This is another new house queston. We have a boiler that sends forced hot water to heat our house. It also heats the hot water. I am new to this, we have always had a hot water heater in additon to the furnace. I like to keep the heat temp low. Would it make sense to have a seperate hot water heater installed to save on running the boiler for the hot water?
It might. Depends on how old the boiler is, how big it is, and how efficient it is. MOF, since, with a seperate water heater, you can turn the boiler off during the warm months. This alone may well justify the cost of installing one. A lot depends on what kind of energy you'e using for the boiler, and where you are. Right now, in the Pacific Northwest, electricity is actually cheaper for heating than gas is! Go figure... I'd do an analysis: Turn everything off and run the hot water out of the tank. Record the reading on the meter. Run the boiler to heat the house, and record the meter reading again. Turn off the heat, run out the hot water again, repeat recordings. Compare the two. if it costs almost as much as, or even as little as a third as, much to heat the water as it does to heat the water and the house, I'd have to say, probably a good idea.
Your system is designed for dual purpose heating. By setting the correct maximun temperature on the hot water side you can save money whether it is winter or summer.
No, the combined unit is becoming the most common in new installs. It's usually a high-efficency unit too (PVC vent). The boiler will only run when either heat or hot water tank demands it and the zone valves will control where the energy is delivered.
I would leave it the way it is. I grew up in a house with the same setup and loved it. The boiler can replace the hot water faster than any hot water heater( with the exception on the new tank less ones).
That system is getting to be more common and works quite well. No need for a separate hot water heater, unless you have money to burn.
