General: LiveSimplicity discussion forum

Have your say and share your ideas. Join us on the road to simplicity.

Conclusions (see all )

This section is where you'll find completed discussions. You can still browse the whole discussion and read the conclusions, however these are now closed.

Are hot water heaters outdated?
	"Why is it that we still use outdated technology like hot water heaters? Is it simply based on cost? How is it that we still use a process that is so inefficient to heat water and what other products do we use that seem incredibly out of date given our current level of technology?"
In an age where today's computer can be tomorrow's door stop, it is an odd occurance that the general population still uses rather outdated technology to perform everyday tasks. Why would so many people choose such outdated technology? In many instances, the answer is that the cost of an alternative is too high. A hot water heater, although impractical and bulky, does an excellent and efficient job of delivering hot water to a home. New, more advanced alternatives such as solar heating or on-demand heating systems rarely get much attention due to high cost. In most instances, until the cost of alternatives is reduced or shows a significant benefit over using the traditional methods, people will choose to use the more reliable, time-proven technology they have grown accustomed to.

12 comment(s) so far

Maven thinks: You're absolutely right! While we're getting rid of the hot water heater, how about we throw out all fax machines. It's amazing that these products are still used in this day and age.

dreamer thinks: Hot water-hmmm.

I think an 'overview' is first needed to clarify the options.

the current most efficient means of energy distribution to human habitat units is electicity, via a national grid, generated by stations, utilising the principal of 'economy of size'.

Once constructed (correctly) the system minimises replacement and maintainance requirement. It is therefore the most viable solution, compared to the manufacture, distribuion and maintainance of 'individual' power units.

The method of station generation has historically been dependant on cost of aquisition/abundence of fossil fuel (coal, oil,gas). Nuclear fusion reactor method is far superior in all respects- minimal fuel (uranium) aquisition impact/risk (consider oil/gas platforms, tankers, coal mines hazard), much lower harmful emissions, especially when 'charging' all transport-electric cars etc.

The unfortunate waste disposal issue is solvable, and is anyway a transiant one,

given the inevitable evolution to fusion reactors, effectively the 'dream machine' we ignore its continued R & D at our peril. Perhaps, individual 'micro' fusion reactors, will prove the grid obsolete, but that is for the future.

However, variety is the spice of life, and other ways must and will have there role to play, especially in the developing world (wave,wind,solar,geothermal,fuel-cell) acting as a deterent to centralised multinational profiteering.

SO, for the majority, mains-electricity heats our water (well, I believe that should be the plan).

Heat transfer is by conduction or radiation (convection not applicable, as it is in the case of remote source of hot air for space heating).

The 'element' method is simple and effective , it is hard to conceive a more viable alternative. The problem is the heat transfer rate over volume requirement, necesitates storage-an insulated boiler. That in turn requires piping to point of use, which incurs unproductive heat loss.

However, gas boilers lose significant heat venting externally, and in any case should be abhored as an archaic method of energy distribution.

Multiple heating devices at point of use (similiar to shower heaters) mounted within/under taps or at radiator feeds, would eliminate the requirement of the boiler/storage but not all the plumbing, The plumbing would be halfed (no hot pipes), but you can 'run' two pipes, just as easily as one and extra electrical supplies to the devices would be required.

Furthermore, multiple units increase the probability of failure/servicing.

The practice of running pipes via loft which only serves to heat the sky, could perhaps be solved by a hollow skirting board system?

In conclusion, I think the station/grid/boiler should be viewed as a sound example of the evolution of competent design and engineering. It heralds the 'fision revolution'.

What a burden that incompetent russian nuclear industry placed on our shoulders. Proliferation? - a rouge state would just find an alternative WMD.

Is a biological warhead to be considered preferable to an atom bomb?

At least the weapons grade plutonium comes from a station that energises and prides its nation, to hopefully choose to compete in the peaceful way.

Perhaps a terrorist organisation will find it easier to aquire a biological weapon then a nuclear one, if the former is more available?.

More conclusions from this category

Start new discussion
You know something that puzzled you by being surprisingly
simple or overwhelmingly complex? Share it, and get more
opinions on it now!

Conclusions & insights

Search in discussions

e.g. search for technology, christmas, future, bioscan

This blog