New regs to make furnace replacement more expensive

Page 3 of 8  
On 11/28/2012 9:33 AM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

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

by agencies hamstrung by budget cuts.
The federal

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)

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

Nirvana and under the O-ster??? (Compounding pharmacies are mostly under state supervision. FDA has only had moderate input to them since the initial Act LONG (like several decades) pre-Bush. I find it interesting that when government regulation manages to screw up, there is always some explanation.

--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

certinally the lack of regulation of mortages was wonderful:) Till greed took over and killed our economy:(
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Lack of regulation? Fannie and Freddie were right in the middle of the whole housing bubble. They were govt backed and supervised agencies. Barney Frank himself pronounced them as solvent and OK just weeks before they went under.
And let's not forget that govt regulations encouraged people to invest and speculate in real estate. The mortgage interest is tax deductible, as are real estate taxes. And if you live in a house for just a few years and you sell it at a profit, up to $500,000 is exempt from tax. So people do exactly what the govt is incentivizing them to do and when it results in a bubble, nobody looks at the above as a direct cause.
Then we had the CRA, that put ever increasing pressure on lending institutions to lend money to minorities, credit worthy or not.
We have the Federal Reserve, which controls the banking system. They have a huge budget and thousands of analysts. They track everything from the price of bread, to manufacturing output. And one thing included in that is HOUSING PRICES. They knew damn well that housing prices had doubles or tripled in many places, creating a dangerous bubble, yet they didn't lift a finger to do anything about it.
Not saying that a lot of shystering didn't go on in the private sector. Only that govt was eyeballs deep into the whole mess too and it's not clear that one more regulator or regulation would have prevented it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

a republican congress that thinks there is too much regulation and cuts budgets, how else?

thank you for making my point

and that explanation is spelled r e p u b l i c a n
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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........
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/27/2012 6:32 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/26/2012 6:35 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

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

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

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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/28/2012 12:32 PM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

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

Yes, that's another fine example. People were already using CFLs where they chose to and where they believed they made sense. Does it bother you so much that I have a shed that's unheated and I put a 100W incandescent bulb in it? How about I come to your house, find something you do that I don't approve of. Go on vacation to Disneyland? Why.... what a waste of energy that is. Let's limit that. Let's also start rationing gas, so that people don't take joy rides to the mall. All for the greater good, right? And let's stop selling soft drinks that are bigger than 16 oz, like the imbecile Bloomberg did in NYC. All that's good too, eh?
As for being better off with a forward-thinking govt, we now have increased federal spending by 40% since Obama took over. That's right, we're spending 40% more. And with the economy recovering, we still had a deficit for the year just ended of $1.1tril. The national debt is now at $16tril. That "forward-thinking" has put us on the path of Greece. But, sadly too few people realize it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

while I don't condone the huge debt, I am glad that my gov't is raising fuel economy standards and also doing its best to give alternate energy technologies the same benefits that oil and nuke companies have enjoyed for decades. I'm also not upset that there are people who would like to save native salmon populations, trout, redwoods and even the spotted owl.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

My old natural draft was running about 80% - my new forced draft non condensing is about 85% - 88% on low fire. Virtually NO difference in fuel consumption between them - lower electrical consumption from DC blower motor - the heat NOT generated by the blower now has to be made up by the gas - pretty effectively cancelling out the minor efficiency improvement.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
If your current yearly heating bill is $1000 and you have an 80% efficient furnace,
$800 is used for heat and $200 is wasted out the exhaust.
With a 95% efficient furnace,
$800 is still used for heat but only $42 is wasted out the exhaust.
Your yearly heat bill drops to $842 yielding a $158 per year savings.
Over the next 15 years you'll save $2370 in fuel. If fuel prices go up, you'll save even more.
Can you really afford an 80% efficient furnace?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

My situation is a bit different. I'm heating with oil and you don't get quite as efficient, but very close anyway.
My oil fired boiler was 30 years old. It was getting close to needing major work or replacement. Anything I put in would have been a bit more efficient, but I went with a System 2000 by Energy Kinetics.
I have a good record of my fuel use and it average about 800 gallons a year, sometimes a bit more. My savings with the new unit is about 320 gallons a year. My out of pocket cost to replace was about $6000. The math is pretty simple. At the price of oil 30 years ago, it would take me 25 years to get a payback. The price of oil though, went up a tad in recent years. The payback is now 5 years. After the 5 years, I'm saving about $1200 a year. I have more hot water, a quieter system and saving a bunch of money. IMO, you are crazy not to replace an old heater. Sure, gas is cheaper, but using less is still a good thing. Run the numbers. .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think the obvious example to that question, is yes indeed, not only can you afford the 80% furnace, but it costs less. The 80% furnace is already paid for. The new furnace is going to cost significantly MORE than the $2,370 in fuel saved. Factor in the time value of money and it looks even worse. Plus from what we hear all the time here and from what I've seen personally, 15 years is about the life expectancy of the new furnaces. I've had friends who have replaced them at less than that. So, why pay for a new furnace today when even if it lasts 15 years, you're better off paying for the $2,370 in fuel?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/25/2012 4:40 PM, Normin wrote:

Of course not but what bragging rights do you acquire by making a sensible decision?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This is a classic. You're the guy telling us that the consumers are too stupid to make the right choice for their own furnace. And yet, here you are chiming in that it makes sense to shell out the money today to replace a furnace that's 80%, because you can't afford not to? Let's do the math. Replacing that furnace is typically $4,000+ and that money would be spent right now. The alternative 80% furnace in the above example only costs $2,370 in additional fuel over the next 15 years. Factor in the time value of money and the comparison only gets worse. I cou;ld take that $4,000, invest it in the stock market, and history shows you'd likely get an 8% return, exceeding the savings in fuel. And given that most people here seem to agree that a new furnace today has about a 15 year life, it would NEVER pay for itself in fuel savings.
Yet, you say it's J Q Public that's too stupid to figure out what to do and needs the govt to do it for them?
Add pictures here
<% 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.