New regs to make furnace replacement more expensive

[George]

Of course not but what bragging rights do you acquire by making a sensible decision?

[George]

But stuff like safety features and fuel economy are proven not to be big selling points. Take a pickup truck frame and fluff it up with every possible feature and a huge engine and it sells itself because of the imagined status.

[George]

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 energy consumption (heating, A/C, electricity usage in appliances) or even insurance costs (how many people, when deciding between two cars, call their ins co and ask the difference?).

gov't is making these rules.

of difference in heating costs. It wasn't that big a deal to run a pipe across ten feet of basement and put it through a wall to vent to the outside.

myself another couple of square feet of usable floor space on two floors.

Reality is I am in 1 sigma (69% of the population that don't see everything in only black and white.)

[George]

I have seen a few chimneys with two PVC pipes protruding. One is a few houses away and I took a better look earlier and can see a stainless cap fitted.

[trader4]

Which proves exactly what? That you want to stop people from buying a pickup truck too?

[trader4]

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.

[HeyBub]

Giggle.

From mid-2008 until the end of 2010, the price for natural gas has shrunk from about $11.00/Mcf to $4.00 for the same amount.

Further, what make you, or anyone else, think there is a "limited supply" of energy? As a practical matter, that is simply not true.

We have, just in the U.S., several hundred years of coal available and we're discovering and mining natural gas faster than we use it. Heck, we're even EXPORTING significant amounts of NG.

[HeyBub]

You are absolutely correct. While there is no practical natural limit on the supply of U.S. energy, there is an artificial limit.

It's called the Obama administration.

[trader4]

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?

[krw]

Here in Atlanta, they're the same thing. ;-)

[George]

Don't know about that but I do recognize someone who with fit right in with the other 10 year olds on the schoolyard...

[George]

In answers your question about what sells in a marketplace.

Honest question. Are you capable of anything beside total right wing extremist thinking?

[One World]

Not you. Most 10 year-olds can write a comprehensible sentence.

[trader4]

I don't believe it's right wing extremist thinking to believe that govt should not be passing more rules to regulate non-existent problems and in the process creating a bigger govt that's taking away more and more of our freedoms. And I don't think it's extremist right wing thinking to believe that people have enough sense to figure out if an 80% or 90% furnace is right for them and then make their own choice. In other words, I don't have the condescending attitude that I or govt knows what's best for everyone and the gall to use govt to force them into it.

Is it right wing to point out that this is a non-problem? That people are already moving to 90%+ furnaces when it makes sense for them? That of 4 contractors, not one even quoted me less than a 90% furnace two years ago? That it's wrong to use the heavy hand of govt to then force the small minority that may have valid perfectly valid reasons for choosing an 80% furnace to instead use a 90%?

Why can't libs just leave people free to choose? Is that so right wing extreme?

[Stormin Mormon]

Aparently, you and I must be right wing extremists. At least, according to them.

Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus

.

Why can't libs just leave people free to choose? Is that so right wing extreme?

[The Daring Dufas]

I think one of my brothers was involved with coal field and landfill gas recovery. As long as we have landfills filled with garbage, I believe we'll have a source of gas for heating homes and running power plants. ^_^

TDD

[chaniarts]

you're installing it in a vacation house, that you use every summer, and perhaps 2-3 weekends of the year in the winter time.

so you save $10 over the course of a year. still a good buy?

[trader4]

See, here's the problem. You have no arguments on the facts. You don't even know the facts. Yet you want to tell the rest of us how to live. In fact, you're so dumb that you gave your endorsement to the idea that you can't afford not to get a new furnace if you can save $2,300 in fuel cost over the next 15 years. Only problem, which even a 10 year old could figure out, is that the new furnace is gonna cost $4,000. And that doesn't even factor in the time value of money, a concept which I'm quite sure is beyone your grasp. And I think a lot of folks here will tell you that the life expectancy of a new furnace you buy today is

15 years or so. So, what you think is a swell idea, is actually a losing proposition.

So, yeah, when I see someone dumb as a brick endorsing forcing their ideas on the rest of us through big govt, because they think we're the dumb ones, I get annoyed.

[trader4]

It's not even a good idea accepting the numbers as given. The savings stated were $2300 over 15 years. That new furnace is gonna cost $4,000 TODAY. A new furnace today has a life expectancy of 15 years, maybe 20. So, you'll likely never break even. And that doesn't even factor in the time value of money.

[krw]

Because you don't get the fun of controlling people if you can't tell them what to do with every minute of their life and every dollar of what the government decides you can earn.