Boilers vs. furnaces: Which comes out on top?

To anyone in the HVAC industry, the following information is absurdly obvious. But for someone not at all in the know, it was something of an eye-opener—a little something that served as a reminder that for every advantage, there’s a disadvantage, and for every pro, a very definite con. Now, as someone who’d never given more than 10 seconds of thought to HVAC at any point in my life, it was a bit of a revelation to learn that a “boiler” is, well, just a big furnace that produces steam and can heat water for bathing and washing dishes at the same time that it heats a physical space. I didn’t know that! I’d heard the term “boiler” of course, but I’d just associated the term with warehouses, factories and old ships. It actually never occurred to me that a very large percentage of American homes are heated using boilers, and that hot water makes its way through pipes to various parts of the structure being heated. This fundamental advantage—having a system that is able to heat space and water for bathing, laundry, dishes and the like—becomes a decided disadvantage if the system breaks. The homeowner is left without heat but also without hot water. If he or she has to suffer with a broken boiler for any length of time, the experience is likely to end up very, very uncomfortable. A furnace, by contrast, which works to heat air and distribute that air via a blower motor and a system of ducts, doesn’t heat water. This means that a homeowner who installs a furnace must also install a separate hot water heater. But if the furnace breaks, the owner still has access to warm and hot water—a major advantage on a frigid winter’s night!

central heater