On Nov 27, 6:57*pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" atlas-
wrote:
In article ,
*Kurt Ullman wrote:

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

In article ,
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?

Both BP and the compounding pharmacy in MA were
under the regulation and inspection of govt. The federal
govt in the case of BP and both the fed and state govts
in the case of the pharmacy. So, clearly significant events
still apparently occur with or without govt regulation.
And no one died in the river fire.....

On Nov 28, 4:15*am, "spud42" wrote:
wrote in ...

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/...s/IO-GKS9.pdf- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thanks for the info. Goodman is a lot more lenient in their
reqts than Rheem. The Rheem manual I have limits vent pipe
runs to probably half of what Goodman allows. And there is
no mention by Rheem of using an existing unused chimney.
I still wonder what an inspector would say about such a long run of
unsupported PVC vertical pipe. I guess if you properly secure
it at the top and bottom, it would be OK. The biggest
road block is probably a remaining gas water heater that could
be venting through the same chimney. I guess you could
potentially replace that with a power vent type and if the run
is within limits and it will all fit, use the chimney to run that too.
There is also the issue that for the allowed run lengths, you'd
have to stay at or below 70,000 btu to use 2" PVC. Above
that you'd have to use 3" to make it to chimney length. And
getting two of those in there could be a challenge in some
cases.

On 11/26/2012 5:45 PM, wrote:
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.

I fully understand you have a filter which only allows you to consider
one point of view and everyone else is stupid. I still don't get what
you hope to accomplish by behaving like a 10 year old with the name calling.

On 11/26/2012 10:57 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
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.


A friend had their new house built with ICFs maybe 5 years ago. I went
there to see them do it. You feel like you are in a bank vault and their
energy use is really low. A family member who is a contractor has had
poor results selling the idea. As you noted customers go for the "shiny
stuff".

On Nov 28, 11:26*am, George wrote:
On 11/26/2012 5:45 PM, wrote:



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.

I fully understand you have a filter which only allows you to consider
one point of view and everyone else is stupid. I still don't get what
you hope to accomplish by behaving like a 10 year old with the name calling.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Excuse me, name calling? What name exactly did I
call you? YOU on the other hand just called me a
ten year old and accused me of extreme right wing
thinking, just because I think citizens are smart enough
and should have the freedom to choose the furnace
they want without govt forcing it on them. Yet YOU
accuse me of considering others
stupid? You are one of the folks here claiming people
are too stupid to choose a furnace that makes economic
sense for them and they need guys like you to do it
for them.

In fact, all you appear capable of are
general vague accusations, which is all you're left with
since you have no refutation of the facts that I have
given you repeatedly.

On 11/26/2012 6:35 PM, 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?

But you just don't understand. The extremists think that somehow for
some unknown reason the "free market" folks are above the centuries of
examples of bad human behavior and will never do anything dishonest or
cheat for personal gain or as you noted pollute just because it helps
the bottom line.

On 11/27/2012 6:32 AM, 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.


Weren't a number of regulations passed after we learned what the result
was of letting the "free market" work out dumping whatever they wanted
wherever they wanted it? Should we remove those "burdens"? Polluted
wells and water supplies and high incidences of cancer really aren't a
big deal.

On 11/28/2012 9:33 AM, wrote:
On Nov 27, 6:57 pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" atlas-
wrote:
In article ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

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

In article ,
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?

Both BP and the compounding pharmacy in MA were
under the regulation and inspection of govt. The federal
govt in the case of BP and both the fed and state govts
in the case of the pharmacy. So, clearly significant events
still apparently occur with or without govt regulation.
And no one died in the river fire.....



Nothing is perfect. Our current system evolved because even though you
will find it hard to believe we know that there are amoral people who
will do anything for a buck.

So we try to strike a balance and have a reasonable amount of
regulation. No system is perfect. Mt niece is a pharmacist and I asked
her about that compounding pharmacy and she said they had gone beyond
the scope of their license. Clearly we can't station an inspector
everywhere but it is silly to infer that all regulation is ineffective.
Human nature is not this simple thing with no shades as you imagine.

If you want to change it why not get the other few percent of the
population that believe all people in business are totally honest and
absolutely no regulation is required and get out and vote?

On Nov 28, 11:45*am, George wrote:
On 11/26/2012 6:35 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote: In article , 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?

But you just don't understand. The extremists think that somehow for
some unknown reason the "free market" folks are above the centuries of
examples of bad human behavior and will never do anything dishonest or
cheat for personal gain or as you noted pollute just because it helps
the bottom line.

But you just don't understand. Somehow the libs think
that just one more law, one more regulation, one more
govt agency, is the solution to anything and everything
that isn't right in the world. The fact that despite all
the regulations and regulators we have we still have
BP, the housing bubble, the pharmacy problem, etc
suggests it isn't that simple.

And you want to extend that heavy hand of regulation to
a guy who has the freedom to choose between a 80%
and a 90% furnace. A non-existent problem, because
the vast majority of the market for furnace replacement
is already choosing 90%+ where it makes economic
sense for them. I'll say it again. When I went out for
quotes 2 years ago, not a single vendor mentioned or
quoted less than a 90% furnace. And I'm in NJ, not MN.

Do you believe the EPA lie that eliminating furnace choices
less than 90% for new installations in northern climates is going to
save 20% of total energy usage? Conservatives see this crap and
know that it's pretty much a non-problem. But it does
create more federal employees coming up with dumb
ideas and enforcing them. And when they are done with
your furnace, they don't go away. They hire even more
employees and find the next thing to regulate that doesn't
need regulating.

In article ,
" wrote:

But you just don't understand. Somehow the libs think
that just one more law, one more regulation, one more
govt agency, is the solution to anything and everything
that isn't right in the world. The fact that despite all
the regulations and regulators we have we still have
BP, the housing bubble, the pharmacy problem, etc
suggests it isn't that simple.

and the conservative answer to this is to have less regulation which will make
all the BP problems magically go away, somehow incentivize bankers, mortgage
brokers and real estate agents to somehow suddenly tell people the truth about
the house they want to invest in and that pharmaceutical companies will never,
ever rush to put a miracle drug on the market or never human test it on third
world citizens who have no idea what they are agreeing to (if they are even
given the choice)

it's worked so well in the past, hasn't it?

In article ,
" 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?

Both BP and the compounding pharmacy in MA were
under the regulation and inspection of govt.

by agencies hamstrung by budget cuts.


The federal
govt in the case of BP and both the fed and state govts
in the case of the pharmacy. So, clearly significant events
still apparently occur with or without govt regulation.

the bp significant events occurred not by accident but by the
insistence/necessity to make the well produce as quickly as possible (which is a
good thing) by overlooking/ignoring some safety protocols (which is a bad thing)


And no one died in the river fire.....

1) no direct deaths
2) do you think all the crap being dumped in the river had no negative
environmental/health impacts?

3) find it telling that you ignore the deaths on the BP platform
4) find it telling that you ignore the environmental impacts of the BP oil spill
5) find it telling that you ignore the financial impacts on both the river fire
and the oil spill

On 11/28/2012 12:32 PM, wrote:

And you want to extend that heavy hand of regulation to
a guy who has the freedom to choose between a 80%
and a 90% furnace. A non-existent problem, because
the vast majority of the market for furnace replacement
is already choosing 90%+ where it makes economic
sense for them.

Some people are too stupid to make intelligent choices and need to be
enlightened. Take incandescent lighting, for example. We had to ban the
manufacture of the 100watt energy hogs so that people would be forced to
make more efficient lighting choices. Thankfully today, we are all
better off because of a forward-thinking government.

I am old enough 55 to remember the time before safety belts, padded
dashboards, air bags, automatic shut down vehicles when in accident,
crushable cars to protect the occupants, when my impala averaged 13
MPG tuned up..... 9 or 10 mpg if it needed tuned

certinally all the laws that required these changes cost $$ and didnt
allow a opt out. but arent we all better for them?

I love the laws banning smoking in near every public place, because I
HATE THE STINK, and feel anyone smoking in a vehicle with kids should
be charged with child abuse because thats what it is!.....

do note I know a couple that both have lung cancer their 16 year old
is going to watch both mom and dad die from smoking. i think the
tobacco companies should have to ay the health care costs for its
victims........

On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:33:24 -0500, George
wrote:

On 11/26/2012 10:57 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
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.


A friend had their new house built with ICFs maybe 5 years ago. I went
there to see them do it. You feel like you are in a bank vault and their
energy use is really low. A family member who is a contractor has had
poor results selling the idea. As you noted customers go for the "shiny
stuff".
There is a large number of multi-unit residential buildings being
built using ICF in Waterloo Region (ontario) as well as some
commercial and numerous high end single family dwellings.

On Saturday, November 24, 2012 8:02:06 AM UTC-5, 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. The new energy-efficient natural gas

furnaces aren�t that much more expensive themselves, but they must be vented

directly to an outside wall rather than through the chimney, which can

increase installation costs dramatically ..."



Similar rules will latch in for A/C in the southern climates.



http://www.northjersey.com/news/berg....html?page=all



But, but, but ... it's for the CHILDREN !

Im the owner of New England Heating and Cooling. My name is robert, and
my website address is http://www.newenglandheatingandcooling.com i've been in this bussiness for 20 years and i must disagree about cost on new 95% vs 80% AFUE furnace. First of all 95 and 96 % are very different from one another in cost and function. A 80% furnace with an output of 80,000 btu's will cost around 850$ and is around 600-800 to install. a 95 is a single stage furnace with an ecm motor in the blower section. This ECM motor is a huge cost upgrade and the control board to run it is also very costly. these motors start quiet and run on d.c. voltage and can cost up to 600$ alone. this 95% afue furnace is between 1200 and 1400. the 96 is a fully modulating burner furnace and an ECM motor combined. this furnace can run 1700-2500 depending on size and model#. it also requires a communicating thermostat that will run 150$ and the pvc venting associated with all 90+ units. after labor a 96% AFUE furnace can run 4000 if you have an inspection from the town. Your local inspectional services requires an electrician to installb a hard wired CO detector and the line voltage, a plumber for the gas line, and an hvac sheet metal mechanic to pull a mechanical permit for the ductwork. dont forget a condensate pump and a way to (legaly) discharge the condensate into the homes plumbing (it cant go outside due to the unit running in the winter and it could freeze, and some towns require an acid neutrilizer to be compliant with code. This is not a small job as it was so easily satted in the last post. as a matter of fact, venting is a small part of the increased cost of the higher efficiency furnaces mandated by the end of the year.. if anyone has any questions about this issue feel free to call us at 781-535-2045 and we will try to help. Robert

On Nov 29, 12:41*am, wrote:
On Saturday, November 24, 2012 8:02:06 AM UTC-5, 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. The new energy-efficient natural gas

furnaces aren t that much more expensive themselves, but they must be vented

directly to an outside wall rather than through the chimney, which can

increase installation costs dramatically ..."

Similar rules will latch in for A/C in the southern climates.

http://www.northjersey.com/news/berg...may_make_repla...

But, but, but ... it's for the CHILDREN !

Im the owner of New England Heating and Cooling. My name is robert, and
my website address is *http://www.newenglandheatingandcooling.comi've been in this bussiness for 20 years and i must disagree about cost on new 95% vs 80% AFUE furnace.

As stated in the article, the new EPA regulation makes 90%+
the new minimum available in the northern states. So, the correct
comparison isn't between 80% and 95%, it's between 80% and
90%.


First of all 95 and 96 % are very different from one another in cost
and function. A 80% furnace with an output of 80,000 btu's will cost
around 850$ and is around 600-800 to install. a 95 is a single stage
furnace with an ecm motor in the blower section.


It's not true that 90% or even 95% means the furnace must have an ECM
blower.
90%+ furnaces are available with conventional PSC type motors as
well.




This ECM motor is a huge cost upgrade and the control board to run it
is also very costly. these motors start quiet and run on d.c. voltage
and can cost up to 600$ alone.

Yes, for a replacement part, probably true, because like any
appliance, the manufacturer can get away with it. But clearly
as part of a new furnace, the cost differential is maybe a couple
hundred bucks. If I break a shelf in my fridge, it's gonna cost
$75 too, but the cost for that shelf in the new appliance is
probably $7.50. It is a fair issue that if it blows up, the
repair cost could be substantially higher than a PSC motor and
folks should factor that in, when deciding if they want an
ECM motor. But this is a side issue, not directly relevant
to the 90% reqpt because there are 90% furnaces available
with PSC motors, just like the 80% ones, too.



this 95% afue furnace is between 1200 and 1400. the 96 is a fully
modulating burner furnace and an ECM motor combined. this furnace can
run 1700-2500 depending on size and model#. it also requires a
communicating thermostat that will run 150$ and the pvc venting
associated with all 90+ units. after labor a 96% AFUE furnace can run
4000 if you have an inspection from the town. Your local inspectional
services requires an electrician to installb a hard wired CO detector
and the line voltage, a plumber for the gas line, and an hvac sheet
metal mechanic to pull a mechanical permit for the ductwork. dont
forget a condensate pump and a way to (legaly) discharge the
condensate into the homes plumbing (it cant go outside due to the unit
running in the winter and it could freeze, and some towns require an
acid neutrilizer to be compliant with code. This is not a small job as
it was so easily satted in the last post. as a matter of fact, venting
is a small part of the increased cost of the higher efficiency
furnaces mandated by the end of the year. if anyone has any questions
about this issue feel free to call us at 781-535-2045 and we will try
to help. Robert- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Again, you're comparing the wrong things. You're comparing a 95%
fully modulating, ECM blower furnace to a basic 80% model. The
new regulation only says the minimum furnace has to be 90%.
There are 90%+ furnaces available without all those extra
features and they only cost a couple hundred more than the
$800, 80% furnace.

Perhaps you could explain what you mean by:

"This is not a small job as it was so easily satted in the last post.
as a matter of fact, venting is a small part of the increased cost
of the higher efficiency furnaces mandated by the end of the year. "

If venting is a small part of the increased cost, then what
other work is there that makes it "not a small job" as compared
to an 80% furnace? Hauling it into the basement, gas work
electrical, connecting to ducts, etc are the same. With the
condensing furnace you do need to add a condensate pump,
but that isn't a big deal either. I see the direct venting,
particularly in some worse case scenarios, as being the
biggest issue. And also, I thought the new rule goes into
effect in May, not the end of the year?