You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Our boiler is about 25 years old. Am thinking of changing it a) to save a bit of running cost, and b) before it blows up.
But - are there viable options given the environmental concerns and talk of all gas boilers being replaced etc
Thanks
following
a new boiler will die a long time before gas is replaced, so no i'd stick with gas. If you are massively environmentally freindly, you could look at heat source - ground, air as well as solar but thats ££££ and also questionable from a life cycle analysis it's any better thana gas boiler over it's useable life span..
Electric is not cheap, neither is it partcularly clean (including wind)
My new Baxi claims to be '10% more efficient' than earlier boilers, that's a step in the right direction if it's true.
Oh and make sure you get a few estimates, I got two and they varied by a grand.
If you have mains gas stick with that for now imo if all you want to do is replace the boiler.
If you have the time money and energy to go mad on insulation then go air source heat pump. If you are considering renovations in the near future it's probably worth doing this route now.
New Baxi with a 10 year warranty.
It'll still be working when/If boilers are made obsolete.
I'd keep the current boiler. Keep it serviced and it shouldn't "blow up". Even with the efficiency of new boilers I doubt you'll get payback either financially or environmentally. Look at other ways to reduce running costs like a smart thermostat, TRVs, insulation, etc
You didn't say whether your old one is a Combi ,system, or heat only.
We replaced a fubared 20yo system boiler and immersion with a Combi when we moved into our new house. Hot water on demand vs. heating a tank up twice a day whether it's used or not is much more efficient for our usage patterns.
If your current setup is working properly though and could get a way with a service, why pay thousands that you're unlikely to recover...
Sui - "Electric is not cheap, neither is it partcularly clean (including wind)" - can you add some info regarding the wind comment? I'm not debating it, just would like more idea of what you are saying.
Hot water on demand vs. heating a tank up twice a day whether it’s used or not is much more efficient
That's not really the case though as you're not heating the tank from cold every day - we have a 200L megaflo that, if left unused, loses 7c in a 24 hour period - this takes just 1.4Kwh of power to get it back up to the maximum of 61c.
On the flip side, if your gas goes off, for whatever reason, then you can still produce hot water with a tank which you can't with a combi - as the poor sods in Scotland have recently discovered.
If you end up going for a boiler I’d go ideal. 12 year guarantee these days. The smart mans choice.
We replaced a fubared 20yo system boiler and immersion with a Combi when we moved into our new house. Hot water on demand vs. heating a tank up twice a day whether it’s used or not is much more efficient for our usage patterns.
your actually heating up a much smaller tank much more often with a combi.
+1 for what nickjb and sharkbait are saying. If you are concerned about the environment top up loft insulation to current standards, turn thermostat down a notch and only heat space and hot water when you need to. A new boiler is unlikely to be massively more efficient than the old one - keep saving for when the old one does die.
Our boiler is about 25 years old. Am thinking of changing it a) to save a bit of running cost, and b) before it blows up.
I'd be surprised if the savings, from efficiency, cover the costs of a new boiler, unless you are a very heavy gas user.
Boilers rarely blow up. Ours is 30+ years old and still going. Cheaper to keep it than replace it.
UrbanHiker
Member
Sui – “Electric is not cheap, neither is it partcularly clean (including wind)” – can you add some info regarding the wind comment? I’m not debating it, just would like more idea of what you are saying.
per kw/h elecy is a lot more expensive compared to Gas, i think that's agreed by most. With regards to the "dirty" comment, i'll admit it's a little disingenuous. Very few countries are producing true sustainble elecy at the moment, the scandic regions do very well because of hydro and they have very well established infrastructure. The UK, France and Germany (Germany especially) are still producing elecy predominantly through coal, gas and nuke - the full analysis cysle on these when converted back to elecy makes the GHG impact quite high (its the whole argument around elecy vehicles). The UK has been getting a lot better, but the figures presented in the media are not quite what they seem as the reporting criteria on measuing the GHG figures is outdated. There are a new set of criteria being implemented next year which will shed a lot more light on the pro-s and cons of differnt energy sources.
There are a number of studies that do show this, i've got some myself due to the work i do, but i cant upload them anywhere.