Forced air vs radiant heat

[fishhuntwork]

I live in a 1957 rambler with 1500 sq feet. Right now I have baseboard radiant heating with a boiler as old as the house I'm guessing. The baseboard radiators are starting to look pretty rough and collect a lot of dust. I am wondering if it would be a good idea to pull out the hot water system and install forced air? The basement isn't finished so get the duct work ran won't be an issue. I am well aware of the holes in the sheet rock and in the floors. I've had center point come out and they told me not to do it but I have had private contractors come out and price it at about $11,000 with everything including air conditioning. Looking for some help from any Hvac techs out there or anyone that has done this.

[Archerysniper]

If it was me I would leave the radiant heat. The only draw back is the A/C without forced air.

[delcecchi]

You can put air in the attic and it works great. I did exactly that with a 1959 rambler with baseboard hot water. Also a couple years later put in new boiler.

I love the hot water heat.

[jeffreyd]

dumb question but what is a rambler? Answered my own question, is it similar to a ranch style house? Single story?

[Dave]

Exactly

[Eric Wettschreck]

If it were my money I'd keep the radient heat and upgrade to a much more efficient boiler.

Hot water heat is a much "Warmer" feeling heat than forced air will ever be. A boiler upgrade can save you a ton of money in fuel costs as boiler technology has really improved since 1957.

If the radiators are nasty looking they can be replaced also. Newer technology radiators will also help save on fuel costs as they have a greater ability to transfer heat.

FYI- By trade, I'm a boilermaker. I don't do residential stuff, but it's pretty much the same only lower pressure and a much smaller systems.

[delcecchi]

Yes, single story 1450 square feet 3 br, 1 ba, 1959. Call it a ranch, whatever.

[delcecchi]

When I was shopping, no real HE boilers under about 300k BTU/hr because the price was out of line. Turns out the old boilers were surprisingly good. Going from 80 to 95%, which would decrease bill by maybe 20% is really expensive. If you save $200/year, how many years to pay back?

I am interested in answer due to intellectual curiosity. Not trying to bust chops or anything.

[fishhuntwork]

I'm going to have a couple of other contractors come out and see what they think. I think when its time forced air including central air will be a deciding factor for someone interested in the house. I know I would really like central air!

[BobT]

When I was shopping, no real HE boilers under about 300k BTU/hr because the price was out of line. Turns out the old boilers were surprisingly good. Going from 80 to 95%, which would decrease bill by maybe 20% is really expensive. If you save $200/year, how many years to pay back?

I am interested in answer due to intellectual curiosity. Not trying to bust chops or anything.

To the OP:

I had a boiler in an older home once and loved it. Hot water heat is much more comfortable for a couple reasons. First, it doesn't dry out the air in the home as much so it will provide more efficient heat transfer. If you do regulate humidity, and you should regardless of your heating system, it will cost less to maintain proper humidity because you won’t be fighting the drying effect from a forced air system. Second, the hot water heat is more uniform transfer with less hot-cold swing because the rate of transfer from the radiators/registers is slower. With forced air you get a more noticeable swing from cold to hot as the house temperature modulates about the set point of your thermostat.

To delecchi:

When I first bought my current home in 1991 the furnace was an old Lennox fuel-oil forced air that was so old the service person was unable to find it in his record books. He estimated it was over 30 years old and figured it was probably running at about 60% efficient if I was lucky. I asked if it would be worth it to upgrade to a newer more efficient model. His response was that the newer models were rated at about 83% efficient and with the cost of the furnace and installation it would take too long to recover. It cost me about $800.00 per year to heat my home back then and I calculated going from 60% efficient to 85% meant an immediate fuel savings of about 25% or about $200.00 per year (85% – 60% = 25% and 25% of $800.00 = $200.00). When I finally did replace my furnace it cost me about $5,000.00 with installation. At $200.00 per year it would take about 25 years to recover the cost ($5,000 / $200 = 25).

The mistake I made when I calculated my savings was not considering the potential price increase of the fuel. At the time I did my calculation fuel oil was $.75 per gallon. When I filled my barrel two weeks ago it was $3.47 per gallon or 4.6X what it was when calculated my savings. I am recovering the cost of my new furnace almost 5X faster than I anticipated. I’m thinking I have already recovered the cost of my new furnace and then some in the 12 years since I replaced it.

[delcecchi]

Well, when I put my new boiler in a couple years ago replacing a Crane from 1959 I thought there would be a big difference. Installation guy said old boiler was probably 75-80% and he was right. I haven't noticed much difference. Natural gas burner. New one is 85% and most of the difference is due to no Pilot, and flue damper.

Like I said, I checked and no one around Rochester did the 95% boilers in small sizes.

My bill is about 700 per year but not all of that is fuel. Some is just for the privilege.

Everyone's situation is different.