. Why no good Mike NJ? What do you prefer?
 
  #13  
Old 12-27-11, 01:04 PM
J
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 13
Upvotes: 0
Received 0 Upvotes on 0 Posts
Thanks, Lawrosa. Your explanation is great and I finally get it. I guess what helped to confuse me is the fact that we have no aquastat at present. Our old system had a dom. hot water storage tank that has been disconnected for years. Our dom. water just runs through the boiler coil when it's needed and the boiler only cycles on and off according to the home heating high and low setting. With the new installation, I see that this will change. I think we will, however go with the coil to start and eventually upgrade to an indirect. It's too much at one time as we are replacing entire system AND abandoning our 550 gal inground tank!! Thanks again for your clear explanation.
 
  #14  
Old 12-27-11, 01:24 PM
P
Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: US
Posts: 522
Upvotes: 0
Received 0 Upvotes on 0 Posts
Hello Jordan,
Putting in my 2cents worth.
I believe you are making a lifetime mistake not going with the Burnham MPO or a similar Buderus.
The gains in efficiency and the ability to use lower water return temperatures will pay dividends years into the future. Especially when oil gets to 5 -10 dollars a gallon over the duration.
I understand that the costs of an indirect, at this time are unworkable.
However, the better option, imo, would be to get a cheap little electirc water heater from Home Depot.
The costs to operate will be lower that the tankless you have now and might even be lower than the new tankless you are considering. Down the road a few years, at your liesure you can always change to a nice 20 gal indrect.
In the mean time, you will have the best oil boiler you can get for the money right now, without compromises.

Peter
 
  #15  
Old 12-27-11, 01:36 PM
J
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 13
Upvotes: 0
Received 0 Upvotes on 0 Posts
Hey PeterNH,
You make several good points. I really should consider them. The MPO looked very good to me but because it requires the indirect, I passed on it. I am, however, concerned that electric will cost too much (as an in between set-up as you suggest). Our rates are among the highest in the country and our monthly bill is already high. But I will re think my plan. The MPO seems to be a boiler with today's technology and boilers like the V8H do seem like yesterday's equipment. Thanks for your 2!!
 

Last edited by jorden; 12-27-11 at 01:39 PM. Reason: typo
  #16  
Old 12-27-11, 01:55 PM
lawrosa's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Galivants Ferry SC USA
Posts: 15,984
Received 79 Upvotes on 71 Posts
am, however, concerned that electric will cost too much (as an in between set-up as you suggest
).


If you check the electric rates and oil prices it is probably cheaper to use an electric water heater then oil use with a tankless coil. You need to do some homework and just not jump into what installers suggest IMO.

Aren't you glad you posted here????

Mike NJ
 
  #17  
Old 12-27-11, 02:24 PM
D
Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 4,345
Upvotes: 0
Received 1 Upvote on 1 Post
I know NJ Trooper speaks a lot about how much fuel is saved by going from a warm start boiler to a cold start. I believe he speaks from direct experience.

I don't know how easy it will be for you to abandon the coil and turn your boiler into a cold start down the road. For some systems all you have to do is modify the aquastat. Others, you will have to replace the aquastat entirely. That's not a cheap item.

Should you install an indirect, make sure you put heat traps in the domestic pipes. This will help prevent hot water from rising up into the rest of the house when not in use.
 
  #18  
Old 12-27-11, 04:10 PM
A
Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 102
Upvotes: 0
Received 0 Upvotes on 0 Posts
My 2 cents
Another perspective
I had the 62 year old oil filred boiler with tankless coil. I estimate that during the summer I used at least 1 gal of oil per day to just keep my boiler warm and take 2 showers. That equals about $100 per month.
I purchased an AO Smith 50 gal electric and installed it myself for about $350.
My electric bill increased about $30 per month.
Paid for itself in 5 months!
Just something to consider
Bart
 
  #19  
Old 12-27-11, 04:26 PM
NJT's Avatar
NJT
NJT is offline
Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 19,710
Upvotes: 0
Received 8 Upvotes on 6 Posts
Droo, I never had a coil... always eelectric here... like Bart sez, about $30-35 / month to run a 40 gal... that's two person household...

Bart, thanks for the gal/day data. I imagine a newer, better insulated boiler might use less fuel, but even cut in half, it's still more than electric...
 
  #20  
Old 12-27-11, 05:46 PM
J
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 13
Upvotes: 0
Received 0 Upvotes on 0 Posts
Wow! I have found all this info most helpful. Now I'm seeing that for just about $800 more than my orig. price, for "old" technology, I can go with the Energy Kinetics system 2000 (or MPO system). Would appreciate some feedback on these boilers, esp the 2000. Trained repair people should not be a problem where I am. There are at least 3 companies in my area with technicians trained by the boiler maker. Is this truly new and great technology or just a flash in the pan?
 
  #21  
Old 12-27-11, 06:56 PM
lawrosa's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Galivants Ferry SC USA
Posts: 15,984
Received 79 Upvotes on 71 Posts
Energy Kinetics system 2000
Others may have a different opinion but I would stay away from the boiler quoted above. They are good units when they are running properly, but from my travels they constantly have fauilures. Hard to clean, etc....

Unless you find a service company with more then one guy that knows how to service them then yeah, but be prepared for failure.

Its just that techs do not get proper training for these units, and you just cant use the local oil company to come out. Most will be scratching thier heads when they see it.

I was one of them. Its pretty embarrassing going to a service call, and having to take a 1/2 hour to flip through the manual to try to educate yourself on its operation.

Mike NJ
 
  #22  
Old 12-27-11, 07:16 PM
J
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 13
Upvotes: 0
Received 0 Upvotes on 0 Posts
As I mentioned there are 3 companies with specially trained technicians in my area -- trained by Kinetic Energy Co. That should make a difference, don't you think?
 

Last edited by jorden; 12-27-11 at 07:17 PM. Reason: typo
  #23  
Old 12-28-11, 07:03 PM
J
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 13
Upvotes: 0
Received 0 Upvotes on 0 Posts
Thanks to you all for your help. Realized going with the coil was bad idea. FYI, it wasn't the installers pushing it, it was me asking for that system, thinking it was a good way to go. Decision made - we are now going with the EK1 (System 2000). Even though some may have had minor problems, it looks like the most efficient in the long run, and the warrantee seems very good. One thing I like alot is that the storage/booster tank does not hold and reheat water. It only fills when needed. It is quiet, small, and I like the idea of going with something new, esp. after over 30 years with what we have. Now I need to look into water filtration. Look fo me over at that forum if you can help. Thanks again.
 
 

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
 
Ask a Question
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: