On Nov 26, 9:53*am, George wrote:
On 11/25/2012 11:09 AM, wrote:





On Nov 25, 11:00 am, Harry K wrote:
On Nov 24, 7:32 am, mike wrote:

On 11/24/2012 7:18 AM, dpb wrote:

On 11/24/2012 8:46 AM, wrote:
On Nov 24, 9:33 am, Home wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
"Replacing an aging furnace could cost homeowners thousands of
dollars more after May 1, when new federal energy efficiency
standards take effect for northern states, including New Jersey.

Because the sale of single-stage (regular efficiency) furnaces will be
prohibited - right?

The new energy-efficient natural gas furnaces aren’t that much
more expensive themselves,

Really?

Yes, really. Unless you think $200 or $300 more for a
gas furnace that is 93% efficient instead of 80% is a lot
of money.
...

Well, that's not the difference that is significant--80% requires forced
draft as well. It's the difference between them and natural draft that's
the biggie.

Old natural draft had up to about 78% efficiency ratings but beyond that
the condensation problem is insoluble w/o forced draft...most old
furnaces were perhaps 65% or so if towards mid-later years and probably
closer to 50% if early...

While _a_good_thing_ (tm) overall to improve efficiency, I'm still of
the opinion that the market should control rather than mandates.

--

I'd agree in principle. *Problem is the short-sighted cheapskate attitude
that many of us have.
How many cars would have somog abatement if it was a luxury option?
Sometimes, you just gotta bite the bullet and force it.
If you don't like the way your leadership operates, elect new leadership.

Goods as durable as houses outlast the original cheapskate.

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?

But stuff like safety features and fuel economy are proven not to be big
selling points. Take a pickup truck frame and fluff it up with every
possible feature and a huge engine and it sells itself because of the
imagined status.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Which proves exactly what? That you want to stop
people from buying a pickup truck too?

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.

wrote:


I should have said "The higher the demand, the greater the supply
which will

drive down prices.

Still totally wrong. Especially with something like energy which has
limited supply and extracting more from the ground drives prices way
up.

Giggle.

From mid-2008 until the end of 2010, the price for natural gas has shrunk
from about $11.00/Mcf to $4.00 for the same amount.

Further, what make you, or anyone else, think there is a "limited supply" of
energy? As a practical matter, that is simply not true.

We have, just in the U.S., several hundred years of coal available and we're
discovering and mining natural gas faster than we use it. Heck, we're even
EXPORTING significant amounts of NG.

On Nov 26, 9:50*am, George wrote:
On 11/25/2012 4:40 PM, Normin wrote:







If your current yearly heating bill is $1000 and you have an 80%
efficient furnace,

$800 is used for heat and $200 is wasted out the exhaust.

With a 95% efficient furnace,

$800 is still used for heat but only $42 is wasted out the exhaust.

Your yearly heat bill drops to $842 yielding a $158 per year savings.

Over the next 15 years you'll save $2370 in fuel. *If fuel prices go up,
you'll save even more.

Can you really afford an 80% efficient furnace?

Of course not but what bragging rights do you acquire by making a
sensible decision?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This is a classic. You're the guy telling us that the consumers
are too stupid to make the right choice for their own furnace. And
yet, here you are chiming in that it makes sense to shell out the
money today to replace a furnace that's 80%, because you
can't afford not to? Let's do the math. Replacing that furnace is
typically $4,000+ and that money would be spent right now.
The alternative 80% furnace in the above example only costs
$2,370 in additional fuel over the next 15 years. Factor in the
time value of money and the comparison only gets worse. I cou;ld
take that $4,000, invest it in the stock market, and history shows
you'd likely get an 8% return, exceeding the savings in fuel.
And given that most people here seem to agree that a new
furnace today has about a 15 year life, it would NEVER pay
for itself in fuel savings.

Yet, you say it's J Q Public that's too stupid to figure out
what to do and needs the govt to do it for them?

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 14:23:12 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Home Guy wrote:
Similar rules will latch in for A/C in the southern climates.

Why would an A/C system need any sort of venting?

Idiot.

The issue is about the higher costs of more efficient heating/cooling
systems.

Issues regarding venting are only the effect, not the cause, of the
increased cost.

This article came from a New Jersey news source and in New Jersey they are
more concerned with heating than air conditioning. Had a similar article
been written for Atlanta, the writers would have dwelled on a/c costs with
only a passing mention of heating systems.

Here in Atlanta, they're the same thing. ;-)

On 11/26/2012 11:43 AM, wrote:
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.


Don't know about that but I do recognize someone who with fit right in
with the other 10 year olds on the schoolyard...

On 11/26/2012 11:32 AM, wrote:
On Nov 26, 9:53 am, George wrote:
On 11/25/2012 11:09 AM, wrote:





On Nov 25, 11:00 am, Harry K wrote:
On Nov 24, 7:32 am, mike wrote:

On 11/24/2012 7:18 AM, dpb wrote:

On 11/24/2012 8:46 AM, wrote:
On Nov 24, 9:33 am, Home wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
"Replacing an aging furnace could cost homeowners thousands of
dollars more after May 1, when new federal energy efficiency
standards take effect for northern states, including New Jersey.

Because the sale of single-stage (regular efficiency) furnaces will be
prohibited - right?

The new energy-efficient natural gas furnaces aren’t that much
more expensive themselves,

Really?

Yes, really. Unless you think $200 or $300 more for a
gas furnace that is 93% efficient instead of 80% is a lot
of money.
...

Well, that's not the difference that is significant--80% requires forced
draft as well. It's the difference between them and natural draft that's
the biggie.

Old natural draft had up to about 78% efficiency ratings but beyond that
the condensation problem is insoluble w/o forced draft...most old
furnaces were perhaps 65% or so if towards mid-later years and probably
closer to 50% if early...

While _a_good_thing_ (tm) overall to improve efficiency, I'm still of
the opinion that the market should control rather than mandates.

--

I'd agree in principle. Problem is the short-sighted cheapskate attitude
that many of us have.
How many cars would have somog abatement if it was a luxury option?
Sometimes, you just gotta bite the bullet and force it.
If you don't like the way your leadership operates, elect new leadership.

Goods as durable as houses outlast the original cheapskate.

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?

But stuff like safety features and fuel economy are proven not to be big
selling points. Take a pickup truck frame and fluff it up with every
possible feature and a huge engine and it sells itself because of the
imagined status.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Which proves exactly what? That you want to stop
people from buying a pickup truck too?

In answers your question about what sells in a marketplace.

Honest question. Are you capable of anything beside total right wing
extremist thinking?

On 11/26/2012 1:07 PM, George wrote:
On 11/26/2012 11:43 AM, wrote:
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.


Don't know about that but I do recognize someone who with fit right in
with the other 10 year olds on the schoolyard...


Not you. Most 10 year-olds can write a comprehensible sentence.

On Nov 26, 2:09*pm, George wrote:
On 11/26/2012 11:32 AM, wrote:



On Nov 26, 9:53 am, George wrote:
On 11/25/2012 11:09 AM, wrote:

On Nov 25, 11:00 am, Harry K wrote:
On Nov 24, 7:32 am, mike wrote:

On 11/24/2012 7:18 AM, dpb wrote:

On 11/24/2012 8:46 AM, wrote:
On Nov 24, 9:33 am, Home wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
"Replacing an aging furnace could cost homeowners thousands of
dollars more after May 1, when new federal energy efficiency
standards take effect for northern states, including New Jersey..

Because the sale of single-stage (regular efficiency) furnaces will be
prohibited - right?

The new energy-efficient natural gas furnaces aren t that much
more expensive themselves,

Really?

Yes, really. Unless you think $200 or $300 more for a
gas furnace that is 93% efficient instead of 80% is a lot
of money.
...

Well, that's not the difference that is significant--80% requires forced
draft as well. It's the difference between them and natural draft that's
the biggie.

Old natural draft had up to about 78% efficiency ratings but beyond that
the condensation problem is insoluble w/o forced draft...most old
furnaces were perhaps 65% or so if towards mid-later years and probably
closer to 50% if early...

While _a_good_thing_ (tm) overall to improve efficiency, I'm still of
the opinion that the market should control rather than mandates.

--

I'd agree in principle. *Problem is the short-sighted cheapskate attitude
that many of us have.
How many cars would have somog abatement if it was a luxury option?
Sometimes, you just gotta bite the bullet and force it.
If you don't like the way your leadership operates, elect new leadership.

Goods as durable as houses outlast the original cheapskate.

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?

But stuff like safety features and fuel economy are proven not to be big
selling points. Take a pickup truck frame and fluff it up with every
possible feature and a huge engine and it sells itself because of the
imagined status.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Which proves exactly what? * That you want to stop
people from buying a pickup truck too?

In answers your question about what sells in a marketplace.

Honest question. Are you capable of anything beside total right wing
extremist thinking?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't believe it's right wing extremist thinking to believe
that govt should not be passing more rules to regulate
non-existent problems and in the process creating a
bigger govt that's taking away more and more of our
freedoms. And I don't think it's extremist right wing
thinking to believe that people have enough sense to
figure out if an 80% or 90% furnace is right for them
and then make their own choice.
In other words, I don't have the condescending attitude
that I or govt knows what's best for everyone and the
gall to use govt to force them into it.

Is it right wing to point out that this is a non-problem?
That people are already moving to 90%+ furnaces when
it makes sense for them? That of 4 contractors, not
one even quoted me less than a 90% furnace two
years ago? That it's wrong to use the
heavy hand of govt to then force the small minority that
may have valid perfectly valid reasons for choosing
an 80% furnace to instead use a 90%?

Why can't libs just leave people free to choose?
Is that so right wing extreme?

Aparently, you and I must be right wing
extremists. At least, according to them.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

wrote in message
...

Why can't libs just leave people free to choose?
Is that so right wing extreme?

On 11/26/2012 11:15 AM, HeyBub wrote:
wrote:


I should have said "The higher the demand, the greater the supply
which will

drive down prices.

Still totally wrong. Especially with something like energy which has
limited supply and extracting more from the ground drives prices way
up.

Giggle.

From mid-2008 until the end of 2010, the price for natural gas has shrunk
from about $11.00/Mcf to $4.00 for the same amount.

Further, what make you, or anyone else, think there is a "limited supply" of
energy? As a practical matter, that is simply not true.

We have, just in the U.S., several hundred years of coal available and we're
discovering and mining natural gas faster than we use it. Heck, we're even
EXPORTING significant amounts of NG.



I think one of my brothers was involved with coal field and landfill gas
recovery. As long as we have landfills filled with garbage, I believe
we'll have a source of gas for heating homes and running power
plants. ^_^

TDD

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:21:55 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

We have, just in the U.S., several hundred years of coal available and we're
discovering and mining natural gas faster than we use it. Heck, we're even
EXPORTING significant amounts of NG.



I think one of my brothers was involved with coal field and landfill gas
recovery. As long as we have landfills filled with garbage, I believe
we'll have a source of gas for heating homes and running power
plants. ^_^

Have you watched "Bayou Billionaires" the Dowdens of Shreveport,
Louisiana?

"...The Dowdens purchased their 80 acres of land in 1997 for $160,000.
Today, they receive between $10,000 and $12,000 a month, per well.
They currently have four wells on their land, but soon they will put
in 20 -- with each well lasting 16-20 years. The family could
accumulate an estimated amount of $57.6 million."

"mailbox money"

http://www.andersoncooper.com/2012/01/17/bayou-billionaires-cmt-reality-tv-stars/

On 11/25/2012 2:40 PM, Normin wrote:

If your current yearly heating bill is $1000 and you have an 80%
efficient furnace,

$800 is used for heat and $200 is wasted out the exhaust.



With a 95% efficient furnace,

$800 is still used for heat but only $42 is wasted out the exhaust.


Your yearly heat bill drops to $842 yielding a $158 per year savings.

Over the next 15 years you'll save $2370 in fuel. If fuel prices go up,
you'll save even more.

Can you really afford an 80% efficient furnace?


you're installing it in a vacation house, that you use every summer, and
perhaps 2-3 weekends of the year in the winter time.

so you save $10 over the course of a year. still a good buy?

On Nov 26, 2:07*pm, George wrote:
On 11/26/2012 11:43 AM, wrote:



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.

Don't know about that but I do recognize someone who with fit right in
with the other 10 year olds on the schoolyard...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

See, here's the problem. You have no arguments on
the facts. You don't even know the facts. Yet you
want to tell the rest of us how to live. In fact, you're so
dumb that you gave your endorsement to the idea
that you can't afford not to get a new furnace if you can
save $2,300 in fuel cost over the next 15 years. Only
problem, which even a 10 year old could figure out,
is that the new furnace is gonna cost $4,000. And
that doesn't even factor in the time value of money,
a concept which I'm quite sure is beyone your grasp.
And I think a lot of folks here will tell you that the
life expectancy of a new furnace you buy today is
15 years or so. So, what you think is a swell idea,
is actually a losing proposition.

So, yeah, when I see someone dumb as a brick
endorsing forcing their ideas on the rest of us
through big govt, because they think we're the
dumb ones, I get annoyed.

On Nov 26, 5:17*pm, chaniarts wrote:
On 11/25/2012 2:40 PM, Normin wrote:







If your current yearly heating bill is $1000 and you have an 80%
efficient furnace,

$800 is used for heat and $200 is wasted out the exhaust.

With a 95% efficient furnace,

$800 is still used for heat but only $42 is wasted out the exhaust.

Your yearly heat bill drops to $842 yielding a $158 per year savings.

Over the next 15 years you'll save $2370 in fuel. *If fuel prices go up,
you'll save even more.

Can you really afford an 80% efficient furnace?

you're installing it in a vacation house, that you use every summer, and
perhaps 2-3 weekends of the year in the winter time.

so you save $10 over the course of a year. still a good buy?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's not even a good idea accepting the numbers as given.
The savings stated were $2300 over 15 years. That
new furnace is gonna cost $4,000 TODAY. A new furnace
today has a life expectancy of 15 years, maybe 20.
So, you'll likely never break even. And that doesn't
even factor in the time value of money.

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:19:30 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Nov 26, 2:09*pm, George wrote:
On 11/26/2012 11:32 AM, wrote:



On Nov 26, 9:53 am, George wrote:
On 11/25/2012 11:09 AM, wrote:

On Nov 25, 11:00 am, Harry K wrote:
On Nov 24, 7:32 am, mike wrote:

On 11/24/2012 7:18 AM, dpb wrote:

On 11/24/2012 8:46 AM, wrote:
On Nov 24, 9:33 am, Home wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
"Replacing an aging furnace could cost homeowners thousands of
dollars more after May 1, when new federal energy efficiency
standards take effect for northern states, including New Jersey.

Because the sale of single-stage (regular efficiency) furnaces will be
prohibited - right?

The new energy-efficient natural gas furnaces aren t that much
more expensive themselves,

Really?

Yes, really. Unless you think $200 or $300 more for a
gas furnace that is 93% efficient instead of 80% is a lot
of money.
...

Well, that's not the difference that is significant--80% requires forced
draft as well. It's the difference between them and natural draft that's
the biggie.

Old natural draft had up to about 78% efficiency ratings but beyond that
the condensation problem is insoluble w/o forced draft...most old
furnaces were perhaps 65% or so if towards mid-later years and probably
closer to 50% if early...

While _a_good_thing_ (tm) overall to improve efficiency, I'm still of
the opinion that the market should control rather than mandates.

--

I'd agree in principle. *Problem is the short-sighted cheapskate attitude
that many of us have.
How many cars would have somog abatement if it was a luxury option?
Sometimes, you just gotta bite the bullet and force it.
If you don't like the way your leadership operates, elect new leadership.

Goods as durable as houses outlast the original cheapskate.

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?

But stuff like safety features and fuel economy are proven not to be big
selling points. Take a pickup truck frame and fluff it up with every
possible feature and a huge engine and it sells itself because of the
imagined status.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Which proves exactly what? * That you want to stop
people from buying a pickup truck too?

In answers your question about what sells in a marketplace.

Honest question. Are you capable of anything beside total right wing
extremist thinking?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't believe it's right wing extremist thinking to believe
that govt should not be passing more rules to regulate
non-existent problems and in the process creating a
bigger govt that's taking away more and more of our
freedoms. And I don't think it's extremist right wing
thinking to believe that people have enough sense to
figure out if an 80% or 90% furnace is right for them
and then make their own choice.
In other words, I don't have the condescending attitude
that I or govt knows what's best for everyone and the
gall to use govt to force them into it.

Is it right wing to point out that this is a non-problem?
That people are already moving to 90%+ furnaces when
it makes sense for them? That of 4 contractors, not
one even quoted me less than a 90% furnace two
years ago? That it's wrong to use the
heavy hand of govt to then force the small minority that
may have valid perfectly valid reasons for choosing
an 80% furnace to instead use a 90%?

Why can't libs just leave people free to choose?
Is that so right wing extreme?

Because you don't get the fun of controlling people if you can't tell
them what to do with every minute of their life and every dollar of
what the government decides you can earn.

On 11/26/2012 5:17 PM, chaniarts wrote:
On 11/25/2012 2:40 PM, Normin wrote:

If your current yearly heating bill is $1000 and you have an 80%
efficient furnace,

$800 is used for heat and $200 is wasted out the exhaust.



With a 95% efficient furnace,

$800 is still used for heat but only $42 is wasted out the exhaust.


Your yearly heat bill drops to $842 yielding a $158 per year savings.

Over the next 15 years you'll save $2370 in fuel. If fuel prices go up,
you'll save even more.

Can you really afford an 80% efficient furnace?


you're installing it in a vacation house, that you use every summer, and
perhaps 2-3 weekends of the year in the winter time.

so you save $10 over the course of a year. still a good buy?

A basic 60,000 btu 80% efficiency gas furnace is about $650

A basic 60,000 btu 95% efficiency gas furnace is about $900

It's only $250 difference, you prolly drop that much on a night on the town.

Besides, if you can afford two houses, you must be a wealthy Romney
supporter. Obviously you can afford an energy efficient furnace for your
luxury vacation home. Stop crying.

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 05:29:20 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:



Â*Chimneys cool off fast in winter.
That's why there are few unlined chimneys left.
Talking about NG only. Â*Haven't had coal or oil in decades.
Condensation talk is to sell liners to those who don't have them,
or to now sell a hi-efficiency water heater with a dedicated vent.

You're obviously an idiot. Condensation is a real issue.

So is the hole in the ozone layer. And global warming.
As expected from you, you can't keep up. Water heater flues flow into
cold chimneys all winter. Sunny days can keep the furnace off for
hours. Chimney is cold. Water heater lights up.
Happens all the time, and has for ages.
Deny that all you want.
Most chimney flues are lined. Mine is lined with SS.
Also has a condensate drain.
That should be addressed when replacing/upgrading a furnace.
Had mine installed 17 years ago.
I call that "home maintenance." Wasn't required by code.
Chimneys are not collapsing all across the country from acid corrosion
or freeze/thaw spalling. A furnace and WH are independent actors.
Always have been.

There are codes that specify the size of a chimney for the
particular appliance. You can't just vent any size appliance
into any size chimney. There is a max size allowed.
It's like saying the issue of putting a 20 amp breaker
on 14 gauge wire is just to sell breakers.

No sense at all there. Chimneys don't work by electricity.
Codes were/are written for furnace/WH running, furnace only, WH only.
Remove furnace or WH from the stack, and the other works just fine.
An old house with chimney venting installed before codes, or adequate
codes, should face the local inspector.
Probable worst case is you have to install a liner, Because of draft,
not condensation. CO is the big issue with an over-sized chimney.
You're a cracker-barrel type guy, and a good target for salesmen.
That's okay. Takes ll kinds.

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:53:02 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

You're a cracker-barrel type guy, and a good target for salesmen.

What does that mean? Is it Chicago Liberal speak for I'm better than
you? You seem to put yourself above others and cannot except that " a
cracker-barrel type guy" is smart!

On 11/26/2012 5:48 PM, wrote:


It's not even a good idea accepting the numbers as given.
The savings stated were $2300 over 15 years. That
new furnace is gonna cost $4,000 TODAY. A new furnace
today has a life expectancy of 15 years, maybe 20.
So, you'll likely never break even. And that doesn't
even factor in the time value of money.


Sheeeesh! The comprehension skills of some people are extremely lacking.

Norman didn't suggest that you replace a working 80% efficiency furnace.

But if you have to replace your old furnace, it only makes
economic sense to replace it with a 95% model.

For example, here's a 80% model for $662
http://www.acwholesalers.com/Goodman...er-p/11128.htm

and a 95% model for $872
http://www.acwholesalers.com/Goodman...er-p/19111.htm

Get it yet?

On Nov 26, 5:53*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 05:29:20 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:

*Chimneys cool off fast in winter.
That's why there are few unlined chimneys left.
Talking about NG only. *Haven't had coal or oil in decades.
Condensation talk is to sell liners to those who don't have them,
or to now sell a hi-efficiency water heater with a dedicated vent.

You're obviously an idiot. *Condensation is a real issue.

So is the hole in the ozone layer. *And global warming.
As expected from you, you can't keep up. *Water heater flues flow into
cold chimneys all winter. *Sunny days can keep the furnace off for
hours. *Chimney is cold. *Water heater lights up.

If it's that sunny and mild in winter so that the furnace stays
off for hours, then the chimney is also not that
cold, hence any condensation will be minimal.
Now look at the real problem. The days and nights
when it's 20 or 10F. You have a chimney that was sized
for a big old honking furnace and water heater.
Now all that goes up it is the water heater, once in
a while. Result: Condensation. In fact, all the water
is condensing inside the chimney. If it's a masonry
chimney, the acid in that water will destroy it over
time



Happens all the time, and has for ages.
Deny that all you want.
Most chimney flues are lined. *Mine is lined with SS.

Most flues are not lined. The orphaned water heater
problem is specific to masonry chimneys. The solution
is to line it.


Also has a condensate drain.
That should be addressed when replacing/upgrading a furnace.
Had mine installed 17 years ago.

What, your condensate drain?



I call that "home maintenance." *Wasn't required by code.

You wouldn't know what is or isn't required by code.
You think chimney sizing isn't covered by code. It
sure as hell is here, in NJ and other states that follow
the national fuel gas code.


Chimneys are not collapsing all across the country from acid corrosion
or freeze/thaw spalling. *A furnace and WH are independent actors.
Always have been.

According to you and your flapping gums. Here are just a
few of the many credible sources that say you're wrong:

This one is from govt, so being a lib that love govt, you
should like it:

http://mn.gov/commerce/energy/images...terHeaters.pdf

Beware the “Orphaned”
Water Heater
In the past, older furnaces, boilers, and water heaters would
frequently
share the same chimney to exhaust flue gasses. Today’s high-efficiency
boilers and furnaces bypass the old chimney and are vented through
separate PVC piping.
If the old “atmospherically-vented” gas water heater is not replaced
with a
high-efficiency “direct-vented” unit when the furnace/boiler is
upgraded,
the water heater venting can become “orphaned” and lead to a
potentially
dangerous carbon monoxide hazard. Under some circumstances, the
old chimney may not adequately exhaust the water heater’s combustion
products, resulting in spillage back into the home.


Here's one from a home inspection website:

http://www.totalhomeinspection.com/hints_chimneys.shtml

Chimneys - When a Flue is Too Big

Most older homes, especially in the Northeast, use masonry chimneys to
vent their combustion appliances. During the past ten years, many old
furnaces and boilers have been gradually replaced with higher-
efficiency models that use PVC sidewall vents. When an older furnace
is disconnected from a masonry chimney, it may leave behind a so-
called "orphaned" water heater, attached to a flue that is now
oversized.

However, when it comes to sizing a flue, bigger isn't always better.
Oversized flues can contribute to at least three problems: poor draft,
chimney corrosion, and freeze/thaw damage to the chimney.


Here's one from Cornell. You libs like govt and academia,
right?

http://www.human.cornell.edu/dea/out...ge-8-2012..pdf

What is an orphaned water heater and what can be done to avoid
problems
associated with an orphaned water heater?

A: “Orphaned” water heater is a term used to describe a storage tank
style residential
domestic hot water heater that gets left alone as the only combustion
appliance vented to
a chimney after a furnace or boiler is removed. This usually happens
when an older
furnace or boiler is replaced by a new and much more efficient model.
These newer
heating systems capture more heat from the combustion process than
older systems. The
result is that the temperature of the flue gasses in newer systems is
much lower compared
to older, less efficient systems. Since the temperatures of the flue
gasses are cooler, it
makes it possible to vent them directly to the outdoors via a plastic
pipe. A fan, built into
the furnace or boiler is used to blow combustion gasses through the
vent pipe directly to
the outdoors.
5 Revised 2012-07
To understand how orphaned water heaters can create problems, it is
useful to first think
about how a chimney works. A chimney is basically a hollow vertical
column with an
opening at the top that is exposed to the outdoors. The chimney also
has an opening near
the bottom that is typically accessed through the basement wall of the
house. Exhaust
gasses from combustion appliances are directed to this hole near the
bottom of the
chimney via a metal duct called a flue. Combustion appliances that are
relatively
inefficient loose lots of heat to the exhaust gasses. It is the heat
contained within the
combustion gasses that create the natural forces-hot air rises- that
draws exhaust gasses
up and out of the chimney. If the combustion gasses being directed to
the chimney by a
combustion appliance are not hot enough, or do not create a sufficient
volume of hot air
to initiate the draft of the gasses up the chimney, then the
combustion gasses spill back
into the home. Combustion gasses contain many harmful chemicals,
including lethal
carbon monoxide, so spillage of those gasses into a home can be very
dangerous. And
exhaust gasses from natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas (propane)
appliances are
virtually odorless and invisible. This means if spillage is occurring
regularly in homes
with orphaned gas water heaters, occupants are usually not aware of
the problem until
they begin experiencing negative health effects.
Spillage is not the only problem that can occur. Since combustion
gasses contain
significant amounts of water vapor, there is now a risk of
condensation forming within
the chimney. For example, on a cold winter day, the walls of the
chimney may be cold
enough so that the water vapor contained within the combustion gasses
will condense.
When this occurs over time, the acidic condensate can destroy the
chimney.



As to chimneys not collapsing, here's some photos of
some that have substantial condensation damage:

http://activerain.com/blogsview/3392...ce-on-chimneys

http://www.brothers-masonry-restorat...otogalary.html

http://localism.com/blog/ny/posts/30...E-OF-THE-MONTH




There are codes that specify the size of a chimney for the
particular appliance. *You can't just vent any size appliance
into any size chimney. * There is a max size allowed.
It's like saying the issue of putting a 20 amp breaker
on 14 gauge wire is just to sell breakers.

No sense at all there. *Chimneys don't work by electricity.
Codes were/are written for furnace/WH running, furnace only, WH only.
Remove furnace or WH from the stack, and the other works just fine.

Yeah, there is no sense there, because you're flat out
wrong. The national fuel gas codes specify permitted
chimney sizing relative to the size of the appliances
connected.




An old house with chimney venting installed before codes, or adequate
codes, should face the local inspector.

Oh, really? Adequate codes according to whom, you?
Around here, NJ, you need a permit and inspection to
replace a furnace period. I would think that would be the
case in many other jurisdictions as well.



Probable worst case is you have to install a liner, *Because of draft,
not condensation.

Well, you're starting to learn. But why would that be?
You just told us two paragraphs ago that chimney size
doesn't matter. Now, suddenly it does.



CO is the big issue with an over-sized chimney.
You're a cracker-barrel type guy, and a good target for salesmen.
That's okay. *Takes ll kinds.

And you're an imbecile. Now go and google "orphaned
water heater" You might learn something instead of
continuing to make an ass of yourself.

In article , z wrote:

Why can't libs just leave people free to choose?
Is that so right wing extreme?

because one Cuyahoga River on fire was one too many?

On 11/26/2012 3:50 PM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:21:55 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

We have, just in the U.S., several hundred years of coal available and we're
discovering and mining natural gas faster than we use it. Heck, we're even
EXPORTING significant amounts of NG.



I think one of my brothers was involved with coal field and landfill gas
recovery. As long as we have landfills filled with garbage, I believe
we'll have a source of gas for heating homes and running power
plants. ^_^

Have you watched "Bayou Billionaires" the Dowdens of Shreveport,
Louisiana?

"...The Dowdens purchased their 80 acres of land in 1997 for $160,000.
Today, they receive between $10,000 and $12,000 a month, per well.
They currently have four wells on their land, but soon they will put
in 20 -- with each well lasting 16-20 years. The family could
accumulate an estimated amount of $57.6 million."

"mailbox money"

http://www.andersoncooper.com/2012/01/17/bayou-billionaires-cmt-reality-tv-stars/


One smart thing my late father did when he bought the family farm on top
of the mountain was to also purchase the mineral rights. There is
a lot of coal in them hills and he didn't want to see a strip mine
suddenly appear. I can see the jealousy of the P.L.L.C.F. who will
demand their fair share of The Dowdens' oil because it's the blood of
Mother Earth and belongs to everyone. ^_^

TDD

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:22:35 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:53:02 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

You're a cracker-barrel type guy, and a good target for salesmen.

What does that mean? Is it Chicago Liberal speak for I'm better than
you? You seem to put yourself above others and cannot except that " a
cracker-barrel type guy" is smart!

Too bad trader ain't one of them.
Hey, I don't like who I don't like. Get used it or kill-file me.
Or whatever you choose.
You can go ahead and find him useful if you like.
What's with the "liberal" stuff?
"Cracker" got your knees jerking again?

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:31:42 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:



And you're an imbecile. Now go and google "orphaned
water heater" You might learn something instead of
continuing to make an ass of yourself.

Only part worth leaving in, since it exemplifies your approach to
"reason."
Of course I googled it and know about the "7 times" rule and all.
So what?
Doesn't mean you aren't an asshole, does it?

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 18:30:10 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

"Cracker" got your knees jerking again?

Not at all. Just that people like you call people a cracker, not even
knowing what it means.

Shame on you.

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:38:03 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 18:30:10 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

"Cracker" got your knees jerking again?

Not at all. Just that people like you call people a cracker, not even
knowing what it means.

Shame on you.

"People like me?" Well, hell, ain't you special!
And shaming me! Oh, mama!
BTW, cracker and cracker-barrel aren't related.

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 18:48:04 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:38:03 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 18:30:10 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

"Cracker" got your knees jerking again?

Not at all. Just that people like you call people a cracker, not even
knowing what it means.

Shame on you.

"People like me?" Well, hell, ain't you special!
And shaming me! Oh, mama!
BTW, cracker and cracker-barrel aren't related.

Is your knee jerking?

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 18:30:54 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:31:42 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:



And you're an imbecile. Now go and google "orphaned
water heater" You might learn something instead of
continuing to make an ass of yourself.

Only part worth leaving in, since it exemplifies your approach to
"reason."
Of course I googled it and know about the "7 times" rule and all.
So what?
Doesn't mean you aren't an asshole, does it?

You sniped all of the logic and leave the conclusion. Then complain
that he's calling you names. You really are a moron.

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 20:20:51 -0500, z wrote:

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 18:30:54 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:31:42 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:



And you're an imbecile. Now go and google "orphaned
water heater" You might learn something instead of
continuing to make an ass of yourself.

Only part worth leaving in, since it exemplifies your approach to
"reason."
Of course I googled it and know about the "7 times" rule and all.
So what?
Doesn't mean you aren't an asshole, does it?

You sniped all of the logic and leave the conclusion. Then complain
that he's calling you names. You really are a moron.

There was no logic after I stopped mentioning that furnace and water
heater are independent on the same stack.
Just repetition of name-calling and endless cut and paste.
BTW, your "logic" doesn't get many raves around here either.
Geez, we just had an exchange about cell phones or something, and you
were civil.
But I'm not talking about cell phones now.
So **** you.

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 05:03:37 -0800 (PST), "
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.

Sure, I can see it, mine is down 39%. But the problem is, people
don't "see" it until the job is done and money spent. They see fancy
doo-dads and that is what they are easily sold. There are many ways
of constructing a house that is greatly more energy efficient, yet
most are build the same way they have been for 200+ years. Would you
build with SIPS or ICF's? How many houses built that way are you
aware of? Many builders are unaware of them, consumers even less so.

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 19:35:04 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 20:20:51 -0500, z wrote:

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 18:30:54 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:31:42 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:



And you're an imbecile. Now go and google "orphaned
water heater" You might learn something instead of
continuing to make an ass of yourself.

Only part worth leaving in, since it exemplifies your approach to
"reason."
Of course I googled it and know about the "7 times" rule and all.
So what?
Doesn't mean you aren't an asshole, does it?

You sniped all of the logic and leave the conclusion. Then complain
that he's calling you names. You really are a moron.

There was no logic after I stopped mentioning that furnace and water
heater are independent on the same stack.

No surprise that you didn't recognize it..

Just repetition of name-calling and endless cut and paste.
BTW, your "logic" doesn't get many raves around here either.

There is no surprise that you'd come to that conclusion either. You
are one dumb ****.

Geez, we just had an exchange about cell phones or something, and you
were civil.
But I'm not talking about cell phones now.
So **** you.

Your most intelligent and mature response one the NG yet.

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 22:57:13 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 05:03:37 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Nov 25, 1:05Â*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. Â*The marketplace needs innovation that can be
seen. Â*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.

Sure, I can see it, mine is down 39%. But the problem is, people
don't "see" it until the job is done and money spent. They see fancy
doo-dads and that is what they are easily sold. There are many ways
of constructing a house that is greatly more energy efficient, yet
most are build the same way they have been for 200+ years. Would you
build with SIPS or ICF's? How many houses built that way are you
aware of? Many builders are unaware of them, consumers even less so.
A friend locally built a house with sips - that he designed and
built. Had one heck of a time getting the building department to OK
his plans till he drove his truck up one of the walls as a ramp to
demonstrate the strength of the panel.. This was 20 some years ago.

In article ,
"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote:

In article , z wrote:

Why can't libs just leave people free to choose?
Is that so right wing extreme?

because one Cuyahoga River on fire was one too many?

FInd it somewhat telling that you have to go all the way back to '69 for
your example.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On Nov 26, 7:53*pm, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 18:48:04 -0600, Vic Smith





wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:38:03 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 18:30:10 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

"Cracker" got your knees jerking again?

Not at all. Just that people like you call people a cracker, not even
knowing what it means.

Shame on you.

"People like me?" *Well, hell, ain't you special!
And shaming me! *Oh, mama!
BTW, cracker and cracker-barrel aren't related.

Is your knee jerking?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It would seem to me that when lib Congressmen claim that
calling Susan Rice incompetent is racist, that using the
"cracker-barrel" term is fair game for racism too. Of course
libs have some mighty strange rules.....

On Nov 26, 8:35*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 20:20:51 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 18:30:54 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:31:42 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

And you're an imbecile. *Now go and google "orphaned
water heater" *You might learn something instead of
continuing to make an ass of yourself.

Only part worth leaving in, since it exemplifies your approach to
"reason."
Of course I googled it and know about the "7 times" rule and all.
So what?
Doesn't mean you aren't an asshole, does it?

You sniped all of the logic and leave the conclusion. *Then complain
that he's calling you names. *You really are a moron.

There was no logic after I stopped mentioning that furnace and water
heater are independent on the same stack.

No logic? I gave you references from:

State Govt
Cornell University
Home Inspection Website

All of them address the issue of orphaned chimneys. And
all say you are dead wrong. It really isn't a hard concept to
grasp. A chimney that is too large for the appliance it
serves will have slow moving combustion gases passing
through it. In winter, in cold climates, the water in those
gases condenses. Natural gas produces acidic condensate
which, over time, will cause the mortar in chimneys to
fail. If this condensate is not acidic and capable of damage,
why do some jurisdictions require neutralizers on
condensate drains from natural gas furnaces? If it's
potentially bad for a drain system, why is it OK to put
it into a masonry chimney? When the chimney had both
a furnace and a water heater, it was kept warm enough
by the furnace in the cold of winter so that the gases of
both the furnace and the water heater could not condense.

I also showed you photos of chimneys with damage from
that problem. You claimed that no such problem exists and
that no chimneys have been damaged by it. And I pointed
out that the National Fuel Gas Code specifies the min
and max chimney sizes permitted for given appliances
connected to that chimney. You told us it didn't matter.
Until you told us it did matter, but only because of
drafting. Truth is both issues are factors.

BTW, where are YOUR references, that say the orphaned
chimney problem does not exist?



Just repetition of name-calling and endless cut and paste.

No, the only name calling was at the very end. And as per
k, it was the conclusion after all the evidence was given.

Soon condensing water heaters will be required too. and absolutely
required when a furnace is replaced......... ending the orphaned flue
issue.

this might be a good thing have you ever considered how much heated
building air must exhaust ot chimney flues each year.........

bob haller wrote:

Soon condensing water heaters will be required too. and absolutely
required when a furnace is replaced......... ending the orphaned flue
issue.

this might be a good thing have you ever considered how much heated
building air must exhaust ot chimney flues each year.........

I am all for such regulation applying to new builds - the

1) Developers are usually cheapskates and need to be forced - it's not them
paying the subsequent heating bills;

2) It's a very tiny relative incremental cost at design/build time.

Same with having good insulation (particularly in colder parts).


I, speaking from a Brit perspective, where we've had this condensing boiler
requirement since 2005, am against forcing replacements to be upto new build
specifications. There, it should be down to the home owner being able to
make an informed choice.


--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://www.dionic.net/tim/

"She got her looks from her father. He's a plastic surgeon."

In article ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote:

In article , z
wrote:

Why can't libs just leave people free to choose?
Is that so right wing extreme?

because one Cuyahoga River on fire was one too many?

FInd it somewhat telling that you have to go all the way back to '69 for
your example.

what's wrong with 1969? does that make the river catching on fire any less
significant that say the BP oil fiasco in the Gulf or the recent compounding
pharmacy cock-up? or should we just ignore the drugs removed from market like
thalidomide, troglitazone, alosetron, cisapride, amineptine,
phenylpropanolamine, tovafloxacin, avandia and lots more? of course there's
always Love Canal.

then there's always that lead that finds its way into food imports from China or
the great Drywall disaster.

wrote in message ...
On Nov 25, 1:07 pm, "spud42" wrote:
wrote in ...
I never said it was. And venting it out a side wall is the
most used option. But I was responding to those who implied
that the existing chimney is a viable alternative for routing the
PVC pipes. From all that I see and know, it's typically not an
option at all.....

There is significant variation between manufacturers and even models
But 3 elbows and Something like 65' or so. 8 elbows may only get you down to 40" not 35
The install manuals I've read cover using existing unused chimney as a option

As far as supports I don't know but typically support requirements for
almost everything are very relaxed when running say through a small chase.
Go take a look at the install manual for a typical gas furnace.
It's very specific, requires the PVC pipes to be supported every
4 ft. No exceptions for a 30 ft run up a chimney. Have you ever
seen a PVC pipe run of any kind the length
of an entire chimney that isn't supported every few feet along
it's run? One that passed a plumbing inspection that is?

it very well specific as in Horizontal runs of vent/flue piping must be supported
also
"The vent can also be run through an existing unused chimney; however,
it must extend a minimum of 12 inches above the top of the
chimney. The space between the vent pipe and the chimney must
be closed with a weather-tight, corrosion-resistant flashing"
Not the best choice But yes it can be done but it's a lot trickier to get right

Link for where that came from?

http://www.goodmanmfg.com/Portals/0/...Os/IO-GKS9.pdf