On Nov 26, 9:47*am, George wrote:
On 11/26/2012 8:03 AM, wrote:





On Nov 25, 1:05 pm, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 08:09:11 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:
Yep. As far as cars go if it were left up to the market place we
would still be driving cars getting 18 mpg at best with zero safety
equipment.

Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If the market is incapable of innovation, then how
exactly do you explain the cell phone, PC, cordless drill,
and all the other items that have a long history of innovation
that has driven cost down, increased features, etc?

There are differences. *The marketplace needs innovation that can be
seen. *Take a poll and I bet 95% would choose a Smart phone over a Cat
converter in their car.

You can't see a difference in your energy bill? * When I
replaced my 25 year old furnace, my energy bill was cut
by almost half.

I have multiple family members and friends in various aspects of housing
and Ed is right on target. They say they have been asked about leaving
out insulation or forget about that higher efficiency furnace in favor
of getting bragging rights for that granite countertop.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The issue isn't getting a higher efficiency furnace instead
of countertops. The issue is that the cost of a high
efficiency 90%+ furnace, installed, in the vast majority of cases is
about the same as getting a 90%+ furnace.
So, virtuallly everyone replacing one can do the math,
figure it out, and make the appropriate choice.
The new EPA rule doesn't require anyone to buy a new
furnace or replace a furnace instead of countertops.
It just forces you to buy a 90%+ furnace instead of an
80% one.

I've said it about ten times now. I went out for bids two
years ago. Of the 4 firms, not one quoted or even
mentioned eqpt that was less than 90% efficient. I
know a few people who bought new gas furnaces
here in the NJ area over the last few years. Not one
of them bought less than 90%.

Some people have circumstances where they may choose an 80% furnace as
a better solution. The article gave
some examples. Suppose it's going to cost $2,000
more for that 90% one because of installation issues?
Or suppose it's a ski house that you use only 3 weeks a
year? It bothers you that people have the choice of
instead getting a 80% furnace? How about faced with
the new EPA forced ruling, they just keep the old 60%
efficient furnace. That make you happy? Why do you
want govt forced solutions to fake, phony problems that
don't exist? Let me guess. You're a lib.