What's Most Efficient Method of Home Heating?

Geo thermal is good. Forced hot air works but it plays havoc with your sinuses eventually. It's just too dry. Steam is good and keeps the moisture in the air. the water molecules keep your sinuses moist. They also hold the heat thus lowering your heating cost. Although a nice roaring fire is always fun

If you're only looking to heat one room during the day, using a single electrical heating appliance can be a favourable option in terms of your energy bills and the environment, whatever central heating system your home has. Oil central heating systems are marginally less efficient than gas central heating systems - though with modern oil central heating systems, the difference can be negligible.

Considering only conventional systems, it seems to me that the most efficient, least expensive system would be an electric heat pump for cooling and heating combined with a high efficiency natural gas forced air furnace. The heat pump would be employed for heating only within it's range of efficiency. When the outside air temperature fell below that temperature, the gas furnace would kick in.

That's wonderful but natural gas line is eleven miles away, how do I use it?

Alas, I, too, have no natural gas line anywhere near my home. I wish I did.

I've considered buying a small home or shack in town during winter and using a natural gas compressor but it all seemed too much trouble

Across much of Europe you can have gas delivered for a premium over "mains" piped natural gas, I think it's about 10% more expenseive but may be wildly innacurate in this. Also you can be caught out quite easily by fluctuations in the market although this happens with oil fired also.

Most professionals I've talked to that have fitted these systems have professed a preference for oil fired rather than gas fired boilers even though they are often manufactured by the same people. The thinking is that the oil is more efficient. I don't know myself but when looking into fitting such a system (we moved house instead - nothing to do with heating the wife just wanted to move) one heating engineer point blank refused to quote me on fitting a gas system for this reason. This guy had worked on every gas fired system we had owned, was CORGI registered, was by far the best plumber and heating engineer I have ever met and was my cousin.

I took his word for it.

I don't understand him (your cousin I mean) on that point, oil systems are physically bigger, take therefore more space, are more expensive, are far more complicated, need far more maintenance, require huge storage tanks (in Germany at least, the safety requirements for the oil tanks are very extensive and therefore expensive) burn less clean than gas.

Gas units are far smaller, cheaper, quieter and burn cleaner...the gas tank can even be buried under the lawn....no wasted space.

Well the size of the burner / boiler is pretty close to the same as is the tanks size. In the UK you cannot bury the gas tank; it is required to keep it above ground in a well drained area and the oil tank itself since it is not pressurised is therefore cheaper and simpler than an equivalent gas one. Usually smaller too.

Relative complexity between oil and gas, I'd say this was negligible. I've seen both (I have a gas burner for natural gas in my home; tanked lpg use the same equipment) and an oil burner in my friends farmhouse. No major differences other than a filtering system on the oil burner.

As for the efficience aspect I really have no clue, just passing on what I heard. I'll guess though that this is one of the times that actual experience with these types of installation shows efficiencies and savings not obvious from the relevant literature.

Efficiency of oil vs. gas is best determined by comparing BTU/$

Some points that you may have missed on a comparison:-

Oil burners need a pump to pressurize the oil before spraying it through a tiny nozzle, gas supplies its own pressure automatically.This pump (if of a good quality) makes the oil heating a lot more expensive. Gas 1:0 Oil

Filters are needed in oil heating, they can become blocked/clogged with dirt at a less than opportune time. Gas has no filters to block. Gas 2:0 Oil

I had a quick look at a UK site where a 27kw gas heating boiler comes out at a little over 870 Pounds sterling. An equivalent Oil burner, but only 21 kw, costs almost 1,300 pound sterling......so I really do not know where your idea of price parity comes from! Mostly the price differential was even more pronounced depending upon manufacturer! Gas 3:0 Oil

To see for yourself, please click on this link:-

discountedheating

Even in darkest/coldest winter gas, due to the fact that propane is blended in, does not freeze or stop being a gas at temperatures well below freezing. Oil, at temperatures below +4°C has a problem that it will get very thick and the paraffin wax becomes a wax and blocks the filters unless it is either warmed or thinned using special thinners for such a purpose. Petrol was used many years ago, I do not know what the modern equivalent is....if you live where the temperatures are mainly above 4°C, this point may not bother you, or if you have the tanks in a heated area (Cost?) somewhere.... Gas 4:0 Oil

Oil, unless specially treated has large quantities of Sulphur dissolved in it, gas has only a trace. Burning sulfur is bad for the world's air supply. In modern diesel fuel it has to be reduced dramatically at a higher cost of course....(Diesel and heating oil are chemically very similar in many respects) Gas 5:0 Oil

Gas burners can have a catalytic converter added to make the exhaust gases even cleaner, its not a requirement here as of now, but the technology is available. Oil has not got this possibility, so may eventually qualify for an expensive "Scrubber" for fine particle emissions - very expensive.... Gas 6:0 Oil

Gas tanks need not be bought and even if bought, the prices here at least are similar for a proper oil installation with a similar capacity and all safety features required by law to stop a) the oil getting out and b) containing it if it does to make sure that the ground is not poisoned for generations to come. If your laws where you are are lax on that point I have no comment..... Gas 7:1 Oil

I gave each a point here as total installation costs as I pointed out, for an environmentally correct installation are about the same.... I will give oil one point extra as an oil installation can be made DIY whereas Gas cannot usually. Gas 7:2 Oil

Maintenance on gas is almost nothing, once a year I take the burner out and blow it out with compressed air to remove dust and cobwebs, 1 hours work, no special tools or anything, I could do it in place, but as it hangs on the wall in the bathroom, it might make the bathroom dirty....Oil needs special knowledge, special tools, a fitter to do the work etc etc....not that everyone does maintenance, many wait till it breaks!!! But still an extra point for Gas. Gas 8:2 Oil

Gas appliances of 27 Kw are available from many sources, to hang on a wall, out of harms way, mine does. I was unable to find an equivalent oil burner that could do the same. Most oil burners are extremely loud in operation (partly that expensive pump again!) and need their own place - in a garage or cellar, well away from living and sleeping quarters, gas units are in my experience far, far quieter and can use any available corner or wall....up to over 30kw anyways... Gas 10:2 Oil

I rest my case........but here are a few interesting links that I found for you to read...

I would just like to mention a few entries on Wikipedia that you may like to read to show that my comments above are true and fully valid:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_oil

Which mentions the following quite clearly (go and read it for yourself in the article) :-

A small amount of electricity is produced by diesel, but it is more polluting and more expensive than natural gas.

I mentioned already that diesel and heating oil are basically the same stuff...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heating_oil

Quoting from the above link:-

For efficient burning, the oil is drawn/pulled from the tank into a pump and pressurized (residential) to 800kPa (120 PSI) and then forced through a filtered (specific to appliance) nozzle, into an atomized spray pattern. It is then ignited through the use of a step-up transformer, taking 120 or 240 VAC and stepping it up to 10,000 VAC.

Also:-

(Oil)Leaks from tanks and piping are an environmental concern.

See also this link:-

uk central-heating-systems

I quote from the above link:-

Gas boilers can save customers up to 40% off their heating bill by being more efficient.*

They can also save you up to £240 per year and reduce carbon dioxide emissions.*

We get gas delivered to a pressure tank buried in the garden, it holds 2,200 liters if I remember correctly.

Do you not have gas deliveres where you are?

Infrared space heating might improve comfort for you. I have been benefiting from it greatly.

I use a rack of 24 heat lamps wired in 6 sets of 4 in series. Two switches let me use either 8, 16, or 24 of them at a time.

About insulation, if insulation is good enough and air infiltration is regulated, little or no heat can be needed. Then cooling is important. I think this situation is the best to have.

There are many answers to this question and many depend on where you are located. For instance how cold does it get? If the low is seldom below 40F or 4.5C a air to air heat pump might be a good choice, depending on the cost of electricity compared to other fuels. Below that temp, frost tends to build up and resistance heating is needed to melt the ice (not very efficient). One drawback it that the air temp coming out into the room is not very high and thus the wind-chill effect can make you still feel cold, even when the room thermostat read a warm temp. If capital is not a driving issue, geothermal water to water is great. The hydronic heat distribution system is a delight to experience (quiet, warm floors, etc.). I have lived in temperate climate (San Francisco) and now less temperate (colder) in Washington State near the Canadian border where the temp can go to -30C in winter but more commonly ranging from -1C to -6C as the min/max for weeks at a time. I have used forced air natural gas and propane$$$$ as well as electric heat pump (house always felt cold) to my current propane powered hydronic system (feels wonderful but very expensive because of propane$$). Also used solar powered system with recirculating water to water heat transfer which was pretty good, but needed gas backup. When I had natural gas and low electric rates the best system was a heat pump with back up nat. gas. Here electric rates are very low so we mostly use electric spot heaters for just the room we are in with the hydronic providing a base level 15C for the entire house. Works well and is relatively less expensive than all propane.

If I were building a system at a new hose (which happened to have a septic system and drain field) I would bury recalculating heat transfer pipes 3-4 m deep directly below the leach lines. I would couple that to a hydronic system and use it for heating as well as cooling (supplemented with ceiling fans).

That was a good answer. Any one heating or cooling a building should start with insulation. It can save enormous amounts of energy if done properly. I will go and do a bit of information gathering on Gokay Devici.

If you wanted to be fuel efficient you would not run your car on flat tires, would one? First things first! See you, Ky.

Devici also lectures in architecture at the Scott Sutherland School, part of Robert Gordons University, link below;-

http://www.rgu.ac.uk/sss/research/page.cfm?pge=32982

Thanks Mate

I am working on a system myself. Any information is very welcome. I'll get back to you as soon as I have a bit more of the above, Ky.

This is from the NY Times - seems like the ultimate answer to home heating without unnecessary waste.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/world/europe/27house.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=passive%20heating&st=cse

Thanks for the link, Ky

Funny, no one thought of "cow chips" for fuel, a method we used a lot on the dairy farm I was at as a boy. There aren't as many dairy farms in Upstate New York as we once had but from all that BS that goes on in politics, Washington DC has an ample supply.

L.J.

Long time ago, when I was a young boy my grand parents told me about it and how people used it to pre-heat brick/clay ovens with it prior to baking or just to simply heat with it.

Women and children used to go out to collect it during summer after it got sun dried in the fields where cattle used to graze - I guess it also made some of the dung beetles unemployed by taking their jobs away.

I guess it is by todays' standard a laugh or is that what people used to refer to the good old days?

Looking at your location and with an average of 320 sunny days a year I'd suggest you can probably get all the hot water you want from a simple passive solar water tank on your roof. This is something you see a lot in the Eastern Mediterrainean - I first encountered it on Cyprus. A large black tank is mounted on the roof and supplies all the hot water needed.

As for heating, another good thing about a ground loop underfloor system is it also acts as a soft AC, reducing indoor temp if wanted.

Philo

I used to live in Hamburg and know how cold it could be when either the N/W's or cold air from the east arrived. It is one of the reasons I left that place and went back to Australia.

I still haven't had the time to follow up on the suggestions here but will do a.s.a.p.

Once I get my system to market readiness (not looking good at the moment: due to the current international financial crisis, our management has decided not to..........) and can overcome the unwillingness and fear of investors it will come good.

I am using it on my house against the heat. It would be applicable to the cold as well but we don't get that here. Ever!

It has other advantages which I can not put in the public domain just jet. I'll just hang in there for the time being.

I'll stay in touch, Ky.

"What's Most Efficient Method of Home Heating."

Living in Gaza is today's best.

Wangito.

i have one question how much would you like to spend ? thare are 10000 ways that I can healp you on .I am a house bilder and thare are meany ways . like chang your insolation to poleyurethan or use a wood burning stove ,you can use a sengol room heater or a soler heater .please tell me on whate exsatoly what you need to be done

EXspantion Homes

The cheapest way to heat and cool a home depends on the cost of energy to run the magic system. Do a load calculation on you home to determine how much heating and cooling you require, determine the cost of fuel (LP gas, Nat gas, electric, wind, solar, cow patty, etc)in your area. Another consideration is how much it will cost to maintain the system over time. Some of these 19 SEER heat pumps will cost $800.00 to replace a single control board. Also, how much heat vs. how much cooling do you need? A heat pump deliverers approximately the same amount of heat as cooling, this may or may not be efficient in your climate. One system that has not been mentioned is Direct Exchange. It is a hybrid Geo thermal but without the water. Also gas Air Conditioning (Absorption system). If wood is free, then heat with wood.

Thanks for all the great answers all, I have been wondering this ever since my brother had designed an oil fired hot water Hydronic system, retrofitted with a heat exchanger, in a conventional air handler, when he was heating a home built in the 1760's in Worcester MA.

It was of his own design, his experience came via his occupation as the maintenance engineer for Yankee Atomic Energy, in Rowe Mass.

He modulated the recirculating hot water, and the air handler ran on its lowest setting constantly, very comfortable and quieter than conventional forced air.

What I'm most interested in knowing is, which manner of heating extracts the most available heat. with an abundance of furnaces claiming an AFUE of 95%, I will most likely look in this direction. Some MOD/CON boilers are achieving 98%+.

The last home I owned had an oil fired hot water Hydronic heating system,( old cast iron radiators ) with a package to supply household hot water, (eliminating the hot water tank). and currently live in a house with forced air. I've been contemplating replacing with Hydronic baseboard, multiple zone, with radiant loops in the bathroom floors. I really miss the comfort of the hot water radiators.

I found this website after posting this thread:

http://www.aceee.org/consumerguide/heating.htm

you are welco if thare is any thing that you need me for like cincret or post and bem ,2x4 costrutin you can find me on cr4

than kyou

EXspantion Homes

STEVE ANZALDUA

now working in japan next stop is

we have to wate

your friend in the house ing biz

I too strongly recommend hydro floor heating that's usually part of central heating system and is well controllable since it can be turned off where you don't need it.

Avoid ducted heating!!! It is the least efficient and a fine incubator for fungus due to condense water build up in the duct over time that gets blown in your house along with any dust deposits as soon as you turn the fan on. If it is true that the world is full of bad ideas then this must be one of them. It is by far the most disgraceful heating system ever invented by some fool who obviously was a mankind type.

I really, really have to work hard to separate the heating / cooling requirements in upstate New York USA (subarctic at times) from Magnetic Island Australia (subtropical at all times), without suffering cognitive dissonance big time!

The AU requirements are simple. Build the home envelope with standard open hole cement blocks, if nothing better is available. Put 1 - 2 inches styrofoam insulation on the outside, then the finish on the top of it. That will even out the day/night temp. cycling of the wall. The floor is good as it is. You may not want to heat it from above, so the attic needs good ventilation = no heat buildup = no heat radiation onto you from above. Enjoy the seabreeze. You may want HUMIDITY control inside. Any decent, quiet aircond. will do. And I definitely would stay away from any kind of electronic control. At the far end of the world you get nothing but grief from that.

On the other hand, the north Atlantic seacoast offers a rather unpleasant combination of weather: subarctic at times in winter, just as humid and muggy in summer as in Florida. It is tough on the requirements to a home. For both summer and winter the best is well above standard insulation, and a well above standard tight envelope. By that I mean minimal air exchange (the unwanted kind). There is a procedure in the trade to measure this. A CALIBRATED DOOR is set into the frame of your entrance, and its blower powered up. It establishes a set pressure difference between in and outside. The power needed to transport enough air to do that, tells you via a chart, how leaky your home is. And you can fix them. It turns out, ANY LEAKY area is hugely expensive. Recessed lights, no way...etc. That consideration is true for both winter and summer. Since spring lasts only 3 weeks and fall lasts 2 months - if we are lucky with indian summer - that is a major consideration. A ground water to floor heat pump is the best idea, if you are willing to go for the investment of $10k - $30k at the beginning. Maintaining humidity is minor, compared. Present day standards are nowhere near that, obviously, mostly for cost reasons.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

A rich nation can afford all sorts of expensive and moral indulgences. A poor one can afford squat, but dream.

If you are starting from scratch and building this home you may want to look at the foundation you are going to work with.

There are many new designs in the market for home structures that can effect your heating cost much more then the heat sourse and energy type used to make the heat.

The evolving market due to the cost of energy has been seen to be more towards the energy efficient structure.

My reasearch has showed me that the SIP panel homes have much more insulating value which is rated in Real R Values, and they stop a lot more air infiltration then any other fabricated structure.

I have now lived in my SIP house for the winter and the differance is amazing.

The surface wall temprature on the inside of my home is only 2 degrees less then inside when it is 12 degrees outside.

I estmate now that my over winter heating cost will not exceed $200.00 and this is great in Pa.

My heating source is a heat pump with Propane backup. Heat Pump has a Meter to track useage.

Will never live in a non SIP house again, no drafts no cold spots, no throwing dollars out for heat that just filters away.

that gives me a good question I would like to have more INFO on SIP homes I wonder how it would be like in say like chilly ,africa,malysia,japan.and urup????? I will try this in my next job

Guests post on super efficient German homes is well to the point I think you are addressing; but as you have gathered, any answer to this question is highly environment dependent.

The *best* solution is to live ocean-side in a temperate climate using a combination of solar exposure and shading and taking in the factor of when the ocean breezes blow to use them to best advantage! Few of us have this option.

As you are in New York state, and substantial heat is required, yet your cooling load should be lighter than mine the answer is different than one I would need.

Lots of reading is required before you can find *your* best solution.

Heat distribution methods as they impact comfort is one area for study - forced air is not as comfortable as multi-zone hydronic; but air exchange becomes crucial as you start sealing the house better and better. Cooking smells, smokers, flatulence, pets are some factors that effect air quality.

But forced air CAN be implimented with heat exchangers for lost heat recovery and is dead simple and cheap to build in. Whereas hydronic has high upfront costs.

Pellet stoves can be very efficient, but so can other methods and here we have shifted from *distribution* to *generation*.

So a huge part of the question for you and the reason I recommend reading more is you have not nailed down the actual question for us.

Solar hydronic is probably the *best* solution for Rochester, but it depends on whether you live in town or out, can you use ground-sourced heat pumping or do you have a pool. How much roof space and how flat? Do you want your heat to be dependant on buying pellets forever, or do you have your own woodlot?

So as we ARE engineers and so prone to very strong opinions and are somewhat preloaded to our preferred answers, you need to nail things down a bit for us or you will get a discussion on things that are impractical for you to put into practice.

Not trying to discourage you, just noticing that our answers were sort of all over the place - give us more detail.

Is this suburban, city or country?

Clean sheet of paper or a retrofit to an existing structure?

Budget unlimited or we need an inexpensive implimentation to further save money?

I totoly agre on we all sould live on the beach . you as I have studed the housing for more thean have my life and been in the fild for more thean 20 years and worked in meany countrys in the would all cliement s are defrent (YES) this answor of heting and cooling is a endlis work of studing we all in the fild of constutin have not yeat reched the sulotin of this problum as I am this is my worst night mare of the housing fild?

but for now we do what we have now if it is right or gong it works

I heat with wood in our 2400 sq ft "leaky" home. We do have a new oil furnace but it just doesn't give the heat that wood does. In the spring and fall we use our small wood burning fireplace insert. When winter hits we feed our outdoor wood boiler.

Wood is a little more work but not that much. And the money saved with fuel prices??? Besides, I need the exercise.

No one I've talked to is happy with their geothermal system. It's simply not enough heat in the winter. And you are still running the compressor etc.

I've considered propane but everyone I've talked to commented on how it isn't as "good" a heat source as oil.

What I would build is a passive solar system using convection and solar driven pumps. Heat with in-floor heating. Have a fuel boiler as a back-up. This way you don't have compressors or fans to run. A properly balanced system would be almost maintenance free.

On the cooler side of things..... the use of geothermal works great. For my climate I would only need to circulate the cold water through the system to cool things off enough. The only issue would be condensation.

Heat transfer ideally would be through a floor heat system. To be efficient the floor should be treated as a heat storage and be insulated.

Other options on heat storage.... Concrete slab, gravel beds, barrels of water, stone walls..... it goes on and on.

how about budol pan windows do you have ? it semms that you have a good heting situm that I like a lot going .I have tryed this kind in englend but now thay changed the law of burnig .the goverment meks it hard for the people that want naturol heating .

Would you be so kind as to use the spell checker when posting, I for one have almost no idea of what you wanted to say. Grammar is questionable as is content. Either correct it or please do not post, you are simply wasting your time......

If you make short sentences as statements, correct as best you can using the spell checker, we will all do our best to understand you, I promise.....

Obviously English is not your first language. For others also who understand English less, they will have even more serious problems understanding your posts.

You posted this below, I have marked for you the points that are wrong (ignoring Grammar & content at this time). All of these errors would have been found by the spell checker!!! ...if you had used it......:-

how about budol pan windows do you have ? it semms that you have a good heting situm that I like a lot going .I have tryed this kind in englend but now thay changed the law of burnig .the goverment meks it hard for the people that want naturol heating .

Sorry, just couldn't keep my mouth shut any longer on this one. All three responses that got good answers must have been collaborating because they are not good answers.

I too have experienced the under floor heating systems and I must say they are far from optimal, for efficiency, home heating, accessibilty, ease of repair and maintenance or anything else. I have a hard time believing that in a modern world anyone is still messing around with these unless that is all they know from their 3rd world background.

If you want warmth in your rooms and you want to do it the most efficiently, you want to heat the air as directly as possible and then keep the heat in. Your modern wood stove friends are on the right track here with effieicent direct convective and radiant heating of the air and objects in the room (including you). Just as with transforming energy, every time you have to transfer heat from one thing to another you loose usable energy and therefore loose system efficiency.

"...in Heated floors with pipes under the wood or in the cement..."

In the case of the under floor heating systems, you are heating water for an energy loss. You must then pump the water through the maze of winding pipes for a very significant energy loss. The water then heats the floor for another energy loss. You have additional significant energy loss since both wood and cement are excellent thermal insulators, not conductors. Next, you must have a floor covering to keep from burning your feet (unless you have lost that much heat energy already), so the floor heats the floor covering for even more energy loss. The floor covering must also be a thermal insulator or you will burn your feet anyway. The floor covering then radiantly and convectively heats the air for more energy loss. The floor is always hottest nearest to the source and may be downright frigid by the time it reaches the other side of the house after circulating under so much floor. There will also be hot spots wherever there are flow restrictions. The hot spots are a safety factor, especially for children.

Water in pipes also means leaks and also means corrosion and clogging etc, so, not only do we have another risk factor for water damage to the home, but after some time, pipes just need to be replaced. Now we must rip up the entire floor to replace pipes or repair leaks. If under a wooden floor or buried in the cement, the entire floor likely needs to be replaced - and jackhammering up cement with pipes in it - pure joy. It is all so convenient and accessible. Some get around some of these problems and increase the efficency by forcing the exhaust gasses through the pipes instead of using water. Lets not get into how many people in the few countries that still use this technology die each year from carbon monoxide poisoning because the pipes or plenums were leaking and and the gases were seeping through the cracks in the floor.

Assuming the same amount of energy you would use to heat your house with a central furnace and apply that to under floor heating, you will be cold unless you are in the room where the pipes initially enter the house, and the room is very small, or unless you lay on the floor with a blanket over you.

Sorry, but under floor heating systems is absolutely not a good answer.

As far as efficeincy, some of the other folks have given you some good info. The final answer will have somewhat to do with your location and what your weather is like. In some places it may also have to do with what fuels are available to you. If you are building the home, home design and materials play a critical role in efficiency. It is quite likely that to get the greatest efficiency will require combining home design with multiple means of heating your home (solar plus wood pellet for example). I think you have your homework cut out for you if you are serious about this.

Quite simply put your answer is not only incorrect but fundamentally flawed.

Modern underfloor systems utilize a manifold to provide a multi-zone heating system that most efficiently heats the individual rooms by heating from the floor up.

Rather than using a radiant method, where the heat is radiated from a wall or floor mounted source and almost immediatley rise (so that in effect you are heating the room from the ceiling down), the room is heated evenly by treating the entire floor as the radiator. In this fashion (and in comparison to a standard gas or oil fired wet radiator system) the circulatory temperature can be maintained up to 5 deg C lower while maintaining an equivalent room temperature.

Are there losses in such a system? Certainly. I would only ever advocate this in conjunction with an efficciently insulated home, preferrably with automated ventilation and heat recovery if possible.

Are there problems associated with running pex pipes underfloor? Of course but overall not anything like the problems you note. Most are run in a cement screed which heats up itself, retaining and radiating heat more evenly. And of course with pex (there are a number of differing products on the market and all have slightly different properties but all are based on the standard pex pipe I believe) there is no issue of corrosion. Plastic does not corrode. There are other methods being loked at such as running the pipework through a sand like substance which has similar thermal properties and negates the other bug-bear you mentioned, the tearing up of the pipes if by some chance a leak in a sealed, hidden and unaccessable system does miraculously occur.

One major annoyance is that you are limiting yourself somewhat in what floor coverings you use. Carpets are pretty much out and hard woods or stone (including ceramics) are in. Lucky that is pretty much the fashion in the Western world these day, eh?

As for access to the pipework, this is neither needed or wanted other than in the areas surrounding the manifold right where the boiler (or other primary heat source) is.

One final comment of yours did confuse me.

"Lets not get into how many people in the few countries that still use this technology die each year from carbon monoxide poisoning because the pipes or plenums were leaking and and the gases were seeping through the cracks in the floor."

I would suggest none since by definition CO is a gas that is creates during the burning of hydrocarbons, ot present in the flow of water routed through a pipe. If there were any CO it would most likely be in the vicinity of the boiler (where fitted) and not prevalent throughout the house.

I stand by my original post. The most efficient means to heat a house is with a ground source heat pump feeding an underfloor heating system with perhaps a wind or solar powered pumping system for circulation. The electric pump can be supplimented using mains electricity and any possible shortfall in heat may be made up by using the groud loop as a "pre-heater" for a natural gas, LPG or oil boiler. Where sufficient attention has been paid to correctly insulating and draught proofing I'm betting this would not be needed.

Of course if you go far enough in this direction you will not need any heating at all as proven by the architect Gokay Devici in the "Zero Heat House" project. Of course this would be even more efficient that what I argue for in my post but how many of us could go so far? I think few.

And no, just so there can be no question left in your mind, I am not collaboration with anyone else on this post, good ideas just naturally rise to the top when they are right.

Finally I would suggest you read up a little about modern building, heating and plumbing techniques. There are plenty of sources out there if you care to access them.

Sounds like you don't know what you're on about.

First of all in harsh cold climates this is the method that's taking over faster than you could imagine. The water pipe is highly flexible and it is perfected to be reliable enough until...it breaks down.

I never saw this type of heating used on wooden floors, concrete only which can be covered with the tile of your choice.

The trick is though you cannot afford to keep it warmer then @37 Celsius (body core temp) as it would become unbearable. The only problem is to maintain this even temperature, that wasn't easy until recently, but it isn't hard anymore.

If you have a multi story building you only use this method on the ground floor and radiators on the above floors.

This is definitely a much more efficient heating method than anything else however, it does not substitute the atmosphere of an open fireplace.

Underfloor is considered by some as great, but efficient it is not! Heating a huge block of floor is NOT efficient, especially in those months when temperatures are higher in the day and colder at night, the floor simply cannot react quickly to cope. Its simply a basic design flaw of underfloor heating......some really bad forms of it take 3 days to react fully, some really good ones need 24 hors or more....some firms claim less, its just a claim.....not a fact.

Heat "leakage" can be seen on special cameras that show heat losses from houses, underfloor owners get REALLY big shocks when the pictures are seen......

If the structure is thoroughly insulated the heat gain from fluctuating outdoor temperatures should be controllable ya think!

I agree with a good 90% of your posting, where I am at odds is partly with regard to running exhaust gas underfloor, I thought that went out with the Romans....

Also, a properly made/installed modern underfloor heating should not leak, though if they do, you have a real shitty problem with repairs, a good reason not to have it everywhere. I personally like it just for bathrooms, nowhere else, but still have radiators for those times in the year when its cold in the mornings and night, but relatively warm during the day. Thats when underfloor is a liability as it just cannot react quickly enough.....this point alone makes it on its own completely useless and unattractive, been there, done that and got the T-Shirt!

Also, it has been said (no proof! but it could be...) that underfloor heating is bad for humans as the human race has warmed itself from fire far longer (1,000,000 years?) and is more used to having cold feet and back, with a warm front and face! With underfloor, the feet are generally warmer and it is said that people with underfloor get colds and flu far more often. I personally have no infos either way....so it might be "an old (young?) wives tale!"

Another problem with underfloor heating in Germany at least, where most houses have a balcony, is that the balcony construction tends to bring cold into the floor area and this both raises the cost of heating (as you tend to heat the outside via the concrete of the balcony) and the problem that if the valve fails for the circuit nearest to the balcony, in a very cold winter, it is possible that this circuit could freeze and get frost damage. This almost happened to a friend of mine, and as he had 2 circuits in the room, the other circuit tried to maintain the temperatures.....

I can only say that with such a balcony, one should consider a) other forms of heating and b) insulate the concrete better so that no black mold is developed or cold is transported into the house (or better said, no warmth is transported out!!)......

Great place CR4, its the best "University" on the web......

Andy, you don't normally heat the off ground floors, do you? I see floors heated on ground only, and in rarer case semi basement floors.

Since you have balconies from the first floor up therefore what you're talking about, heat being dissipated by the balcony, should not be the case even though every window normally has a radiator next to.

All the off ground floors just heated with radiators in a normal way, isn't that how you do it in Germany?

Sadly not true.

The case in question is a house that is 2 apartments (one over the other), that happens really often in Germany as apartments are the rule, even in country areas.....Land is expensive and building a house is also expensive.....sometimes it can be 2,3 or even 4 apartments, each with its own balcony (except of course the ground floor!)

As to how many houses have underfloor heating, I haven't a clue. In the 80's it was popular for new builds, but its popularity is waning....

My house was 2 apartments when I bought it, I had to remove an upstairs kitchen!!! We still have 2 kitchens though, one on the ground floor and one in the cellar......in a hot summer, my wife cooks in the cellar quite often.....

It never ever had underfloor heating, or I would not have bought it in the first place!!

I like how you mentioned infrared, since that is how i cut my heating cost in half. i can keep the air temperature much colder than would otherwise be tolerable.

Sorry dude, no fundamental flaws unless you claim that the laws of thermodynamics are flawed and nobody has proven that yet. And yes, I have experienced the glories of floor heating systems firsthand. I also did check out those sources to see the latest and I don't buy all of their claims. Does it work? Yes. Does it work well or efficiently? No, not compared to most other heating methods (there are other heating methods besides water filled or electric radiators on the floor or wall). Plastic pipes for efficient heating?!!! No leaks or very rare (as you put it miraculous - 1 year with chlorine in the water they are brittle as all getout)?!!! Efficient?!!! Floor heating systems don't come close. Maintenance and repair? Still a nightmare - especially if you've ever tried doing it. Sorry for being the one to break it to you. And if you are worried about all the heat rising from other heating methods (just as it will from the floor); there are these wonderful inventions called ceiling fans to move the air around that work wonders and are amazingly quiet, efficient and cheap (they are not just for summer time).

That's OK. No worries. If you want your heated floor, you are more than welcome to it. Enjoy it in good health. Just don't expect a lot of converts. Besides, can you imagine the work and the cost to convert his home if it's aready built without that kind of floor system? Yes, I know they claim it's simple on their web site, but think about it for a minute.

The CO issue I mentioned is not from water circulation but from people actually circulating the exhaust gas (instead of water) from the heat source as I stated in my post. Yes, people do this, although hopefully the practice is dwindling.

Well, Philo I am with you, not wanting to repeat what you said. Data always beats theory. I assisted my brother-in -law building a better home than mine. Major feature is a ground water heat exchanger system. He has 3 times the home, and pays less than me. And all that is legitimate.

I will explain, as it seems to me, that most participants on this thread confuse heat pumps with direct heat producers. They are not the same animal at all. Direct heat producers produce 1 Watts heat for every Watt input, minus inefficiency. Heat pumps on the other hand borrow heat from one source (usually ground 3 -10 meters below ground) and TRANSFER AND MULTIPLY it on the other end. Since they do not produce it, but just concentrate and manage the heat, the "normal" rules do not apply. Oh, I am not turning over physics at all. Rather, applying it rigorously.

The absolute 0 point is-273C degree = 0 Kelvin degrees. That is the point where all atomic movements supposed to cease, and all energy supposed to be zero. Never mind my "supposeds", They are interesting only in atomphysics. So, energyvise the scale starts at -273 and goes up from there. So, what that means for our case? Well, if the EXTRACTED temperature from the ground is +10C and I concentrate by 2, it is now at 273+10= 283x2= 566 Fdeg = around 190Cdeg. That is pretty hot. And all the work we did for it was, concentrating the energy - From a different source - to our use.

In the scheme, we borrow heat from the ground, concentrate it, and heat. In the scheme, we borrow cool from the ground, concentrate it, and cool.

Your homework is to prove it for yourself, that the smaller the temperature differential you have to provide, the higher the efficiency is, WELL over 100% in the classical sense.

Have been involved in fitting underfloor heating to a number of properties across Scotland (where it can get kind of cold from time to time) and have never failed to see a warm, cosy enviroment created. Even the horribly ineffiencnt "dry wire" system I fitted in my bathroom at a previous home I owned made the underfoot tiles feel marvelous.

One area I would agree with the naysayers is that this would be a royal pain to retrofit, I'm pretty sure I would only have advocated this for a new build. I know this can be done but it would not be fun.

Link this with efficient insulation and a heat pump for supply and you have a marvelously efficient system.

I just couldn't agree with you more on this.

I must admit I never saw this type of heating to be retro fit for obvious reasons, as you pointed out, but all the new homes get this heating installed in most EU countries due to the already said reasons.

The water scaling is reduced/eliminated by filling the system up with distilled water and anti freeze in case the place is left unattended or used.

It is also obvious that good building insulation is a must!

The failure rate must be very low because I have not come across any report so far.

I guess when you compare this with the ducted floor heating then you're talking about the two most extreme types of heatings; one on the low end and the other on the top end.

Anything else just falls way between these two.

I'm not so sure I agree with the difficulty of retrofit. It is easier to run flexible PEX lines between floor/ceiling than it is to run a main air duct and then branches to each room. Especially if you have a specific zone in mind to heat that is a distance from the source. My master bathroom is aprox 60 ft from source and I am considering under floor heating.

I guess part of the issue with folks disagreements on this site are down to where their expectations are starting from.

In the UK the most prevalent form of heating is a gas fired boiler supplying a hot water loop feeding wall mounted radiators. I believe well over 50% of the properties I've lived in over the last 40+ years have been fitted with this.

Secondary to this would be electric storage heaters. I've lived with this too and would not choose to do so again. They are unreactive and expensive or at least so I have found.

There are others, of course there are but I'll go out of a limb and suggest that the two methods noted above probably amount to over 80% of centrally heated properties in the UK.

Additionally I've spend way too much time living abroad, mostly in the US & Canada where ducted hot air is the norm. I'll admit to not liking this much as it seems particularly dehydrating (and yes I know that humidifiers can be fitted - they just tend not to have been in those hotels and apartments I've stayed in).

Given this background I have chosen to advocate underfloor heating as cheaper to run, more comfortable, less intrusive and generally more pleasant to live with. Installation would be more expensive of course but the figures I've seen suggest that over a ten year life span the cost savings more than pay for themselves.

PEX pipes used for this type of system generally have a lifespan of somewhere on the order of 100 years making the overall lifetime savings huge. Given that the average new build home has a lifespan of around 50 years, well it all begins to make sense.

My concerns over retrofit are not that I think it impossible, just difficult and awkward. There are going to be properties that it'll suit (I lived in one until just a couple of years back) but I would suggst that for the majority of properties I am familiar with this would not be the case.

Let's get back to basics thought. The initial question was "What's the most efficient form of home heating?"

This simple question has a 2 part answer.

1. What is the best method of distributing heat around a house.

2. What is the best method of generating the initial heat source.

Given the background of where I live and what is prevalent in my location I stand by me suggestions. Other locales may (and probably will ) find better solutions to the local issues.

1. What is the best method of distributing heat around a house.

The most efficient method of transfer would be convection. A home designed to naturally move heat would be ideal. Now this is efficient in energy use, not efficient in heat transfer. So #1 could be divided into #1.1 & #1.2

1.1 What is the most energy efficient method of heat distribution?

1.2 What is the most efficient method of heat transfer.

These are both dependant on each other. For example my boiler heats water and transfers it to a heat exchanger which blows hot air through ductwork to heat my home. Running a pump and a blower uses electricity but it transfers heat rather well. If in-floor heating is less efficient than the exchanger for heat transfer, how much of this is negated by eliminating the use of a blower to transfer the heat?

The most efficient heat transfer may not be included in the most efficient system.

The simplicity of in-floor heating and the low energy requirement to run the system maintains it on my list of good heating systems.

2. What is the best method of generating the initial heat source.

I would guess BTU/$ would be an answer here. And it is dependant on fuel (or source) to each situation. For me I have an abundance of firewood close to home and I can collect enough to heat my home for a year in 4 days (2 weekends).

Once fuel is determined then method is in question. Forced air furnace, boiler and radiant are examples. If Convection is chosen for transfer than a central radiant heater would be a good choice. This is like the old homes with wood stoves and open vents in ceilings.

My method at home is using existing ductwork and blower. It was chosen for simplicity of installation.

I've been looking at this issue on and off for years. I've talked to people. I've read a lot of articles (good and bad). Beyond the theoretical, the consensus is in favor of a hot water system with in floor heating. Is it efficient? It may not be when comparing temp to temp but the people I've talked to say that they keep their thermostat at a temp quite a bit lower than other systems. The key is comfort not temperature levels.

Obviously, you cannot argue with collecting enough wood for the winter in two weekends. That is recycling in the best of the traditions. And he gets the exercise of feeding the furnace regularly. And, an icestorm coming our way, it reminds us of the advantages of an electricity free heating system.

Previous notes touched on the convection vs. radiation. I read in trade magazines about studies quite some times ago. As I recall, they proved, that when YOU are heated by a radiant source, be it a floor, a ceiling or an infrared ceramic surface gas burner used normally in bathrooms, that with such you can lower the air temperature by 5 - 8 Celsius (twice that in Fahrenheit) without any loss of comfort. Your savings are substantial. I do not recall the exact numbers now, but it impressed me then.

Just run an experiment the last 3 days along the same line just to loosen up some old synapses. lovered the air temperature by 10 F (5C) and used 200Watts radiant heater at two places. My very scientific and unbiased assessment: better comfort with the combination. Timing the furnace on / off times indicates significant savings.

For heating the cheapest technology is steam radiator floor (I hope the English term is right). In Europe they use waste heat with that even for open bus stops.

However, you should take a look at the home insulation. Here it is considered a luxury for rich homes, but even considering the income of the owner, it shocks to see single glass windows (from roof to floor) all around the house, in a 15th floor apartment. Double glass windows and any cheap insulation in the walls would boost efficiency to the sky.

Another thing to look at is the comfort levels. The usual is to set it at maximum, but in fact you need to keep around +15 ºC. You use a sweater at home. Lowering the temperature differences reduces the thermal shock of going in and out of the house. It also reduces heat losses.

Higher temperatures also lead to feet problems. Basically, you sweat through your feet even when you are just comfortable in the rest of the body. That's why everybody walks on bare feet in a typical house heated this way.

Now, if I was going to build a system for my own house, I would use individual steam radiators. And I mean those ugly hospital things.

They are easier to repair and to adjust in every room, so you don't waste heat all around the house. Besides, it gives the place a cool retro look (me says).

As heat source, well, it might be more expensive, but I like the idea of a natural gas cogeneration system. There are some designed for home use. Of course, the fuel depends of whre you live. In Uruguay I would have to use biomass (rice husk, wood, etc).

Check this site:

http://www.localpower.org/

Whoa there gossasa. Have you ever lived anywhere cold?

I've lived in apartments with those old fashion radiators. They bang, hiss, and make cracking noises. Very uneven heat, nothing I would ever want in my house. 15C (59F), is too cold for me. I figure 19C, (66F), is the lowest I can tolerate.

The temp here has been running about -21C at night to -6C in the daytime. When you come home at night, a warm house is a pleasure.

I have a pellet stove with a remote thermostat. I set it at 58F when no one's home, then turn it up to about 69F when I'm there.

When it gets this cold, one has the temptation to cut the temperature way back when not home. Not a good idea. You could freeze a pipe in an outlying room, or the cellar.

Yeah Bricktop!

Good points though I set the thermometer at 75°F and never change it until the outside temperature corresponds. I've tried the splitting temperature methods but reheating the plaster walls is prohibitive. We use the old ugly radiators and love the comfortable warmth, and we keep upgrading the insulation in the hundred five year old house while reducing the window size too.

Yes the pipes bang once letting us know a new cycle is about to begin like ringing a bell.

I do suggest moving the radiators away from outside walls where they were normally placed? And running the piping in the room from floor to floor; practical.

I've removed the insulation from the piping in the cellar, inefficient/ Maybe but the floor is warm and the cellar doesn't freeze

It depends on what you consider cold. Here it never snows, and the temperature rarely gets below -2 C. Pipe freezing is something we see only in textbooks.

The ambient temperature in the room depends on the activity. If you are moving around (cooking, cleaning, watching the kids...ummm.... repairing the car) the ideal is about 15 C. For sedentary activities, like reading or working in the computer, 19 C is right.

Almost all noise can be eliminated with good piping design. However, most radiators I have seen have fixed piping without insulation. They were hot water radiators actually. Maybe that's why.

-2 C..... you should be able to heat with passive solar alone. -25 C takes a little more energy in a traditional home.

I attended a college where the barracks (military school) were heated with those things. Nothing like banging at 3 am to really give you a good night's sleep.

Thats exactly what I say to my Wife, "Nothing like banging at 3 am to really give you a good night's sleep", but she does not always agree, I cannot for the life of me understand why!!!!!