Full-Quoter wrote:

The HVAC industry is, and has been, working toward a goal of
making sure that just as each owner of a given house will
probably have to replace the roof once during the ownership
of the house, he will also have to replace the furnace too.

Now that I'd like to see proof of.

You've admitted that furnace life-spans are getting shorter today vs
years ago.

Isin't that proof? Isin't that an example of how they are coming down
to match (but never fall below) the average length of home ownership?

I'd like to see proof that the goal is to get lifespan down to 7
years.

If in 5 years we observe that the lifespan of the average new furnace
is 7 years, does it matter if we call that a "goal" ?

And you choose to totally ignore the energy usage that a 45 year
old furnace will waste compared to a new one?

Any old furnace that's 25+ years old can have it's efficiency raised
easily by 10 to 20% simply by turning down the burners. The design
goal for those old furnaces was to blast out the heat in those
un-insulated homes. They had no concept of constant heat. They had
crappy mechanical thermostats and couldn't achieve constant
(comfortable) heat output.

Now those homes have added insulation, and if you turn down the
burners so the furnace runs longer (but cooler) you've just raised
their efficiency and probably increased their lifespan too. Adjust
the burner primary air baffles too so that you're not blasting the
flames straight through to the flue (ie - increase flame residency
time within the heat exchanger to extract more heat from the flames -
slow the flames down).

And I think it's a crock that your only choice is to replace a
45-year-old furnace with one with an expected lifespan of 20 years. I
don't give a damn about how much fuel savings there will be. There is
no logical reason why lifespan needs to go down when efficiency goes
up.

And how many customers are going to be willing to pay
significantly more for a furnace

Back in 1955, what was the inflation-adusted price of a furnace?

Were people paying a fortune back then for furnaces?

Are furnaces today less expensive (in real dollars) compared to 10,
20, 30, 40 years ago?

What good is it if you pay less for a furnace today vs 30 years ago,
but you have to buy it twice as often?

You're telling me it's a good thing for the environment to have to buy
a furnace every 20 years vs every 40 years? Do you know how many more
households there are now, compared to 40 years ago?

We have 95% efficient furnaces today. You're saying it's a bad thing
if they last 45 years - because we want people to replace them more
often. So I suppose we want them to last only 20 years - because 20
years from now we'll have a 98% efficiency? So for the sake of a few
extra percent we want people to buy new furnaces? What the hell kind
of logic is that?

And for me, 20-25 years is the sweet spot for an HVAC system.

Who are you?

A home owner?

Or an HVAC reseller/installer?

If the energy-saving argument is correct, reliable, proven or
garanteed, then I don't have to wait for my 45 or 30 or 20 year old
furnace to break down. I can choose to replace my furnace at my
conveinence. Or not.

Saying that it's a good thing that furnaces last only 20 or 25 years
is a crock. If that's what you rely on to make the case to buy a new
furnace, then that's a bull**** argument.

As for things like fixtures, I'd submit that few people today
expect any of them to last for 50+ years.

Do you know how many old fixtures, tiles, railings, etc, are being
torn out of old homes to be installed in new or renovated homes?

Don't confuse style with function. Those old fixtures went out of
style 30 years ago, but they still function, and now they're back in
style.

I wouldn't want the same style sink or faucet I had 50 years ago.

Many people do.

There's very little new in furnace design that wasn't known
50 years ago.

So, they had 95% efficient furnaces 50 years ago?

I've got a news bulletin for you.

You don't need a furnace full of electronics, sensors and computers to
get 95% efficiency. We have 95% efficiency because we have more heat
exchangers, essentially more "plumbing" inside furnaces. Closed
combustion, intake air pre-heating, etc. Not even electronic ignition
is needed (that is another gimic that saves very little energy, and
certainly saves no energy when the burners are running).

Of course they knew what it took 50 years ago to build a 95% efficient
furnace. There just was no demand for it.

Plus in many cases, people are using AC systems today as
opposed to 1957, aren't they?

We're not talking about AC. That's another matter.

And if you want to know how "plumbing" can help even more - I'll tell
you.

Ductwork should be gated such that in the winter, air can flow around
the A-frame instead of being forced through it. And in the summer,
air should be ducted so it doesn't have to flow through the furnace
heat exchanger.

Take those resistances out of the picture and you've just raised the
efficiency of the system. No fancy electronics required.

And you've got no comment about this eh?

| In Japan, they have furnaces with built-in 1 kw electric
| generators to provide some electrical co-generation that
| can supplement the electricity supply for the house - and
| keep the blower running in the case of complete power
| outages (like what's happening to thousands in the central
| USA right now).

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005...pushes_in.html

http://www.energyefficienthomearticl...or-homes-/2039

The biggest crock of **** about furnaces today is that they can't
generate their own electricity to run their friggin internal mainframe
computer - and their blower motor during a power outage. I bet the
electronics in today's furnaces consumes more electricity than the ECM
fan motor does.