Home Energy Savings

You will have to reseach this problem to find what incentives are available to you in your area (we can't do this for you because you did not give your location).

If there is an incentive program, factor this into your engineering cost analysis (now called life cycle cost analysis).

Such analysis considers capital cost, annual costs, equipment replacement costs, fuel costs, etc, for various alternatives over the life cycle.

The preferred alternative is a feasable alternative which is cost effective over the life cycle.

Like we told the person who asked this same question two days ago, the first question you need to answer is how long do you plan to be at this location.

You would need to be fixed at the location for at least 5 years before even considering an upgrade.

It sound like you need service now whether or not you upgrade.

In many areas government programs such as this do exist, in my area it goes by the name weatherization and does things like this for porer people. One needs to apply for this, and its not often advertised.

The programs often work based on income, if you make very little they will basically do the work for free. If you make not quite enough they will pay for some of the work, and if you make too much, they won't help you.

The work typically consists of insulating your home and determining if your heating system can be made more efficient by cleaning and if not replacement.

A number of years back when I had less income than I do now, I applied for such a service.

It took them about a year which is longer than usual I hear, but in the end I got blown in insulation in my house and my boiler was replaced with a high efficiency one.

Often a gas boiler can simply be cleaned to have an efficiency around 80 to 85% where a new high efficiency one might be as good as 90 to 95%, although that isn't as huge a difference.

I don't think oil quite reaches that 90% efficiency mark although other changes such as a high efficiency burner can be installed in just about any oil heating system.

If your boiler was running at 50% that is really bad, my boiler which was really old and hadn't been cleaned was still running at 75% although it was leaking which is why it needed to be replaced.

I would question if the furnace was truly only operating at 50% efficiency? What is that based on? Now that it has been replaced, what improvement have you seen? Take your fuel bill and see how much energy you were previously using compared to now. I'm not sure how efficient a brand new out-of-the-box high-tech furnace is, but assuming it's 85-90% then you should be able to back your way into how bad the old one was.

I am usually skeptical of the motives of individuals that are trying to sell me something.

Bail them out instead of the bank

many people have bought these new heating systems only too see small savings. Clean you system. The intake espically needs the dust washed out of it and insulate the duct work. Instal a descaler will help keep the hot water heater working without build up.

I replaced our 25 year old central heating boiler 3 years ago with a top-of-the range condensing boiler. So far I haven't noticed much of a saving in gas usage but think I may have got a boiler larger than necessary. With condensing boilers they only start to be really efficient when they are working hard and the flue gas heat-exchanger is really doing it's job. If the boiler rating is too high it never really gets up to speed.

On the 'plus' side, the heating system is now much improved and the whole house feels comfortably warm. I also took the opportunity to install the new boiler, (a lot smaller than the old one) in the loft which freed up a cupboard and the 'memsahb' is a lot happier with her new airing cupboard!

The new heating system should also make it a lot easier to sell the house as energy efficiency is one of the factors required by government for the Home Information Pack in the UK.

My father-in-law did heating and air conditioning for 56 years. He would never install anthing with efficiency ratings of 95% and above. He said there was never a pay back versus the 80% etc. Primarily because of the higher cost, higher maintanence costs and higher cost of replacement parts. With all these appliances and devices you have to look at all costs. Recently I looked at replacing my 12 year old refrigerator. The people "were amazed" that it is lasting this long. I was told all the high end models were not expected to last more than 5-8 years before needing to be replaced". Funny my chest freezer is over 25 years and no problems I bought it used for $50.00 23 years ago.

Your father in law's experience of 56 years is getting outdated. Things moved on. As many older guys who think they invented the wheel, he denies the new technology, because he "knows" is not worth a dime... Many of these 95% systems come with a 10 years waranty on parts and labor, and lifetime warranty on the heat exchanger cell or whatever they call it. Plus the 30% back in taxes (can get up to 1500 smackaronies). So, the higher cost is being somewhat compensated; as far as maintenance costs and parts, he's got no clue... How many of the new systems did he see failing (probably none, since it's relatively new technology)? How many did he install?

So, the higher cost is being somewhat compensated;

He may have reasoned if you don't spent it you still have it....

In 1964, my army uncle was transferred to Okinawa. Their freezer would not run on Japanese power so they gave it to my folks. Today, that freezer is out in our garage just freezing away. This makes it at least 45 years old. If a major appliance such as this were to go bad after only 5 to 8 years, I would take careful note of the manufacturer and NEVER buy that brand again.

Bill

"I would take careful note of the manufacturer and NEVER buy that brand again."

I agree...Unfortunately, there are fewer and fewer manufacturers willing to make products that last 20-40 years anymore. It's a another form of inflation. You can get the same type of product (fridge, freezer, washer, etc.) for half the price you could 10 years ago, but it only last a third as long. It's a vicious cycle...manufacturers go where the demand is. Customers follow lower prices. Manufacturer reduces quality and features to attract customers. Eventually it's too expensive to maintain high end products for those of us who are willing to pay for it. This does not happen with all products, but it seems to be the case with appliances and household electronics.

I agree with JBT that it is unlikely that the old furnace was only 50% efficient. It was probably more likely 80% or 85%. I recently replaced my furnace with one that is 98% efficient. I did not do it for the savings, but because the heat exchanger was shot and there was a potential for problems with carbon monoxide. Tax credits were available from the IRS then and they are again now. These are tax credits, not income credits, so they are even better. Keep in mind that when you go to a high efficiency furnace, the discharge temperature is much lower and the air may feel cool. This is normal. The best things to do with an older furnace that is still in working condition are to change the filter at least once a year, or twice if your air conditioning uses the same duct, make sure you have adequate return ducts or you will starve the furnace, make sure your outlets are not obstructed, and invest in a good thermostat. Insulating the home and sealing up leaks around doors and windows are good investments. New storm doors and storm windows also qualify for tax credits.

Really I was asking your opinion on whether we could address some of our energy issues by helping people update their equipment and/or by providing needed maintenance. Do you think such programs are effective ? Our forced air furnace had tubes which were clogged and corroded and I am curious how this new furnace will affect our gas bill. I think a lot of households could benefit from doing or having maintenance done on their HVAC systems. Save money and conserve energy also.

Howdy folks,

You may want to check out the following link for state-by-state and Federal incentives:

www.dsireusa.org

Lots and lots of useful info regarding state energy related rebate programs + state & energy related federal and state income tax credits. Many useful links as well!!!

Have fun!

Many people are making the comment that they doubt the old furnace was only 50% efficient. 50% is probably on the high side. What they are failing to take into account is what ASHRAE (the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air conditioning Engineers) calls the Seasonal Efficiency. Seasonal Efficiency is a reflection of the actual operating characteristics of the furnace; describing the operating efficiency when the furnace is in start-up and shut down mode, and how it affects the properties of the house when it is not operating. This is where most older furnaces have their true efficiency cut in half.

An older style furnace may have 85% efficiency if it were running all the time. However, does not run all of the time as it is sized to handle the peak heating requirement of the conditioned space. It will therefore operate in cycles of on-off of varying duration depending on the heat loss of the enclosed space compared to its design heat loss. Since the furnace will not be operating at its most efficient operating temperature for most of the time (since it is mostly off, or cycling to/from operating temperature frequently) the actual efficiency of a furnace can only be determined by empirically measuring the caloric input into the furnace under controlled (standardized) conditions which mimic a heated enclosure such as a house. From these observations, manufacturers can publish their seasonal efficiency statistics by following the standardized protocol developed by ASHRAE.

Example: Imagine two furnaces, one old, one new. Both with 85% thermal efficiency when at operating temperature. When off, the older furnace has its flue vent sitting wide open, allowing a stack effect to have cold air settle into the house from any opening and warm air is pushed out of the flue by the differential density of the warm and cold air. This will cause the furnace to come on more often to heat the incoming air. The new furnace has a motorized damper to stop this effect. This improves the overall thermal efficiency of the house as a whole.

There are a number of simple ways newer furnaces improve their seasonal efficiencies over old. Improvements such as optimizing the pre-purge flame run time or post-flame shut-down time based on a logic controller sensing actual temperature rather than simple timers (or nothing at all) on older units greatly improve the performance of the furnace during the "swing" heating season when the furnace is only needed from brief periods.

Presumably, you are referring to Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio or SEER rating. I am curious how this rating is established. Is there a direct correlation of higher SEER to lower heating and cooling operating costs? In the long run (life of furnace), is a system worth $2000 more to go from SEER 10 to SEER 13? Does this rating change with age? Is this rating severely dependent on optimum performance or impact of interfaces such as ducting, placement of unit relative to space environmentally controlled?

Or is SEER another government intervened, gobbledy-gook method of advancing political interest?

Is the topic of SEER worthy of another discussion?

I've recently looked at replacing the water boiler (instantaneous gas) that I put in 10 years ago, mainly because I found that although the product was not that old it was considered obsolete, and that the diaphragm was the only part available, as it was common to newer models.

I run a separate gas central heating system that was installed by British Gas 15 years ago for my wife as she had run out of patience with my installation. (they also put a radiator behind the kitchen door so that it is difficult to get in the kitchen now that we have fitted cupboards.)

BG quoted about £4500 for a condensing combi boiler together with one extra rad and move the kitchen rad. It would need a pretty high efficiency to get that back over 30 years.

As the boiler quoted (Bosch) can be obtained for between £900 and £1200, I thought this a bit excessive, and they wouldn't break the quote down which I thought pretty arrogant.

The final thing to put this project on hold is that next year BG are introducing domestic gas powered CHP, as are VW Schwarm Stroem, and Viessmann have one already. Probably even more expensive.

Does anyone have experience of Viessmann boilers with solar connection?

When we all start paying 3 times what we do now for energy, the payback will be sizable. The more people that don't update to higher efficiency, the faster we'll see those prices.

I am amazed at people questioning the low efficiency of old appliances. I would agree (and have heard evidence from local utilities and equipment rental companies) that old gas and oil equipment efficiency drops off very quickly. A study by the local gas co that rents tank water heaters found that the efficiency of a 80% rated tank style gas water heater is well below 50% within a few years. It was never published, so I don't know the exact methodology, but heard about it from a reliable source.

Keep in mind also that the rated efficiencies are based on bench tests in a lab on one piece of equipment, not on equipment installed in the field as part of a complete system, and my experience as a builder and designer in Toronto is that very few systems achieve the rated efficiency of the equipment.

As for rebate programs, Canada has the EcoEnergy program which is not particularly efficient itself, but it is motivating home and business owners to upgrade equipment. Up to $10,000 for home improvements and much more for business process improvements (up to 50% of capital costs - we have got this level of funding for a laundromat where we upgraded the heating system with a solar thermal system). There are other tax incentives and minor grant programs in different jurisdictions.

ROI and resale value is the best motivator for most of our clients, followed by comfort improvements. There is a growing body of evidence showing the economics of energy improvements is being considered as a motivator in commercial real estate (to a lesser extent in residential, where stainless steel appliances and granite counters still dazzle people into buying what may not be the best investment).

My purpose for saying I would question the estimated low efficiency of the older unit is not that I don't think it's possible. It had more to do with who was making the estimate. Granted the technician may have adequate knowledge to make such a statement, however, he also has a big incentive to exaggerate.

My goal is to use nuclear fusion to heat and cool my house.

I have done the following:

1) Insulation. If a perfectly engineered situation, if you have no heat loss (or gain), you will not have to heat or cool your house. Each individual's metabolism contributes about 70 watts towards heating (that of course is dependent on the individuals size and metabolism, but that is typical for an adult). The first dollars spent on reducing energy expenses should go towards closing air leaks, followed by improved windows, followed by ceiling insulation, then wall insulation, then floor insulation. I'm working on an insulation method based on vacuum methods (think of a glass vacuum thermos for coffee).

2) Water heating. I have designed fluid solar panels that can capture incident solar radiation for $500 for 4 square meters that provides all the hot water that you would need.

3) Space heating is more difficult to engineer. I use a combination of fluid and air panels. The air panels are used during the spring winter and fall, with the solar panels storing heat in non-pressurized plastic water tanks for use at night and during periods of no sun.

4) I use four 80 watt photovoltaic panels, three 100AHr sealed lead acid batteries to power Peltier refrigerators, the fluid panel circulators, air panel absorber fans, lights and appliances. (I use the air panels to dry clothes in a retro fitted electric clothes dryer in the fall, summer and spring when they're not needed as much for space heating). The system is all DC so an inverter isn't needed.

5) 55 degree ground water is sufficient for air conditioning needs during the summer, without a heat pump. (1 BTU is the amount of heat needed to heat (or cool) one pound of water).

The nuclear fusion I mentioned in the first line is the sun, of course. I've spent 20 years doing the engineering so that the solutions are cost effective towards traditional heating and cooling expenses for the equipment, but primarily the recurring fuel costs. The designs are independent of the important CO2 issues. I know this doesn't have much to do with your original question, but these new methods will prevail in the future as they will be less expensive.

Watch for the products that will be available for everyone to use next year. Everything in these systems are in test right now, component suppliers are being evaluated, patents are in work, and data is being collected. Products are currently available now, but the existing components are too expensive.

Hello Schaupt.

I like the dedication to this project.

What hit me was the use of ceiling insulation. This can be a problem to install in older properties below the second storey, but ok for single storeys.

I know its not passive but if you can keep the convectionally risen heat away from the ceiling by a de-stratifier (small fan in a vertical tube) then the conduction across the ceiling is reduced as the temperature gradient is reduced, and the heat is transported to where it is more usefully employed. (fairly recent thread on this topic)

I did read a long time ago that the actual heat transmitted across ceiling structures (vertically) is much lower than would be expected by measuring heat transference by usual lab methods, due to the fact that there is a sort of boundary layer of air that clings to the ceiling surface and acts as a heat transference barrier.

There's a gentleman in Newfoundland that has a company named CanSolair. His company constructs and sells air collectors that cleverly use 240 12oz. soda cans to form a matrix of 16 rows of tubes, with each tube consisting of 15 cans, end to end.

Blair Quinn, also of Cansolair, explains to me the similar effect that you speak of which is the stratification of air, based on density. Their design consists of an intake that is placed low to the floor, with the fan-forced air going through the collector than returning through a duct that is placed close to the ceiling. Their design makes use of this stratification principle quite well. The output is 100 cubic feet per minute, collecting from between 1500 watts to 2500 watts depending on the sun.

I never gave it much thought, but you're absolutely correct about the temperature gradient tie to ceiling insulation contributions. I'm instrumenting the system and will pay particular attention to this detail by taking some air temperature measurements as a function of height in the room. Thanks for your contribution.

What I am suprised about is the number of people who can't figure out true ROI. If you have to have a tax rebate to get a positive return on investment then you have a poor product. If the life expectancy of your product is so short term and the maintanence costs are so high then there is a negative ROI and you can't make your money back by the time it needs to be replaced then you have a poor product. Most of the crap out there is not anything really new just rehashed. After the tax rebates and programs are gone the products disappear until the next wave of government intervention. No one is questioning products losing their efficiency what we question is common sense and true costs.

Excellent point.

BEWARE of the "windows of opportunity" replacement salesman. Case and point. A window sales guy calls me claiming his product will reduce my heating and cooling bills by 35%. So I ask him, what is the typical or average ROI in the number of years it takes to recoup the cost of his windows on houses that he has installed windows on. His answer was 6 to 7 years. My general rule of thumb is ROI in 5 to 7 years is worth considering. So I run a few numbers based on my utility bills over the the last 6 or 7 years and arrive at a figure of about $7,200. So I invite the guy over to give his pitch.

DOH! no surprise, his quote is $12,300. His recant is that the ROI is some far-fetched forecast that my utility bill will double over the next few years. With the higher utility bills it still takes 10 years plus to break even (no adjustment for inflation).

Also, be aware that only certain grades of windows will affort the $1,500 tax credit.