My setup is really new, but I think the others might be right. I chose NOT to get the machine with heating because my instantaneous water heater has a remote as an option. That would allow me to bump up the water heater temperature temporarily (and thus more safely, to my mind). It costs about the same as the difference in prices between the heat/no heat washers, so I figured I could add that and have that bump-up ability for more than just the washer... *However*, the washer works quite differently from a top loader. (I knew that! That's why I chose a FL. But I didn't know about *this* difference.) When you start a load, it adds a bit of water and tosses a little and adds a little water and repeats until it decides there's enough water. It's not like a TL at all where the water simply runs until it reaches the "right" level. It seems to be based on weight. Mine's an LG (wm2140c, I think), but I'm guessing other new machines are similar.

andrelaplume2, There's lots of information on tankless heaters here. You can do a search under "tankless" Electric whole house aren't a good idea - they don't save any money and they require a service upgrade. Gas can save about 38% but you need to plan and understand a number of issues including gas supply, proper sizing and venting. Finally, you want to stay away from the Bosch units - particularly the ones that use water for ignition. They seem to be selling these at Home Depot. There is a federal tax credit (30%) on tankless with an energy factor of .82 or better.

Look, houndhandler, I have explained exactly how the gas tankless achieves the savings. I spelled it out in the four points above. The largest savings doesn't come from standby losses through the jacket, it comes from lower flue temps and not having the stanby losses through the center of the tank. As the electric tankless show, the standby loss just through the jacket is only about 3%. I showed you energy factors to support my case. I have told you where you can find the energy factors for the various equipment. The energy factors provide measurable unbiased information, unlike marketing hype. I have shown that an increase in the energy factor provides a measurable ~35% overall gain without cherry picking my numbers. The longer shower argument is bogus, but If they take longer showers then they are getting 35% more utility for the same money. Now, I have consistently given people real information that they can then use to assess their own situation. I also have the benefit of having actually installed and used one in my own home. You, on the other hand, want to spread inaccurate information and FUD. Gas tankless isn't right for every situation. It is particularly not good if you have long flue runs or have to upgrade the gas supply. It can be very good if the alternative is a powervent, direct vent, or if the tankless allows you to avoid some other cost-- such as lining a flue. In my situation, the payback over a standard water heater, without any other considerations (such as the fact that I couldn't use a standard water heater without lining the flue) the payback was just under five years. The truth is that if I didn't go tankless, I would have gone with a powervent unit to avoid lining the masonry chimney. A powevent unit was more than the tankless. My payback period did include a tax credit, but no utility credits. The payback will be shorter if gas prices increase in five years. And why would you say that you can't use a recirculating pump on a tankless? Of course you can. I think it's a better idea to design the plumbing so that you don't have the water heater at one end of the house and the master bath at the other... but that's beside the point. If water is expensive or you place a high value on "instant" hot water... use a pump. I also recommend insulated pipes and a dedicated return. I've suggested in other posts to combine a motion sensor in the room and a thermostat on the pipe. Inconspicuous 120 volt motion sensors that fit in a 2x3 box are cheap. Hey, you walk into the bathroom and the pump kicks on until the pipe is hot and then it goes off. It doesn't cost much, gives you the hot water you want, and very little in the way of standby losses. It might kick on some times when you don't need it.. . but no big deal. Other people just use a manual pushbutton switch that runs the pump for five minutes or so just when they want it. To answer Anthem, the reason I don't compare tankless to condensing tank heaters is because the condensing tank heaters I've seen cost 2x or more than a tankless for an energy factor of .89. (or an 7.2% gain over a tankless)I can't imagine a scenario where that would ever make sense, Can you? Note that I wasn't cherry picking to make my point... most of the standard gas water heaters have an EF of 58-62 with .62 being the "high efficiency". I used the Polaris 50 gal condensing heater for comparison, If you know of condensing tank units less than $3000 give me a link to it. If you can think of a design situation where it makes sense to spend $3000 on a water heater, please tell me what it is.

"I've considered the systems that use the cold water line as a return. There are some concerns about mixing hot water in the cold water lines, since it is not recommended to drink water from the hot side". The amount of water from the hot side pumped into the cold side is diluted and therefore not the same as drinking hot water. "The main concern is legionnaires disease, but others worry about the increased solubility of minerals and other compounds". My wife is an ICP and assured me that the anti-bacterials (chlorine or the like) added in the cold water by our water utility continue to work at a temperature a few degrees over its normal temp and that those same anti-bacterials (chlorine or the like) work just as well in the water heater where the temp is considerably higher than the cold water. I would consider a well water system an entirely different environment since the water is not necessarily safe when pumped from the ground. I can see where Chris8796 would make that statement never having experienced the device in question so here are facts not unsubstantiated opinions... The Laing Autocirc and the Watts version retrofit recirc pumps are NSF certified and not prohibited by any code I can find in the US. This link http://lainginc.itt.com/pdf/ACT303Brochure_web.pdf to the Autocirc brochure lists it's certifications. Living with the Autocirc for 7+ years I never find the temp of the water on the cold side of the sink where the pump is installed to be much above the normal temp of the cold water so any increased solubility is not a consideration and note that no other faucet between the far sink with the device and the WH connects hot and cold. " also got a chuckle from their marketing, "the average family of 4 saves 43 gallons of water a day"? A 3/4" copper pipe holds 0.025 gallons per linear foot and a 1/2" copper pipe holds 0.0121 gallons per linear foot, 43 gallons would fill 1720 feet of 3/4" or 3553 feet of 1/2" pipe. Now, thats a long from the water heater, even if you had to use water 10 times a day". With just two people in a 1600 sq ft home we hit a faucet or appliance far more often than ten times a day and factor in the two plus minutes we used to let the hot water run till it was hot and Laing's claims are in the ballpark. Here are the facts in my first hand experience... no opinion, just fact. My water meter ticks over each 1000 gallons. My average water usage was 4000 gallons per month and every 5th month or so it would drop to 3000 gallons on one months bill then back up to 4000 gallons. With the Laing Autocirc installed the monthly bills dropped to 3000 gallons for four months and then one month at 4000 gallons. That savings coupled with the savings in KCl for my softener (less water used, less softening needed, less KCl used), less LP used to heat the water, and having hot water at the kitchen sink in seconds was a win-win all the way around.