Oil or Air to Water Heating

Obsolete01

Hello,

So here we go

What do people recommend:

Option 1:
Air to Water, underfloor and a Stove

Option 2:
Oil, Rad's, Stove & Solar

Anyone I know building today is putting in Air-to-water but i just feel that they have a limited life span or will get outdated very quickly because at the end of the day technology is changing by the minute and I honestly also feel there will come a day where something major will go wrong and the manufacture is gone bust etc and no parts etc can be got and you need to put in a new unit.

I know that might sound slightly dramatic to some people but I am always trying to think ahead.

Now I know there are some posts on this already but they are from a few years ago so I would like to get some real feedback from people that have this system in a few years and what the think.

Cheers.

MicktheMan

I don't have any experience on a2w but from a personal perspective:
1. When (not if), my oil system breaks down, I know that there are 2 or 3 lads within spitting distance who I can call on to sort my problem quickly. The last thing I would need is to be caught (in the cold) waiting for a specialist agent to call to me to tell me that he can't get the required part because it is now obsolete or takes weeks for it to come from abroad etc etc.
2. Heat pumps are ideally matched with UF. Personally, I don't like the feel of uf heating on my feet. I prefer a cooler slab to walk on.

Obsolete01

MicktheMan wrote: »

I don't have any experience on a2w but from a personal perspective:
1. When (not if), my oil system breaks down, I know that there are 2 or 3 lads within spitting distance who I can call on to sort my problem quickly. The last thing I would need is to be caught (in the cold) waiting for a specialist agent to call to me to tell me that he can't get the required part because it is now obsolete or takes weeks for it to come from abroad etc etc.
2. Heat pumps are ideally matched with UF. Personally, I don't like the feel of uf heating on my feet. I prefer a cooler slab to walk on.

Cheers i agree with you

Oil and Solid Fuel all the way

0e1

I currently have UFH and find its a constant battle to get it up to a comfortable temperature ,always changing stats and the timer to get it right for the time of year and with the Irish weather you can't plan ahead .House is either roasting or waiting for any heat at all .Building again and going with rads it heats the house fast , have a place to dry the clothes and something to sit next to when you come in frozen and don't want to go back out gathering coal/wood .

BarneyMc

Going with A2W HP, UFH and wood burning stove. If done properly should work a treat.

THE DON FANUCCI

BarneyMc wrote: »

Going with A2W HP, UFH and wood burning stove. If done properly should work a treat.

same here it should work a treat. my plumber installed 40 houses last year with A2W HP, UFH and wood burning stove . no dirty oil tanks, no solar panels/tubes, no rads in every room, no hassle, good mhrv and good airtightness to compliment the package. best option in my opinion but then again its only an opinion.

sheff the ref

Had a deep discussion with a plumber about this recently.

His take was that in a two storey house, Ground Floor underfloor is more effective than it is in a bungalow because heat rises upstairs. In a bungalow, his take is that underfloor is grand for living areas but not for bedrooms

He feels that for a bungalow the ultimate is underfloor in living areas and rads in the bedrooms but combining this into one system can be tricky so feels that it is either one or the other, and leans towards oil and radiators for a highly insulated triple glazed house.

Don't know what kind of house you have.

Obsolete01

Thanks all for the reply.

I have spoken to a lot of ppl that have A2W and UFH and even those wood pellet burners and to be honest they have put me off them after hearing some horror stories.

So I myself am going with a solid fuel stove, rads, oil and solar.

BarneyMc

Obsolete01 wrote: »

Thanks all for the reply.

I have spoken to a lot of ppl that have A2W and UFH and even those wood pellet burners and to be honest they have put me off them after hearing some horror stories.

So I myself am going with a solid fuel stove, rads, oil and solar.

What are the horror stories? A2W and UFH works well for many.

Obsolete01

[/QUOTE] What are the horror stories? A2W and UFH works well for many.[/quote]

If the heat pump in the A2W go your are looking at a big coat to replace. Electricity bills can go very high and you won't know until its to late I.e. you get your bill.

Takes too long for the UFH to heat up meaning you really need to leave it on all the time.

Wood pellet burners are very heavy on fuel costs so no cost saving there.

Anyone I spoke to all said if they were to do it again they would go with solid fuel, solar and oil.

BarneyMc

What are the horror stories? A2W and UFH works well for many.[/quote]

If the heat pump in the A2W go your are looking at a big coat to replace. Electricity bills can go very high and you won't know until its to late I.e. you get your bill.

Takes too long for the UFH to heat up meaning you really need to leave it on all the time.

Wood pellet burners are very heavy on fuel costs so no cost saving there.

Anyone I spoke to all said if they were to do it again they would go with solid fuel, solar and oil.[/QUOTE]

Well I'm committed to the A2W HP, HRV, UFH & wood burning stove camp. Only time will tell I guess. :rolleyes:

BarneyMc

For the horror stories with the UFH just ask about what airtightness they achieved as well as insulation levels. UFH without high levels of both is a recipe for disaster. Done properly, I still think is a very good method for most.

unklerosco

I think if I was building new A2W and UFH is the way to go.. I've a bungalow built in the 70's and runs on oil. I'm gonna be updating the heating system soon and will stick with oil but the idea will be to create a system that I can add A2W or solar at a later date and the oil will always be there as a backup.
.

sheff the ref

Have Ground Source Heat Pumps gone out of fashion these days?

Condenser

BarneyMc wrote: »

For the horror stories with the UFH just ask about what airtightness they achieved as well as insulation levels. UFH without high levels of both is a recipe for disaster. Done properly, I still think is a very good method for most.

Sorry Barney but that's utter rubbish. Airtightness and the performance of a heat pump or UFH have very little correlation. Its up there with the myth that air to water units will last 20yrs. A low temperature distribution system can almost guarantee a high performance heat pump system. There's houses built in the 90's with not even a clue what air tightness was that have GSHP's and impressive running costs some even better than a lot of the modern systems you see being bandied about today even with ultra insulated, ultra air tight houses.

MicktheMan

Condenser wrote: »

There's houses built in the 90's with not even a clue what air tightness was that have GSHP's and impressive running costs.

"airtightness" isn't something invented in the 00's and all houses built before this are not necessarily worse. In fact, the opposite is true in a lot of cases. So those 90's houses may well have better airtightness (by accident, workmanship etc) than houses built in 2016 (the specification of internal drylining as part of the wall makeup of newbuilds has had a large detrimental effect on airtightness).

BarneyMc

Condenser wrote: »

Sorry Barney but that's utter rubbish. Airtightness and the performance of a heat pump or UFH have very little correlation.

Really?

Condenser

MicktheMan wrote: »

"airtightness" isn't something invented in the 00's and all houses built before this are not necessarily worse. In fact, the opposite is true in a lot of cases. So those 90's houses may well have better airtightness (by accident, workmanship etc) than houses built in 2016 (the specification of internal drylining as part of the wall makeup of newbuilds has had a large detrimental effect on airtightness).

That really is doubtful when you can feel the breeze coming in through the recessed lights.

Condenser

BarneyMc wrote: »

Really?

Absolutely 100% true. Airtightness has its place but if you think you will double the cost of running a heat pump because you don't get your house down to 0.3 air changes and hour you're sadly mistaken.

sheff the ref

Underfloor heating operates on a top up and maintain temperature approach over the course of a winter, rather than letting it go cold and expecting a blast of instant heat like radiators so the time taken to heat up shouldn't really be an issue if it is set up correctly.

I know that 10 years ago when A2W was in its infancy that Ground Source Heat Pumps were deemed far more reliable as they were drawing from an underground collector where the temperature was constant unlike A2W which deals with all temperatures.

There seems to be a lot of merit in the suggestion that the better the insulation in the house, the less heat needed to keep it warm. Consequently a lot of people are going for oil and rads because they feel the minimal energy needed to heat well insulated homes means that a Geothermal heating system wont pay for itself over time.

I am in a position myself at the moment with a 1900 square foot bungalow, rectangular in shape with a sunroom and a porch and no other frills. Foundations are in and the blocks for the base about to be laid. It is time I started making up my mind on what heating system I want. I cannot make up my mind. If cash wasn't an issue I would probably go with a Ground Source Heat Pump with a borehole, as I believe borehole collectors are a much tidier job.

Obsolete01 wrote: »

What are the horror stories? A2W and UFH works well for many.[/quote]

If the heat pump in the A2W go your are looking at a big coat to replace. Electricity bills can go very high and you won't know until its to late I.e. you get your bill.

Takes too long for the UFH to heat up meaning you really need to leave it on all the time.

Wood pellet burners are very heavy on fuel costs so no cost saving there.

Anyone I spoke to all said if they were to do it again they would go with solid fuel, solar and oil.[/QUOTE]

BarneyMc

Condenser wrote: »

Absolutely 100% true. Airtightness has its place but if you think you will double the cost of running a heat pump because you don't get your house down to 0.3 air changes and hour you're sadly mistaken.

I didn't mention any specific performance measures like "double" or "0.3" but to say there's very little correlation between airtightness and performance of HP or UFH... really?

Condenser

BarneyMc wrote: »

I didn't mention any specific performance measures like "double" or "0.3" but to say there's very little correlation between airtightness and performance of HP or UFH... really?

Obviously if its a wendy house there is a big difference but between a modern house where a lot of effort is put into airtightness vs almost next to no work put specifically into airtightness there is not a huge difference in running cost.

Condenser

sheff the ref wrote: »

Underfloor heating operates on a top up and maintain temperature approach over the course of a winter, rather than letting it go cold and expecting a blast of instant heat like radiators so the time taken to heat up shouldn't really be an issue if it is set up correctly.

I know that 10 years ago when A2W was in its infancy that Ground Source Heat Pumps were deemed far more reliable as they were drawing from an underground collector where the temperature was constant unlike A2W which deals with all temperatures.

There seems to be a lot of merit in the suggestion that the better the insulation in the house, the less heat needed to keep it warm. Consequently a lot of people are going for oil and rads because they feel the minimal energy needed to heat well insulated homes means that a Geothermal heating system wont pay for itself over time.

I am in a position myself at the moment with a 1900 square foot bungalow, rectangular in shape with a sunroom and a porch and no other frills. Foundations are in and the blocks for the base about to be laid. It is time I started making up my mind on what heating system I want. I cannot make up my mind. If cash wasn't an issue I would probably go with a Ground Source Heat Pump with a borehole, as I believe borehole collectors are a much tidier job.


What are the horror stories? A2W and UFH works well for many.

If the heat pump in the A2W go your are looking at a big coat to replace. Electricity bills can go very high and you won't know until its to late I.e. you get your bill.

Takes too long for the UFH to heat up meaning you really need to leave it on all the time.

Wood pellet burners are very heavy on fuel costs so no cost saving there.

Anyone I spoke to all said if they were to do it again they would go with solid fuel, solar and oil.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]


A2W isn't any more efficient than it was 10yrs ago to be honest. Inverters have been around for 15yrs plus. A2W still has the same inherent weaknesses it always had. Low temps mean low performance so least efficient when you need it most. The requirement to defrost, so costing money to extract energy from your house. Longevity, many units on the market won't see much past the 10yr mark and will look terrible long before it.
Price and spin has covered up a lot of ills. A2W has its place but its not a credible replacement for a GSHP.
Go with Oil and rads and your trapped as switching to geo in the future isn't an option as it doesn't operate well with rads.

BarneyMc

Condenser wrote: »

Obviously if its a wendy house there is a big difference but between a modern house where a lot of effort is put into airtightness vs almost next to no work put specifically into airtightness there is not a huge difference in running cost.

I'd say there's a huge scale of air tightness performance between modern houses considering construction methods.

sheff the ref

Condenser wrote: »

A2W isn't any more efficient than it was 10yrs ago to be honest. Inverters have been around for 15yrs plus. A2W still has the same inherent weaknesses it always had. Low temps mean low performance so least efficient when you need it most. The requirement to defrost, so costing money to extract energy from your house. Longevity, many units on the market won't see much past the 10yr mark and will look terrible long before it.
Price and spin has covered up a lot of ills. A2W has its place but its not a credible replacement for a GSHP.
Go with Oil and rads and your trapped as switching to geo in the future isn't an option as it doesn't operate well with rads.

That is another issue, being trapped with rads. What is your view on underfloor heating for the living areas and rads for the bedrooms when using a Geothermal system?

Condenser

sheff the ref wrote: »

That is another issue, being trapped with rads. What is your view on underfloor heating for the living areas and rads for the bedrooms when using a Geothermal system?

Complete no no. You need to service the temperature of the rads which drags down the efficiency for the whole system. The higher temp will decimate your COP. You'll also need a buffer as you have no thermal mass in a radiator so more cost and more space. You could use fan coil rads but you'd still need a buffer

THE DON FANUCCI

Condenser wrote: »

If the heat pump in the A2W go your are looking at a big coat to replace. Electricity bills can go very high and you won't know until its to late I.e. you get your bill.

Takes too long for the UFH to heat up meaning you really need to leave it on all the time.

Wood pellet burners are very heavy on fuel costs so no cost saving there.

Anyone I spoke to all said if they were to do it again they would go with solid fuel, solar and oil.

[/QUOTE]




Can an air-to-water system be converted to a Ground source system maybe 10 years down the line?

BryanF

Condenser wrote: »

Obviously if its a wendy house there is a big difference but between a modern house where a lot of effort is put into airtightness vs almost next to no work put specifically into airtightness there is not a huge difference in running cost.

2011 regs with min acceptable 7 ach v resobable new build achievable 1 ach

Cost difference when it's 0 degs outside ?

Thanks

Condenser

THE DON FANUCCI wrote: »

Can an air-to-water system be converted to a Ground source system maybe 10 years down the line?[/quote]

You seem to be quoting me but the words in the quote were not posted by me?

It depends on the type of air to water system you install but the systems that would be easiest to swap would cost as much as a GSHP in the first place.
With most systems it would be difficult and expensive.

Condenser

BryanF wrote: »

2011 regs with min acceptable 7 ach v resobable new build achievable 1 ach

Cost difference when it's 0 degs outside ?

Thanks

Well very few houses would be as high as 7ach but from the hundreds of houses I've worked on varying greatly in attention to detail regarding air tightness and ventilation methods, if the insulation levels and house type were similar Ive never seen more than a 20% difference in running cost.

The original assertion was that without air tightness that heat pumps were a disaster and thats just not true. The design of the distribution system and the control strategy are by far the biggest influence and the main reasons for high running costs or complete system failures. Occasionally its the collector design. Never once have I seen air tightness be an issue in problem systems ive been asked to look at.

sheff the ref

Condenser wrote: »

Complete no no. You need to service the temperature of the rads which drags down the efficiency for the whole system. The higher temp will decimate your COP. You'll also need a buffer as you have no thermal mass in a radiator so more cost and more space. You could use fan coil rads but you'd still need a buffer

Have seen oversized rads used in this context before. A heatpump for living areas and a small oil boiler for bedroom rads which are also served by a back boiler stove might be the best solution

sheff the ref

Has anyone heard of a newly developed 'super efficient' oil boiler that is coming on the market?

I guess cars have refined their engines and do higher mileages to the gallon so I presume such improvements in boilers arent t be unexpected