New regs to make furnace replacement more expensive

Page 1 of 8  
"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/bergen/New_federal_law_may_make_replacing_your_furnace_much_costlier.html?page=all
But, but, but ... it's for the CHILDREN !
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/24/2012 8:02 AM, HeyBub wrote:

http://www.northjersey.com/news/bergen/New_federal_law_may_make_replacing_your_furnace_much_costlier.html?page=all
Leave technical requirements to the politicians and this is the crap you get.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"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 www.lds.org .
On 11/24/2012 8:02 AM, HeyBub wrote:

http://www.northjersey.com/news/bergen/New_federal_law_may_make_replacing_your_furnace_much_costlier.html?page=all
Leave technical requirements to the politicians and this is the crap you get.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Nov 24, 8:45 am, "Stormin Mormon"

LOL, good catch on those "combustible gases".
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.....
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

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.

Why would an A/C system need any sort of venting?
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/24/2012 8:46 AM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

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.
--
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/24/2012 7:18 AM, dpb wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You think so? Me, too.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
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.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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?
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 08:09:11 -0800 (PST), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

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.
Your new car sir, is going to cost you $30,000. You have a choice though, it can have the whiz-bang super stereo with Bluetooth or it can have seat belts. What is your choice, you can't have both. How many would take the seat belts? After all, I'm not going to get into an accident, they are for the other guy.
Take that a step further to housing. What is going to move a new house faster, granite counter tops and minimal insulation or bland Formica countertops and super energy efficiency? For the exact same price, the choice is . . . .
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/26/2012 8:03 AM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/26/2012 11:43 AM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

with the other 10 year olds on the schoolyard...
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.