Will Limiting On-Off Cycles Save $$$

BobC

as i understand it if you go to far you get convection going in that sealed gap and negate any improvement.

Bob

sunlight33

You can also get argon gas option in windows, krypton is better but hard to come by. Just like the mod-con, America is also behind in windows than Europe.

Fred

They are putting a gas (Imost use argon) in just about all double or triple pane windows. That's why you see them get cloudy when the seal fails.

Jamie Hall

Fred said:

They are putting a gas (Imost use argon) in just about all double or triple pane windows. That's why you see them get cloudy when the seal fails.

Which it always does... sooner or later.

Fred

Jamie Hall said:

Fred said:

They are putting a gas (Imost use argon) in just about all double or triple pane windows. That's why you see them get cloudy when the seal fails.

Which it always does... sooner or later.

Absolutely!

sunlight33

Here's a good article on windows insulation:
http://www.cchrc.org/sites/default/files/docs/JGB_windows_article.pdf

SWEI

Nice piece. Clearly demonstrates the value of those roll-down shutters the northern Europeans seem to favor...

Fred

Sure does. I'm surprised with the inside sliding shutters too. Too bad about the condensation issues with those though.

SWEI

Right -- best when we block the cold as close to the source as possible. A layer of added exsulation has fantastic potential, but there have been so many issues created by tacking them onto existing buildings that the entire paradigm is now suspect in the eyes of many. IIRC, my last liability insurance app had at least ten EFIS-related questions on it.

Jamie Hall

Best also if you can block the vapour on the warm side. That, of course, is the problem with any of the blown in or foamed in place insulations -- they tend to allow vapour through to the colder areas, where it condenses and rots the building... or makes mould. Or both.

RomanGK_26986764589

EcoSteam may help as it lets the rads soke in the heat and not let the T-stat turn the burner on. KC_ Jones has one of those so he may be able to comment on that.

SWEI

Warm, cold, damp, dry. Not a binary problem.

PMJ

Fred said:

Jamie Hall said:

Fred said:

They are putting a gas (Imost use argon) in just about all double or triple pane windows. That's why you see them get cloudy when the seal fails.

Which it always does... sooner or later.

Absolutely!

I'm glad you guys brought this part up. So when we discuss efficiency shouldn't the discussion include everything and not just energy? Shouldn't the real efficiency be measured in total annual cost over the long term - energy and replacement? I'm not sure why government rebate programs seem to be consider only today's energy efficiency of a brand new unit. If I want to look through clear windows the annual cost required to do that changes dramatically. If a cloudy one here and there is OK with folks (which is what I see when I visit around) then great. I have a really hard time with that look. It feels like a ticking time bomb. I like at least having the option of washing my windows all four sides.

Jamie Hall

@PMJ -- quite correct. When one discusses efficiency -- or environmental impact, or both -- one should always, always consider the total impact, not just one step in the chain. Electric this and that is one of the worst offenders in this regard, since people -- and the government -- never take into account the losses and costs of generating the electricity in the first place (thermal efficiency in power plants, habitat destruction for hydro or solar or wind, etc. etc. etc.). Trouble is, of course, that it's complicated, and the none of the major players -- general public, media, government -- like complicated.

Sigh...

PMJ

Jamie Hall said:

@PMJ -- quite correct. When one discusses efficiency -- or environmental impact, or both -- one should always, always consider the total impact, not just one step in the chain. Electric this and that is one of the worst offenders in this regard, since people -- and the government -- never take into account the losses and costs of generating the electricity in the first place (thermal efficiency in power plants, habitat destruction for hydro or solar or wind, etc. etc. etc.). Trouble is, of course, that it's complicated, and the none of the major players -- general public, media, government -- like complicated.

Sigh...

100% agree Jamie. At least they haven't taken away my right to consider total impact for my own purchases.

SWEI

A real tragedy is that state and federal procurement regulations essentially prohibit us from making TCO/lifecycle based decisions when we construct new public buildings. If the average life of a public building is 50 years (SWAG) why do we keep building them so they (and the systems within them) are finished in 20 years (sometimes less)?

PMJ

SWEI said:

A real tragedy is that state and federal procurement regulations essentially prohibit us from making TCO/lifecycle based decisions when we construct new public buildings. If the average life of a public building is 50 years (SWAG) why do we keep building them so they (and the systems within them) are finished in 20 years (sometimes less)?

Decent stuff requires hefty up front cost. Being in a position to afford that requires an ongoing savings/reserve level that we collectively abandoned quite a while ago. We live and work increasingly surrounded by junk. To me it is our actual state of poverty exposed. I mean really - technology improves and long term annual costs for the same product performance level increases? Huh?

Gordy

ChrisJ said:

Jamie Hall said:

Envelope upgrades? Hatteras, in some cases I agree with you on them -- but one mustn't be too absolute on that. In some instances, envelope upgrades to meet or even approach modern standards may not be feasible, or may be too expensive even if feasible to provide any return on investment. While this may not be true in modern buildings -- say from the early 1950s on, which were often very poorly built and aren't that hard to upgrade -- on historic structures it is very very often true. The place I care for being a case in point -- so perhaps I am sensitive to it!

I'd need to rip my 1950s aluminum siding off, rip all of the 150 year old clapboard off, tear out the 150 year old windows and replace them, which, 26 quality windows don't come cheap. Then insulation, then sheathing, siding etc.

It's not cheap by any means. I'd end up with a more comfortable house and the windows would be really nice but there's no way I could afford it. Not even close.

I'd probably want Anderson 400 series WoodWright windows with the 2 over 2 pattern to match my originals and I don't know what I'd do for siding, I hate vinyl. Probably Hardieboard. You're talking $13K in windows alone for my house not counting labor or anything else.

I don't know your window sizes, but 13k is cheap you start adding the accessories up that make it a nice window I'll bet your double that.

If your old ones are in decent shape they can be brought back to life with some patience. Get wood storms made. Many companies online that make the old wood storms. Get low e glazing. You'll be close to new window performance with old window character at maybe 1/3 of the cost.

I was in the same boat. Pellas custom to fit existing openings. 36 Windows some 6'x6' 36k. No way. The pay back is never there, and energy rebates pay diddly.

Fred

@PMJ , you are so correct. From my perspective, I don't think most consider ALL the cost/effeciency/Total cost of ownership associated with the way "Effeciency Improvements" are calculated. I so often hear/see developers talk about the advantages of tearing down a perfectly good structure and building a new "green" structure over repurposing the old structure. When you consider the lost materials of the older structure, the cost to the environmet as a result of throwing it in a landfill, the cost to produce the new materials (that typically have a shorter life than the remaining life of the old structure), the energy used to do the demo and build the new, and all the other indirect consumption, there rarely is a reasonable payback, either to the owner or the environment. The same holds true with most of the individual components/systems associated with a structure. We turn a blind eye to the real facts because we are often anamored by the Newest, shinyest gadgets in the market place. Most of the old designs were built for longevity. Most new technologies have a designed life that benefits the manufacturer through repeat projected sales. we seem to have to have every new bell and whistle regardless of the total cost of ownership and we convince ourselves we bought into it for the environmental effeciencies. A way to sooth our conscience, I guess.

bmwpowere36m3

I agree with @Gordy

I just remodeled my ranch house and spent $7-8k on new Anderson 400 casement windows, bow and a slider (double pane, HP low-E glass). Only 8 windows/doors total and that was with a 20% discount when they had a sale going. Install I did myself, figure another $1k in caulk, tyvek, tape, sealing membrane, spray foam, odd-ends, etc...

Fred

I always suggest planning $1000.00 per finished, reasonabe quality, replacement window. (average size: 30 to 36" wide, 56 to 60" tall)

Gordy

If you go clad with color, krypton gas, low e , grids, etc. it gets out of hand.

Marvin makes a better window in my opinion.

Forget about remodel inserts garbage may as well stay with single, and storms.

My house has a lot of glazing for 2000 SF. All exterior walls are 40-50% glazed. Various combination units bay windows etc.
Pella came over on a whim. Funny thing was a 84" combo unit picture with two double hung so was as much as a 46x63 double hung. 1500 bucks 7 years ago.

Window treatments are a HUGE asset. Cellular to be exact, but anything will help leaps, and bounds. You can buy darn nice cellular shades that will do more than a new window with all the bells, and whistles.

Fred

Wood clad with a vinyl is an excellent choice for replacements but they are at least twice what a decent quality vinyl costs and most people won't spend that much. The wood clad have a couple advantages too. You can get them clad on the outside and natural wood on the interior so you can finish them to match interior woodwork or you can have the dealer order them prefininshed on the interior. Again for an added cost. You end up at about 3X the cost of a typical vinyl.

Marvin does make a good quality window. One issue with their standard window, however (and most vinyl replacement windows, for that matter) is the sashes are typically so much narrower than wood windows and it almost looks like the sash is part of the side frames. The profile is just not ideal for Historic replacements. Another advantage to wood clad. They typically are beefier all the way around and more closely resemble an original window.
I think both Marvin and Anderson now have a line for use as Historic replacements, but at a cost, obviously.

ChrisJ

$13K was based on my assumption that windows could be had for $500 each. Maybe I can't get my sizes for that?

Most of the windows are around 32" wide by 50" high. I wouldn't want "replacement" windows because they reduce the size which is why I'd have to rip the siding off.

PMJ

Fred said:

@PMJ , you are so correct. From my perspective, I don't think most consider ALL the cost/effeciency/Total cost of ownership associated with the way "Effeciency Improvements" are calculated. I so often hear/see developers talk about the advantages of tearing down a perfectly good structure and building a new "green" structure over repurposing the old structure. When you consider the lost materials of the older structure, the cost to the environmet as a result of throwing it in a landfill, the cost to produce the new materials (that typically have a shorter life than the remaining life of the old structure), the energy used to do the demo and build the new, and all the other indirect consumption, there rarely is a reasonable payback, either to the owner or the environment. The same holds true with most of the individual components/systems associated with a structure. We turn a blind eye to the real facts because we are often anamored by the Newest, shinyest gadgets in the market place. Most of the old designs were built for longevity. Most new technologies have a designed life that benefits the manufacturer through repeat projected sales. we seem to have to have every new bell and whistle regardless of the total cost of ownership and we convince ourselves we bought into it for the environmental effeciencies. A way to sooth our conscience, I guess.

Totally with you on this Fred. The math really isn't that hard. And you are right - if you really added up the energy consumed in making all the hardware 2 or 3 times instead of once to cover the same time period, I doubt the total energy savings they talk about would actually be there.

Fred

ChrisJ said:

$13K was based on my assumption that windows could be had for $500 each. Maybe I can't get my sizes for that?

Most of the windows are around 32" wide by 50" high. I wouldn't want "replacement" windows because they reduce the size which is why I'd have to rip the siding off.

You wouldn't lose much, if anything in glass size. The replacements push in to the exterior stops on the old frame and one of the reasons the sashes are narrower is to compensate for the added 3/4" the replacement frames eat into the opening. That coupled with the fact your old wood sashes were wider, the net result is a glass size that pretty much matches what you currently have, give or take 1/2".

Gordy

I would never do vinyl. Wood clad with aluminum exterior cladding.

Your windows are smaller Chris, but if you want custom sized to eliminate opening size adjustments you get into dollars.

Gordy

They (replacements) are garbage. Most have uvalues of.35.

ChrisJ

Gordy said:

They (replacements) are garbage. Most have uvalues of.35.

Yeah, see usually if I do something, I go all out or don't do anything.

Fred

Vinyl or aliminum clad, quality and durability is pretty much the same. Substructure is the same wood. Cost is about the same. It becomes a matter of personal preference. That's why they offer those options.
They are now offering a Composite window, also. More durable than new growth pine (which virtually all replacement windows are made of), pest resistent, impervious to water/moisture. Costs even more, naturally.

sunlight33

Hail to quadruple pane and quintuple pane windows!
http://www.energisticssolutions.com/fiberglass-windows

Fred

sunlight33 said:

Hail to quadruple pane and quintuple pane windows!
http://www.energisticssolutions.com/fiberglass-windows

Lord Help Us!

Gordy

You thought double, or triple were expensive.......

Gordy

@ChrisJ whatcha got for Windows? Condition? Storms existing?

sunlight33

It's all right people, there is a still a long way before number of panes in windows catch up to number of blades on razors.