On 1/27/15 6:15 PM, philo wrote:
I just had my new one put in yesterday and it is 96% efficient
I expect that compared to the 80% furnace it replaced and the high
Wisconsin heating bills it should pay for itself in well under 10 years.

If you don't mind, which brand did you buy, and what was the approximate
installation cost?

I've got a 1988 Burnham gas furnace in my 1911-vintage and very leaky
1400 sq.ft. house. Last month's bill indicated 224x100 cubic feet of
consumption.

It's still running fine, but wondering if a more efficient furnace would
make much of a difference.

CRNG wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 18:07:27 -0500, Curmudgeon
wrote in
om

FWIW, don't count on saving any money over the life of the furnace though. High-efficiency furnaces break down a lot as they age.
Any fuel savings you accrue today will be eaten up with expensive repairs after the furnace is 10 years old or so.

+1

Hi,
My furnace came with 10 year P&L warranty plus heat exchanger is on life
time warranty.

On 01/28/2015 12:59 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:
CRNG wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 18:07:27 -0500, Curmudgeon
wrote in
om

FWIW, don't count on saving any money over the life of the furnace
though. High-efficiency furnaces break down a lot as they age.
Any fuel savings you accrue today will be eaten up with expensive
repairs after the furnace is 10 years old or so.

+1

Hi,
My furnace came with 10 year P&L warranty plus heat exchanger is on life
time warranty.

I'm also in the camp of I'd have to see actual data that shows a
negative rate of return over a longer period to believe it true as a
general statement.

--

On 1/28/2015 2:03 PM, dpb wrote:
On 01/28/2015 12:59 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:
CRNG wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 18:07:27 -0500, Curmudgeon
wrote in
om

FWIW, don't count on saving any money over the life of the furnace
though. High-efficiency furnaces break down a lot as they age.
Any fuel savings you accrue today will be eaten up with expensive
repairs after the furnace is 10 years old or so.

+1

Hi,
My furnace came with 10 year P&L warranty plus heat exchanger is on life
time warranty.

I'm also in the camp of I'd have to see actual data that shows a
negative rate of return over a longer period to believe it true as a
general statement.

My 16 year old furnace gets an annual cleaning and inspection as part of
an annual maintenance agreement, for less that $250 a year, that has
saved me many dollars on several occasions when parts went sideways.

--
Froz...


The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.

On 1/28/2015 1:40 PM, John Albert wrote:


I've got a 1988 Burnham gas furnace in my 1911-vintage and very leaky
1400 sq.ft. house. Last month's bill indicated 224x100 cubic feet of
consumption.

It's still running fine, but wondering if a more efficient furnace would
make much of a difference.

A 1998 furnace is probably not more than 85% or so but I'd have it
checked to be sure.

You may get a better return stopping some of the leaks though. It can
get expensive replacing doors and windows, but covering existing
windows, insulating, and spray foam have a quick payback.

On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 2:06:25 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 1/28/2015 1:40 PM, John Albert wrote:


I've got a 1988 Burnham gas furnace in my 1911-vintage and very leaky
1400 sq.ft. house. Last month's bill indicated 224x100 cubic feet of
consumption.

It's still running fine, but wondering if a more efficient furnace would
make much of a difference.

A 1998 furnace is probably not more than 85% or so but I'd have it
checked to be sure.

You may get a better return stopping some of the leaks though. It can
get expensive replacing doors and windows, but covering existing
windows, insulating, and spray foam have a quick payback.

Our Carrier, that I put in '95, is 92% efficient.

On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 12:18:25 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 1/28/2015 7:17 AM, micky wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 04:03:13 -0800 (PST), wrote:

micky wrote: "Are you somehow giving the measured efficiency or the rated one? "

Measured - our provider measures it every other year or so, during yearly
maintenance.

How does he do that?

I can see putting some accurate gauge in the oil supply pipe. Does he
do that?.

But how does he measure the heat output?


Usually a probe in the stack with a meter. I've seen it done but have
not done it myself. They can also read what gasses are in there since
on industrial boilers you usually have to keep the EPA happy.

Okay. I guess they measure unburned hydrocarbons. Now that I think
about it, isn't that what they measure when the put a probe in the car's
tailpipe? Something they don't do if your car is new enough, of if
you are old enough and don't drive more than so much, or if you live
where air polution is not so big a problem.

On 1/28/2015 4:43 PM, bob_villa wrote:
On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 2:06:25 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 1/28/2015 1:40 PM, John Albert wrote:


I've got a 1988 Burnham gas furnace in my 1911-vintage and very leaky
1400 sq.ft. house. Last month's bill indicated 224x100 cubic feet of
consumption.

It's still running fine, but wondering if a more efficient furnace would
make much of a difference.

A 1998 furnace is probably not more than 85% or so but I'd have it
checked to be sure.

You may get a better return stopping some of the leaks though. It can
get expensive replacing doors and windows, but covering existing
windows, insulating, and spray foam have a quick payback.

Our Carrier, that I put in '95, is 92% efficient.


That's pretty good. Not worth an upgrade unless it needs replacing at
some point.

On 1/27/2015 4:52 PM, Pico Rico wrote:
A friend has a house in the mountains. No A.C. The furnace is as old as
the house, probably 1965 or 1970. Are new furnaces more efficient in their
use of natural gas, and thus "pay for themselves"? If so, how does one
calculate the anticipated savings and pay back period?


Think of it this way. On a 80% efficient furnace, 20 cents of every
dollar is wasted. On a 95% efficient furnace, 5 cents of every dollar
is wasted. Have your friend figure out what the savings would be by
their fuel bill.

Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 08:15:18 +0000 (UTC), gregz
wrote:



If a boiler is being used, then flue gas is over 200 degrees. My forced air
fan on 70k btu runs 300 watts or less. Maybe a bit more in air conditioning
mode. It's variable speed.

Greg

Flue temps on high-effeciency boilers run 125-135F according to what
I've read.

I don't see how that's possible, unless an extra ambient air heat exchanger
is used. I never measured a system. If incoming water is heated by another
pre exchanger with output of main exchanger, the flue gas will be closer to
incoming water temp.

Greg

On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 05:32:36 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 11:43:24 PM UTC-5, micky wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 14:45:26 -0800 (PST), wrote:

I have a 2001 Burnham V8(oil burner hot water) with energy
efficiency between 78-80%. Is that good for its age?

I know more about oil than gas.

When I divide the output BTU's*** by the input BTU's on my 1979 Carreir
oil furnace (hot air), I get about 80%. ***As listed in the owner's
manual that came with the furnace, and is online too.

When I was shopping for a new furnace a couple years ago, the efficiency
of all of them** was about 82%. (iirc but at any rate, little higher
than my furnace rating.)

People here at the time did not believe me that the efficiency has gone
up so little.


People didn't believe you because you were wrong. I replaced my nat gas
furnace back in 2010 with a 93%.

Gas furnaces have nothing to do with oil furnaces. You must be
misrecalling the discussion years ago, which was also about oil
furnaces.

Thekmanrocks brought up the subject of oilf urnaces.




There were other units available that were
even slightly higher. All of that was available from all the typical
furnace manufacturers. 90%+ furnaces have been available for at least
a decade, probably a lot longer. The essential big change was when they
went to *condensing* direct vent ones. There was a lot of energy in that
steam that went up the chimney.

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 5:53:07 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 05:32:36 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 11:43:24 PM UTC-5, micky wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 14:45:26 -0800 (PST), wrote:

I have a 2001 Burnham V8(oil burner hot water) with energy
efficiency between 78-80%. Is that good for its age?

I know more about oil than gas.

When I divide the output BTU's*** by the input BTU's on my 1979 Carreir
oil furnace (hot air), I get about 80%. ***As listed in the owner's
manual that came with the furnace, and is online too.

When I was shopping for a new furnace a couple years ago, the efficiency
of all of them** was about 82%. (iirc but at any rate, little higher
than my furnace rating.)

People here at the time did not believe me that the efficiency has gone
up so little.


People didn't believe you because you were wrong. I replaced my nat gas
furnace back in 2010 with a 93%.

Gas furnaces have nothing to do with oil furnaces. You must be
misrecalling the discussion years ago, which was also about oil
furnaces.


No, I was just thinking in the context of this current thread,
which started with a question about the efficiency of gas furnaces.
I missed the segue into oil furnaces. But even so, there are
condensing oil furnaces that are as high as 95%, Adams Manufacturing
has one for example, though they may not be mainstream or practical.
IDK what they cost.

On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 06:43:33 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 5:53:07 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 05:32:36 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 11:43:24 PM UTC-5, micky wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 14:45:26 -0800 (PST), wrote:

I have a 2001 Burnham V8(oil burner hot water) with energy
efficiency between 78-80%. Is that good for its age?

I know more about oil than gas.

When I divide the output BTU's*** by the input BTU's on my 1979 Carreir
oil furnace (hot air), I get about 80%. ***As listed in the owner's
manual that came with the furnace, and is online too.

When I was shopping for a new furnace a couple years ago, the efficiency
of all of them** was about 82%. (iirc but at any rate, little higher
than my furnace rating.)

People here at the time did not believe me that the efficiency has gone
up so little.


People didn't believe you because you were wrong. I replaced my nat gas
furnace back in 2010 with a 93%.

Gas furnaces have nothing to do with oil furnaces. You must be
misrecalling the discussion years ago, which was also about oil
furnaces.


No, I was just thinking in the context of this current thread,
which started with a question about the efficiency of gas furnaces.
I missed the segue into oil furnaces. But even so, there are
condensing oil furnaces that are as high as 95%, Adams Manufacturing
has one for example, though they may not be mainstream or practical.
IDK what they cost.

I mentioned those but "condensing" is the word I couldnt' think of. I
suggested Retroactive, incandescent, and self-descending, (At least I
got the c and sometimes the n,)

I r ead that they are expensive and not often sold, I don't know how
expensive, but no one who came out to sell me a furnace even mentioned
one.

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 9:27:03 PM UTC-5, micky wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 06:43:33 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 5:53:07 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 05:32:36 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 11:43:24 PM UTC-5, micky wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 14:45:26 -0800 (PST), wrote:

I have a 2001 Burnham V8(oil burner hot water) with energy
efficiency between 78-80%. Is that good for its age?

I know more about oil than gas.

When I divide the output BTU's*** by the input BTU's on my 1979 Carreir
oil furnace (hot air), I get about 80%. ***As listed in the owner's
manual that came with the furnace, and is online too.

When I was shopping for a new furnace a couple years ago, the efficiency
of all of them** was about 82%. (iirc but at any rate, little higher
than my furnace rating.)

People here at the time did not believe me that the efficiency has gone
up so little.


People didn't believe you because you were wrong. I replaced my nat gas
furnace back in 2010 with a 93%.

Gas furnaces have nothing to do with oil furnaces. You must be
misrecalling the discussion years ago, which was also about oil
furnaces.


No, I was just thinking in the context of this current thread,
which started with a question about the efficiency of gas furnaces.
I missed the segue into oil furnaces. But even so, there are
condensing oil furnaces that are as high as 95%, Adams Manufacturing
has one for example, though they may not be mainstream or practical.
IDK what they cost.

I mentioned those but "condensing" is the word I couldnt' think of. I
suggested Retroactive, incandescent, and self-descending, (At least I
got the c and sometimes the n,)

I r ead that they are expensive and not often sold, I don't know how
expensive, but no one who came out to sell me a furnace even mentioned
one.


I guess a good question is why? The essence of it should be
a larger, better heat exchanger to extract more of the heat. I
wonder if something bad happens with an oil burner when you cool the
gasses that much, like some nasty gook forms, that you don't get with
nat gas? But on the other hand, at least some companies are building
them, up to 99%, so IDK....