"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.
"vents combustible gasses outside...." ============================= The new furnaces need two pipes ? one that takes fresh air into the furnace so combustion can occur, and one that vents combustible gases outside the house. Generally, that venting pipe must extend through an outside wall of the home, which requires construction work. Most older furnaces vent through the chimney, but that doesn?t work for most higher efficiency furnaces. The old-model furnaces produced smoke warm enough to float up a chimney, Fertel said, but the higher efficient models produce cooler smoke, which needs to be forced out. ============================= Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus
formatting link
.
formatting link
Leave technical requirements to the politicians and this is the crap you get.
The key issue here is how easy it is to get access to a suitable outside location where the intake and exhaust can be located. In a lot of houses it's easy. In some houses it can be very difficult. Still, I can't imagine anyone in their right mind in NJ replacing an existing furnace with one that is not a condensing, 90%+ model. If you get a 93% one for example, it's a substantial difference in energy usage that adds up over time. And forever is a very long time.....
Because the sale of single-stage (regular efficiency) furnaces will be prohibited - right?
Really?
Condensing furnaces (with their extra heat exchanger, sensors, electronics, condensate handler, etc) isin't much more expensive than a regular efficiency furnace?
If this really is a headline story, then the sale of regular-efficiency furnaces must have been pretty popular up until the May deadline.
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.
That's right, they are not much more expensive.
Anyone who can read and comprehend understands that what that means is that similar EPA rules for minimum energy efficiency will apply to states in southern climates. They are applying rules for furnaces where it's cold and rules for AC where it's hot, because that's where the most energy is used. Really simple concepts.
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.
I remember when folks objected to the mandatory equipping of seat belts on new cars. I added seat belts to my first car, it had the reinforced anchor spots in the floor, you had to make a hole in the carpet to attach the seat belts. Folks thought I was strange to ruin a new car by adding seat belts.
Every installation of high efficiency condensing furnaces I've been involved with has been vented through the wall with PVC pipe because the exhaust temperature is so low. All of them have a draft inducer or power vent if you want to call it that. So much heat is extracted that water condenses in the combustion chamber and must be drained through the same drain as that used by the AC evaporator coil. ^_^
No, the difference is whether the replacement furnace can use the existing venting system of the natural draft furnace. And there are 80% efficiency furnaces that can be vented using the existing chimney, even though they use a draft blower. If it's a condensing, direct vent type, then it cannot use the existing chimney or vent system of the natural draft furnace. Hence the article, pointing out that you could be in for increased costs, depending on how easy or how hard it is to run the required PVC piping to a suitable outside location.
most old
Yes, I agree. And those numbers the EPA is using to claim that this new rule will save 20% of the total energy use is pure BS. I live in NJ, which isn't the coldest place by a long shot and no one that I know of has installed less than a 90% furnace for years now. I went out for quotes myself two years ago and of 4 companies, not one even quoted less than a 90. You'd probably have to ask for one. And it would only make sense if you had some unique circumstance, where it was very expensive to be able to vent a 90% furnace.
I live in NJ and while I know a few people with new furnaces, I don't know anyone who has installed less than a 90% one for years now. When I went out for quotes on a new furnace two years ago, not one of the 4 even suggested or quoted anything less than 90%. Take a look at the eqpt cost and a 90%+ furnace is about the same price. And most of them can be installed without a big cost increase. There are some pathological cases where venting is a problem and that is exactly why leaving this alone would have been the right thing to do. The few folks who continue to put in 80% are not going to amount to much in the grand scheme of things, the phoney EPA numbers are a lie.
Some of us just believe that it's not governments job to force us into a particular way of living by coming up with phoney BS stories. The EPA would have you believe that this is going to save 20% in energy costs? You believe that? Virtually no one here in NJ has been installing anything less than a 90% furnace for years now. And we don't have the coldest climate or highest heating bills. This is another sad example of the govt force feeding the public, which they believe is too stupid to act in their own best interests.
A tiny percentage of people living in cold climates would choose an 80% furnace moving forward. And some of them, probably have very good reasons if they are doing it. In other words, this is a non-existent, fake, phoney, BS problem.
Does not have to be a *wall* per se - can still use existing chimney as a chase for the vent as well as the intake pipes. On some of the smaller furnaces all you need is a 2" PVC pipe for each. I imagine in most cases you can still find a shorter way to an outside wall but if completely stuck - there's still your old chimney right there.
I'm not sure what the big fuss is, anyhow: if you are replacing a furnace, you are already spending a considerable amount of money. Why would you not spend perhaps less than 10% more (if even that) to install a much more efficient furnace that creates the same amount of heat using less gas? Makes no sense to me to object to a good thing only because "the government mandated it". Even with gas prices falling right now, I believe it's still worth getting a more efficient furnace - never know where the price is going to be in the future. And regardless, even after the 40%+ fall this year, it's still far from being free.
First of all, leaving it up to 'the market' isn't going to reduce pollution= nor do much for energy efficiency. People aren't 100% logical and tend not= to look at the long-run costs of things- whether it's gas mileage, home en= ergy consumption (heating, A/C, electricity usage in appliances) or even in= surance costs (how many people, when deciding between two cars, call their = ins co and ask the difference?).
And the more energy you use, the more it costs all of us. That's why the go= v't is making these rules.
I put in a 90% efficient heating unit two years ago and it's made a world o= f difference in heating costs. It wasn't that big a deal to run a pipe acro= ss ten feet of basement and put it through a wall to vent to the outside.
And in my case I didn't need the flue anymore so I tore it out and got myse= lf another couple of square feet of usable floor space on two floors.
It's the "one size fits all" aspect of government rules that are stifling us. As energy becomes more expensive it will naturally drive us to use more cost efficient units. We don't need it rammed down our throats.
I resisted replacing my oil fired boiler for a year, but finally took the plunge a couple of years ago. Just on the last oil delivery a few days ago, I save $700 so far this year over what my old boiler would have burned. Well worth the upgrade.
on nor do much for energy efficiency. People aren't 100% logical and tend n= ot to look at the long-run costs of things- whether it's gas mileage, home = energy consumption (heating, A/C, electricity usage in appliances) or even = insurance costs (how many people, when deciding between two cars, call thei= r ins co and ask the difference?).
Spoken like a true superior liberal who thinks the rest of us are just too stupid to act logical. As I've said, I know a few people who have replaced furnaces in the last few years. Not one of them has installed less than a 90%. I went out for quotes myself two years ago and of 4 companies, not one quoted or mentioned anything less than 90%. In other words, this is the perfect example of a non-existent problem that the govt is "fixing".
gov't is making these rules.
Yes, and why stop there? The more of most things we all use, the higher the price. Actually, the one thing that I am worried about the cost of is govt. That has gone up by 40% since Obama took office. Funny, I see no interest from you libs in controlling that cost.
of difference in heating costs. It wasn't that big a deal to run a pipe ac= ross ten feet of basement and put it through a wall to vent to the outside.
self another couple of square feet of usable floor space on two floors.
My, must be wonderful to be a real intellectual like you.
Hi, I had to core the concrete basement wall for new vent pipe. And condensate drain plumbing with PVC pipes for 98% efficiency furnace which replaced mid-efficiency ~20 year old one.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.