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?

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?


Hi,
New high efficiency furnaces are as high as 98%. Regardless cost, up
here in Canada lagally low to mid efficiency furnace can't be installed
on new install. Think your friend's furnace is not even mid
efficiency(80%) being that old.

"Pico Rico" wrote in message
...

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?

In several modern countries, both fuel and utilities vendors provide
sample budgets, sometimes also national laboratories for building
standards, efficient energy policies etc.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

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?




Older furnaces can be from 50% to 70% efficient while newer ones are
over 90%. If you replace a 70% with a 98% you save roughly 28% of your
fuel costs.

A few years ago I replaced my boiler and save nearly 40% on fuel costs
and it is enough to pay for the cost over about 7 years. There may be
rebates available or special financing so be sure to check it out.

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

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?



If your fuel bill is $1000/yr, an 80% efficient furnace would use $800 to heat your house and $200 would go out the exhaust.

If you bought a 98% efficient furnace, your fuel bill for the house would drop to $816, $800 to heat your house and $16 up the chimney.

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.

A co-worker paid $260 to have a safety switch replaced on her high efficiency furnace last season. This year was another $610 for a draft inducer.
In my opinion, high efficiency furnaces are poorly engineered junk.

On 01/27/2015 04:26 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:
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?


Hi,
New high efficiency furnaces are as high as 98%. Regardless cost, up
here in Canada lagally low to mid efficiency furnace can't be installed
on new install. Think your friend's furnace is not even mid
efficiency(80%) being that old.



98% wow

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.

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

In my opinion, high efficiency furnaces are poorly engineered junk.

Why is that so?

On 01/27/2015 05:07 PM, Curmudgeon wrote:
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?



If your fuel bill is $1000/yr, an 80% efficient furnace would use $800
to heat your house and $200 would go out the exhaust.

If you bought a 98% efficient furnace, your fuel bill for the house
would drop to $816, $800 to heat your house and $16 up the chimney.

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.

As I pointed out before, the furnace will easily pay for itself in less
than ten years. The research I did confirmed that it will probably last
less than a "standard" furnace but 15 years is typical



A co-worker paid $260 to have a safety switch replaced on her high
efficiency furnace last season. This year was another $610 for a draft
inducer.
In my opinion, high efficiency furnaces are poorly engineered junk.

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?


Natural gas in the mountains?

"JAS" wrote in message
...
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?


Natural gas in the mountains?

yes.

philo wrote:
On 01/27/2015 04:26 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:
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?


Hi,
New high efficiency furnaces are as high as 98%. Regardless cost, up
here in Canada lagally low to mid efficiency furnace can't be installed
on new install. Think your friend's furnace is not even mid
efficiency(80%) being that old.



98% wow

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.
Hi,
98% ones are high maintenance item. I installed 96% one too, So far no
problem since day one. Matching A/C unit has been running same. Last
year I hat it checked for topping up the Puron but tech. told me, don't
need to. He evacuated, weighed it and put it back.

Curmudgeon wrote:
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?



If your fuel bill is $1000/yr, an 80% efficient furnace would use $800
to heat your house and $200 would go out the exhaust.

If you bought a 98% efficient furnace, your fuel bill for the house
would drop to $816, $800 to heat your house and $16 up the chimney.

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.

A co-worker paid $260 to have a safety switch replaced on her high
efficiency furnace last season. This year was another $610 for a draft
inducer.
In my opinion, high efficiency furnaces are poorly engineered junk.


Hi,
IMO. this is too simplistic over statement. Of course old furnaces do
not have inducer motor, but has safety switch. Maybe your coworker was
not replacing filter regularly causing over heat.

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.

Are you somehow giving the measured efficiency or the rated one?
Anyone know if there is an innate difference in the efficiency of hot
air furnace vs. a hot water furnace?

** (except some special kind that is very expensive, not so often
advertised or even mentioned, and very few buy (whose design name I
forget. Retroactive, incandescent, self-descending, or something.).)

On 1/27/2015 11:43 PM, micky wrote:


Are you somehow giving the measured efficiency or the rated one?
Anyone know if there is an innate difference in the efficiency of hot
air furnace vs. a hot water furnace?

What is a hot water furnace? Most houses using hydronic heating have
boilers.

On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 00:17:51 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 1/27/2015 11:43 PM, micky wrote:


Are you somehow giving the measured efficiency or the rated one?
Anyone know if there is an innate difference in the efficiency of hot
air furnace vs. a hot water furnace?

What is a hot water furnace? Most houses using hydronic heating have
boilers.

Doesn't confuse me. Most "boilers" in residential heating don't come
very close to boiling.
But to answer the question, since they are producing 95% "efficient"
boilers for residential use, I'd say they're probably more efficient
since a circ pump probably uses less electricity than a blower.
It's not a choice for most people if they like central A/C , because
it's generally forced air heat that provides the vents for it.
As far as I know new houses are overwhelming equipped with force air
heat.
My house was built in '59 or '60 and came with forced air.
It was simple for me to add central A/C when I replaced the furnace.

Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 00:17:51 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 1/27/2015 11:43 PM, micky wrote:


Are you somehow giving the measured efficiency or the rated one?
Anyone know if there is an innate difference in the efficiency of hot
air furnace vs. a hot water furnace?

What is a hot water furnace? Most houses using hydronic heating have
boilers.

Doesn't confuse me. Most "boilers" in residential heating don't come
very close to boiling.
But to answer the question, since they are producing 95% "efficient"
boilers for residential use, I'd say they're probably more efficient
since a circ pump probably uses less electricity than a blower.
It's not a choice for most people if they like central A/C , because
it's generally forced air heat that provides the vents for it.
As far as I know new houses are overwhelming equipped with force air
heat.
My house was built in '59 or '60 and came with forced air.
It was simple for me to add central A/C when I replaced the furnace.

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

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
--
Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers
and having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one.
Email list-server groups and USENET are like having all of those
newspapers delivered to your door every morning.

On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 02:00:57 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 00:17:51 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 1/27/2015 11:43 PM, micky wrote:


Are you somehow giving the measured efficiency or the rated one?
Anyone know if there is an innate difference in the efficiency of hot
air furnace vs. a hot water furnace?

What is a hot water furnace?

In this thread, an oil-fueled device that heats water as does the " 2001
Burnham V8(oil burner hot water)" that thekmanrocks says he has

Most houses using hydronic heating have
boilers.

Sorry, I don't know what hydronic means and it's not a word the poster I
was replying to used. .


Doesn't confuse me. Most "boilers" in residential heating don't come
very close to boiling.
But to answer the question, since they are producing 95% "efficient"
boilers for residential use, I'd say they're probably more efficient
since a circ pump probably uses less electricity than a blower.
It's not a choice for most people if they like central A/C , because
it's generally forced air heat that provides the vents for it.
As far as I know new houses are overwhelming equipped with force air
heat.
My house was built in '59 or '60 and came with forced air.
It was simple for me to add central A/C when I replaced the furnace.

Of course. I was just trying to figure out if there was a reason other
than the choice of fuel, oil vs. gas, and the device used to burn it,
that might account for his getting only 80% now. I didn't want to
emphasize the 80% that my oil furnace is supposed to get heating air if
a more recent oil burner would get higher than 82% efficiency when
heating water. Although now I'm no longer sure the
ratings include heating either air or water. They may ?? just include
any heat that doesn't go up the chimney or other vent, and if there is
some lack of efficiency transferring that heat either to the air or the
water, that would be a) another problem, and b) one that manrocks can do
nothing about unless he plans to remove the radiators and replace them
with air ducts. (And that's only if hot air is more efficient than
water, and not the other way around.)

Of course, both setups sort of lose heat in transmission to the rooms,
but the heat is lost within the house, inside the walls or the utility
shaft and isn't really lost at all, afaik. The warm walls or air
outside the living space slow the cooling of the living space warm when
the furnace is not running. .

What might be a good idea is to put heat reflectors behind the
radiators. ??? When I slept right next to a steam radiator, either we
had enough heat or no heat, so it wouldn't have helped.

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.

On 01/27/2015 08:55 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:
Curmudgeon wrote:

A co-worker paid $260 to have a safety switch replaced on her high
efficiency furnace last season. This year was another $610 for a draft
inducer.
In my opinion, high efficiency furnaces are poorly engineered junk.


Hi,
IMO. this is too simplistic over statement. Of course old furnaces do not have inducer motor, but has safety switch. Maybe your coworker was not replacing filter regularly causing over heat.

My first power vent natural gas furnace was purchased from Sears in 1982. It was made by Heil-Quaker in Tennessee, if I recall correctly.
It used double wall steel vent pipe, vented horizontally thru basement wall and was supposedly around 90% efficient.
In the 10 years I owned that furnace, every moving part on it was replaced at least once.

My second power vent furnace was a Thermo Pride that vented thru PVC. It lasted around 18 years and required lots of repairs in the last six years of its life as well.

I currently have a Goodman. It's been trouble-free so far but I expect the yearly break-downs to start soon.

On 01/28/2015 03:49 AM, Ben Berndt wrote:
On 01/27/2015 08:55 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:
Curmudgeon wrote:

A co-worker paid $260 to have a safety switch replaced on her high
efficiency furnace last season. This year was another $610 for a draft
inducer.
In my opinion, high efficiency furnaces are poorly engineered junk.


Hi,
IMO. this is too simplistic over statement. Of course old furnaces do
not have inducer motor, but has safety switch. Maybe your coworker
was not replacing filter regularly causing over heat.

My first power vent natural gas furnace was purchased from Sears in
1982. It was made by Heil-Quaker in Tennessee, if I recall correctly.
It used double wall steel vent pipe, vented horizontally thru basement
wall and was supposedly around 90% efficient.
In the 10 years I owned that furnace, every moving part on it was
replaced at least once.

My second power vent furnace was a Thermo Pride that vented thru PVC. It
lasted around 18 years and required lots of repairs in the last six
years of its life as well.

I currently have a Goodman. It's been trouble-free so far but I expect
the yearly break-downs to start soon.


Originally I had planned on getting the furnace replaced last summer and
when I asked for advice here, Goodman was the most recommended. One of
the reasons was that a "do-it-yourselfer" such as me would be able to
repair it. I inspected the unit and doubt if anything should present a
problem. The parts are guaranteed for ten years and since I'd replace
them myself don't think it's going to cost me a fortune to maintain.

In the 35 years I've been in my house I've done 100% of the appliance
repairs myself. Compared to the industrial equipment I worked on for my
job, home appliances are not a big deal.

As to the old "they don't make them like they used to" adage.

Yep, my old oil-burning furnace definitely had better sheet metal than
the one I just had put in. OTOH: If that oil burned could go six weeks
without breaking down or needing some type of maintenance, I was lucky.



BTW: I will get a fairly decent rebate from "Focus on Energy"

It looks like anyone who gets a high-efficiency furnace qualifies for a
$150 rebate, but since I'm retired my income will qualify me for a
higher rebate. Will have to submit the paperwork to know the
amount...but it's up to $850

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.

micky wrote: "Sorry, I don't know what hydronic means and it's not a word the poster"

Hydronic simply means hot water - not steam, not air, hot cocoa,
or any thing else.

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?

On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 02:00:57 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 00:17:51 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 1/27/2015 11:43 PM, micky wrote:


Are you somehow giving the measured efficiency or the rated one?
Anyone know if there is an innate difference in the efficiency of hot
air furnace vs. a hot water furnace?

What is a hot water furnace? Most houses using hydronic heating have
boilers.

Doesn't confuse me. Most "boilers" in residential heating don't come
very close to boiling.


Proper terminology. Furnaces heat air. Boilers heat water. If
everyone uses the proper terms, especially on a home repair group, it
avoids confusion.

There are some specialized units that use hot water to heat the air,
thus they are a hot water furnace, but the end product is heated air.
Water is just the heat source.

On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 03:45:35 -0500, micky
wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 02:00:57 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:



In this thread, an oil-fueled device that heats water as does the " 2001
Burnham V8(oil burner hot water)" that thekmanrocks says he has


That is a boiler, not a furnace.


Most houses using hydronic heating have
boilers.

Sorry, I don't know what hydronic means and it's not a word the poster I
was replying to used. .


A heating system that heaters water and circulates it using baseboard
or radiators is a hydroid system.
Hydro = water, liquid, fluid.

On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 07:22:15 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:




or radiators is a hydroid system.
Hydro = water, liquid, fluid.

Hydronic system. Damned spell checker, clicked the wrong button.

On 1/28/2015 12:17 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 1/27/2015 11:43 PM, micky wrote:


Are you somehow giving the measured efficiency or the rated one?
Anyone know if there is an innate difference in the efficiency of hot
air furnace vs. a hot water furnace?

What is a hot water furnace? Most houses using hydronic heating have
boilers.


From the context, a hot water furnace burns
hot water. Eco friendly, puts out hydrocarbons
when it runs.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 8:48:57 PM UTC-5, Tony Hwang wrote:
philo wrote:
On 01/27/2015 04:26 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:
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?


Hi,
New high efficiency furnaces are as high as 98%. Regardless cost, up
here in Canada lagally low to mid efficiency furnace can't be installed
on new install. Think your friend's furnace is not even mid
efficiency(80%) being that old.



98% wow

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.
Hi,
98% ones are high maintenance item.

What exactly makes a 98% one high maintenance as opposed to 94, 95, or
your 96%. I would think the essential difference would be that the
higher efficiency would use a slightly more efficient and costly
heat exchanger.

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%. 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 Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 5:35:42 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
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?




Older furnaces can be from 50% to 70% efficient while newer ones are
over 90%. If you replace a 70% with a 98% you save roughly 28% of your
fuel costs.

A few years ago I replaced my boiler and save nearly 40% on fuel costs
and it is enough to pay for the cost over about 7 years. There may be
rebates available or special financing so be sure to check it out.


I saw similar when I replaced my 27 year old nat gas furnace with a 93%.

micky wrote: "How does he do that? "

I do not know. All I saw was the sticker on the side
of my boiler with fields "Checked by"' "Date", and
"Efficiency", filled in by different technicians over
the years.

On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 6:07:34 PM UTC-5, Curmudgeon wrote:
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?



If your fuel bill is $1000/yr, an 80% efficient furnace would use $800 to heat your house and $200 would go out the exhaust.

If you bought a 98% efficient furnace, your fuel bill for the house would drop to $816, $800 to heat your house and $16 up the chimney.

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.

I'd be happy to see data that supports that. There are a lot of people
with fuel bills of $1500 a year. If they save 20%, that's $300 a year.
In ten years, it's $3000, about 50% more than the cost of the furnace
equipment to begin with. I replaced my 27 year old nat gas furnace
4 years ago and have been saving 40%+, Ed reports similar with a boiler.
I'm saving about $300 a year. The most costly repair, would be the
heat exchanger. All the systems I looked at, the heat exchanger was
either warranted for 20 years, lifetime, etc. Not saying you won't
have to put some money into an aging furnace, or that a high efficiency
one doesn't have more parts that can fail, just that I haven't seen
any real data to support that it's going to wipe out staying with a lower efficiency furnace.




A co-worker paid $260 to have a safety switch replaced on her high efficiency furnace last season.

Yes, there are more safety devices on modern high efficiency furnaces,
so there is more possibility of one failing. But I also wonder how
many safety switches there are on a new 80% furnace now too? I've
got 4 years now with a Rheem 93% furnace, not a single problem.


This year was another $610 for a draft inducer.
In my opinion, high efficiency furnaces are poorly engineered junk.

If she paid $610 to have a draft inducer installed, I'd say the
more likely problem is that she has a service company that is
screwing her. I'd also point out that a lot of stuff today doesn't
last as long as it used to. I think in many cases folks are comparing
the lifecycles of 40 year old furnaces to modern ones. I'd be
surprised if a new 80% furnace lasted as long as one did bought in
1970 too. In other words, you have to compare the problem rate of
a new 80% with a new 93%+.

On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 6:15:11 AM UTC-5, philo wrote:
On 01/28/2015 03:49 AM, Ben Berndt wrote:
On 01/27/2015 08:55 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:
Curmudgeon wrote:

A co-worker paid $260 to have a safety switch replaced on her high
efficiency furnace last season. This year was another $610 for a draft
inducer.
In my opinion, high efficiency furnaces are poorly engineered junk.


Hi,
IMO. this is too simplistic over statement. Of course old furnaces do
not have inducer motor, but has safety switch. Maybe your coworker
was not replacing filter regularly causing over heat.

My first power vent natural gas furnace was purchased from Sears in
1982. It was made by Heil-Quaker in Tennessee, if I recall correctly.
It used double wall steel vent pipe, vented horizontally thru basement
wall and was supposedly around 90% efficient.
In the 10 years I owned that furnace, every moving part on it was
replaced at least once.

My second power vent furnace was a Thermo Pride that vented thru PVC. It
lasted around 18 years and required lots of repairs in the last six
years of its life as well.

I currently have a Goodman. It's been trouble-free so far but I expect
the yearly break-downs to start soon.


Originally I had planned on getting the furnace replaced last summer and
when I asked for advice here, Goodman was the most recommended. One of
the reasons was that a "do-it-yourselfer" such as me would be able to
repair it. I inspected the unit and doubt if anything should present a
problem. The parts are guaranteed for ten years and since I'd replace
them myself don't think it's going to cost me a fortune to maintain.


Similar here with my 93% Rheem. There isn't anything exotic there
that I can't fix myself.


In the 35 years I've been in my house I've done 100% of the appliance
repairs myself. Compared to the industrial equipment I worked on for my
job, home appliances are not a big deal.


+1


As to the old "they don't make them like they used to" adage.

Yep, my old oil-burning furnace definitely had better sheet metal than
the one I just had put in. OTOH: If that oil burned could go six weeks
without breaking down or needing some type of maintenance, I was lucky.



BTW: I will get a fairly decent rebate from "Focus on Energy"


That helps too, same here.


It looks like anyone who gets a high-efficiency furnace qualifies for a
$150 rebate, but since I'm retired my income will qualify me for a
higher rebate. Will have to submit the paperwork to know the
amount...but it's up to $850

I got the fed tax credit back in 2010, which was ~$1200. Those
credits reduce the cost substantially and there isn't but a few
hundred dollars difference in the cost of a 93% furnace compared to
an 80% one.

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?


I put in a coleman THE about 25 years ago and the efficiency was 90%.
This unit was inexpensive (actually designed for a housetrailer, but it
was big enough for our house). I think the trick was they passed much
more air through the heat exchanger. It needed no chimney, but the air
coming out of the registers actually felt cool, but there was so much of
it that it heated the house. My feeling is that you can compare
efficiencies, but you cannot calculate payback periods because gas
prices vary and weather varies. All you can do is keep track of your
costs and calculate payback period retroactively. Anyway, because of
abnormal weather and changes in gas prices, that unit paid me back in
just over one year. I don't expect to ever match that performance
again. It had some design problems and after many years, I was seeing
the repairman too much. So this year I replaced it with a Bryant said
to be 95.5 efficient. The biggest change I noticed is that it has air
from outside the house pumped in and used for combustion. As a
consequence, we don't have outside air in the house, and the air coming
out of the registers is much warmer. It also has a high efficiency
multi-speed blower which comes on at a lower speed during some of the
furnace's idle time to circulate the warm air in the house. I haven't
had it long enough to calculate how much, if any, it will save us, but
the increased comfort is worth a lot. Now I'm looking at adding a heat
exchanger to get some fresh air into the house

On 01/28/2015 9:58 AM, No name wrote:
....

... My feeling is that you can compare
efficiencies, but you cannot calculate payback periods because gas
prices vary and weather varies. ...

Unless you change something else drastically, the Btu demand to heat the
house will be the same so two units of different efficiencies will
produce those total Btus with the relative amounts of fuel that their
relative efficiencies indicate to within a (quite) reasonable approximation.

Hence, one can do a reasonable estimation of payback period knowing past
history and costs. One can't know precisely what a given winter is
going to bring, granted, but that's not of real concern in getting
useful estimates.

Now, if one changes the parameters by also adding/upgrading insulation
or increasing the footprint of the house by adding in previously
unheated/marginally-heated areas or is switching from a boiler/steam
radiator to forced air, then, sure; there's enough difference as to make
the computation much more difficult and certainly less accurate.

But, presuming from the question as posed that this is simply a drop-in
replacement/upgrade request, I'd say he'd get a pretty good estimate
simply by ratio of the proposed unit efficiency to the existing. Now,
getting a reliable number for the current unit may be the biggest
uncertainty altho 50-60% is probably good enough for the purpose.

I've not priced recently, but when we upgraded/replaced here about
three/four years ago now, the price differential between the ~95% and
the higher units started to really escalate. Same as with the SEER
ratings on the AC side. The payback can get really long if one goes to
the extreme. We ended up w/ a 95% Carrier and while I've not compared,
the difference is notable. Of course, NG prices have peaked and dropped
at least a couple times over that time period, too...

--

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.

On 1/28/2015 8:53 AM, trader_4 wrote:

s after the furnace is 10 years old or so.

I'd be happy to see data that supports that. There are a lot of people
with fuel bills of $1500 a year. If they save 20%, that's $300 a year.
In ten years, it's $3000, about 50% more than the cost of the furnace
equipment to begin with. I replaced my 27 year old nat gas furnace
4 years ago and have been saving 40%+, Ed reports similar with a boiler.
I'm saving about $300 a year.

I was skeptical when the advertising said you can save up to 40% on fuel
use. I figured if I save 25% to 30%, I'd be happy I kew what my oil
consumption was the the past couple of years so I had numbers for
comparison

After the first year, I calculated the oil use based on degree days. At
www.degreedays.net I was able to get the historic data also. I was
pleasantly surprised to see that I came very close to the 40%. I even
contacted Energy Kinetics, makers of the System 2000 boilers. They did
their own audit and concluded I save 39.2%.

In my case, the old boiler was about 30 years old and on the way out
soon so I had to do something. It was also good timing with Federal
energy credits, state rebate and state 0% financing. It would have been
foolish to do nothing and pour money up the flue.

So far, it has been trouble free, no repairs. Once last winter I had to
cut the power, let it restart and it has been OK since.

trader_4 wrote:
....
I'd be happy to see data that supports that. There are a lot of people
with fuel bills of $1500 a year. If they save 20%, that's $300 a year.
In ten years, it's $3000, about 50% more than the cost of the furnace
equipment to begin with. I replaced my 27 year old nat gas furnace
4 years ago and have been saving 40%+, Ed reports similar with a boiler.
I'm saving about $300 a year. The most costly repair, would be the
heat exchanger. All the systems I looked at, the heat exchanger was
either warranted for 20 years, lifetime, etc. Not saying you won't
have to put some money into an aging furnace, or that a high efficiency
one doesn't have more parts that can fail, just that I haven't seen
any real data to support that it's going to wipe out staying with a lower efficiency furnace.

our experience was that within 12 years the heat-exchanger
went and even while the company did replace it we still had
to spend quite a bit of money to do that. we also had a lot
of problems from the ignition system. whatever part it was
they were getting was coming from Mexico and it failed each
year. finally we asked them to find something else and it
hasn't been any trouble since.

our heat costs run between $600-1200/yr on propane (normally
the thermostat is set at 58-60F). i think our unit is rated
at 95% or so. 98% would have cost us about $500 more when we
replaced the exchanger. we've also had to replace the fan.

i sure wish this place had been set up for more passive
solar as right now this mid-winter cold day the sun is shining
nicely and we could be avoiding some of the expense of heating
(for hot water too).


songbird