We were considering a tankless water heater, until we came upon Rheem’s Marathon Electric water heater. Any comments?
The tankless gas units might be high maintenance, because of potential build-up in the narrow heating tubes, and we have read concerns about drafts through the vents.
Our specifics:
1600 SF, two story home, built in 1937
2 adults
1 bathtub, 1 shower
we want to avoid the current two story out-side vent for an older gas heater
THANKS!
Replies
Certainly the Marathon's the best of the electrics, in terms of efficiency. But then the worst electric tank is better than the best traditional gas unit, in terms of standby losses.
You could consider going to a power vented gas tank. Would vent similarly to the tankless.
Tankless is generally a loser, except in unusual circumstances such as a weekend cabin.
Not true
Certainly the Marathon's the best of the electrics, in terms of efficiency
The energy factors for Marathon units are equivalent or lower than the same size and configuration of standard tank. Look up a high-efficiency Ruud 50-gallon standard height electric, and then the nearest Marathon, and tell me the difference (answer: the metal tank is more efficient by .01 EF). Locally the Ruud would cost me $290 and the Marathon would be $700 or more. The selling point of the Marathon is the molded tank, which has a lifetime warranty (to the original owner, I believe).
http://www.marathonheaters.com/cons_specs.html
http://globalimageserver.com/fetchDocument.aspx?id=3445dc94-8d85-4133-a64a-8f7085ffec85
Before people start recommending heat pump water heaters you should find out what climate it will be used in. If it's inside a heated house, it will just make the heating system run a little more to provide the "efficiency" it claims. And, you'd better hope the tank lasts a long time after you invest all that money in it.
Hi Andrea,
I just went through this exact decision process.
The bottom line is that the Marathon is ultra efficient, has hardly any standby loss, and because it has a one piece non-metal tank, it will last forever without rusting out. But even though electric units are the most energy efficient, they aren't very economical to run. Electricity is the most expensive utility.
I was hot on tankless, too, but then when I dug deeper into the fine print, I realized that these units may not be as terrific as we're led to believe. Each manufacturer will have a chart that shows the energy as a function of what they call "temperature rise."
Temperature rise is based on how much your incoming water temperature must be raised to meet the desired output temperature at your faucet or showerhead. For example, if your incoming water temperature is 60 degrees F and you desire a hot water temperature of 105 degrees, the temperature rise would be 45 degrees. So, when the companies tell you how little it costs to run these units, they show you a situation where the temperature rise is very minimal. Here in New England, I bet my incoming water is 40 degrees or so. To get that water to 120 degrees? Instantly? That's a lot of energy, and that doesn't make sense to me.
Those were just my findings/opinions, but I hope that helps fill in some of the blanks. For what it's worth, I still like the Marathon unit, and would still be happy to have one despite the high running cost.
Until science, business, and engineering agree that tankless water heaters are feasible, we are at the mercy of marketeers and spin doctors.
In the meantime, all, feel free to toss money at the marketeers.
?? Wow ... not sure what point you are making. I can't tell if you are pro or anti tankless. Maybe I'm just reading it wrong (which I can often do this early in the am). Feasible and practical/economical are widely different concepts.
There ARE a lot of spin doctors/marketeers out there trying to sell tankless as the best thing since sliced bread for everyone that uses a water heater. The way they twist their logic to get people to buy the technology is amazing.
I'm not anti any technology. I promote proper application of the proper technology. GENERALLY, from an energy standpoint, there is little benefit to tankless (although, there are exceptions, depending on the application).
>>>I can't tell if you are
>>>I can't tell if you are pro or anti tankless.
Generally anti, but then I live an an area with relatively inexpensive energy. Tankless heaters are extremely rare here. Perhaps this will change as energy costs rise, which we are told will happen in the coming years.
>>>The way they twist their logic to get people to buy the technology is amazing.
Zackly my thoughts. Just because a product isn't feasible won't stop people from promoting it.
If you were considering tankless to save big energy dollars, you can largely forget it. While much better than the traditional natural draft gas fired, if you are looking to replace that there are competitive options ... including the one you are looking at. A two story exterior flue ... wow; that has to be pretty.
Electric is a more expensive heating energy source. Often 2-3 times more expensive than e.g. natural gas. A forced draft high efficiency gas water heater might be employed that eliminates your flue issue (and the standby loss of the traditional natural draft systems).
If you are increasing your electric service for the new tank, that may be a relatively significant expense. You are wise to consider as many options as possible to ensure your final decisions is fully in your best interests ... now and for the next 10+ years you will live with it.
Where are you?
Fill out your profile.
Your getting comments on how electric isn't a good choice due to high electric power costs.
This is something that is location dependant. I'm in rural Idaho. The options I have, (other than wood), are electric and propane. Out electric power is mostly hydro generated, and some of the least expensive in the nation, at an average of 6.2 cents per kiloWatt-hour. Propane is a distillation product of crude oil. Propane is expensive and going no where but up, and quickly.
To compare the cost I would convert the per unit energy for 1-kWh of electricity to that for 1-gallon of propane by multiplying by 27. So 6.2X27=$1.67. Since propane was 2.45 last time I bought it, the energy cost to heat a unit of water will be 68% of the cost to do it with propane. Assuming that the efficiencies are equal.
So, where I am the choice is electric. Hands down, not even worth the effort to compare relative efficiencies.
Here is a good conversion factor if you live where Natural Gass is available: Multiply the electricity price per kWh by 29.3 to give the equivalent price per therm of natural gas.
This gives you the ability to compare a cost per unit of heat between electricity and natural gas. Throw in the difference in efficiencies, and a guess of how much you thik you will use, and you can make an intelligent comparrison of the operating costs, and se which makes the most sense withthe cost of installation factored in.
Another option to consider is a heat pump water heater. Pretty pricy up front, but relatively inexpensive to operate under the right circumstances. Can be a double winner in the south where the cold from the unit can be used to cool the house.
But don't be scared away from using an electric, either the Marathon unit or one of the better quality standard units. They last a long time and the cost to operate (for a house with two adults -- vs a gaggle of teenagers) isn't outrageous, if electric rates are halfway reasonable.
We've had an electric (actually, the SAME electric) for 34 years and counting. Our monthly electric bill is a hair over $100 a month these days, but we also have an electric stove and electric clothes dryer. I doubt that the water heater amounts to more than $30-35.
Water Heaters UPDATE
THANK YOU very much for your responses, which have helped. We are now comparing the Rheem Marathon to the new electric heat pump hybrids (GE, Rheem, etc.). FYI:
we are located in Salt Lake City, UT, so an altitude of 4,000'.
the water heater (currently gas) is located in the basement, which has an open stairwell from the basement to the second floor (no doors), the basement also contains the gas furnace.
we have 150 amp service, with a vacant 240V, 40A slot very near the water heater.
Our observations in the comparison:
the hybrid purchase prices are approximately $300 more ($800 for a Marathon 40 gallon vs. $1100 for the GE after the current $200 discount and $300 tax credits -- see Lowe's)
therefore we would recover the additional $300 in approximately 1.5 years, then save with better efficiency.
HOWEVER, the GE hybrid's warranty is only 6 years vs. Marathon life-time TANK and 6 years heating elements and thermostat warranty.
LIfe is SO confussing! Again, thank you for your comments.
Andrea
Hybrid hot water heater
Thanks guys.
We went ahead with the GE Hybrid. Happy so far. Seems to put out plenty of hot water. Also has the added benefit of keeping the basement drier and cooler. One thing that we found out after buying it is that the manufacturer recommends draining some water every month to protect it from sediments. Maybe this is a good idea for any hot water heater. But with the price of this unit I found myself highly motivated to perform this task. It's not that difficult to do it's just a matter of remembering to do it.
I did see another good option that I might have considered if I had seen it first. That is to get a high quality electric heater or use an existing traditional electric tank with an add on heat pump. The old argument about integrated units...if either the tank or the heat pump fail you have to replace the whole unit. The hybrid is heavy and expensive. i'm crossing my fingers that it will last a long time.
The add on I saw was a Geyser, I think it was made in Maine.
Andrea