Why are energy efficiency standards so far behind the technology?

ChrisJ

@AJinCT I specifically like your response to Tim, shame you don't know who he is or what he does for a living.

Steamhead

AJinCT, I'll ask this again: You are aware the Empire State Building is LEED Gold certified after a recent renovation- and it has steam heat, correct?

That's right- a LEED Gold building that has a steam heat system. This would not be possible if steam was as inefficient as you say.

ChrisJ

Steamhead said:

AJinCT, I'll ask this again: You are aware the Empire State Building is LEED Gold certified after a recent renovation- and it has steam heat, correct?

That's right- a LEED Gold building that has a steam heat system. This would not be possible if steam was as inefficient as you say.

I already know what his response is going to be, so thinking ahead....

The Steam Whisperer

Some efficiency facts for our guest that He may not know.
The average 92% AFUE efficient hot air furnace uses about 70 times more electricity than a standard 80% AfUE steam boiler.
The average new forced air heat home leaks about 10% more air when the fan is off and 50% more air when the fan is on compared to other heating systems.
92% efficient hot water boilers typically use 3 to 4 times more electricity than "cast iron clunkers" .
The typical radiant system (nearly all steam systems and many hot water systems) achieve comfort levels at air temperatures about 2 to 3 degree less than air heating systems. This alone is a 6 to9 % fuel savings.
In order to achieve high AFUE number, or high combustion efficiency numbers typically electrical use must go way up.
When you take into account overall efficiency of equipment ( both gas and electrical input) and how the system interacts with the building and occupants, the old clunker cast iron steam or hot water boiler (80%) systems use less energy than 92% AFUE hot air furnace.
Steam systems do not have to be built of large pipes. Steam minitube systems have been around for 70 years or more and use small copper supply mains. A typical home uses a 1 inch copper supply with 3/8 flexible copper lines to the vary small radiation, and 1/4 inch returns. The efficiency of these systems is exceptional with an old clunker 80% efficient boiler.
96% efficient steam boiler are becoming more and more popular. The Art Institute of Chicago recently made this upgrade and it appears that there is interest at my Alma Mater, IIT in Chicago, after I was a guest lecturer on modern steam heating for the graduate Mechanical Engineering Department.
You're dismissing of steam as inherently inefficient is based on a lack of information about the development that is going on in the industry and the reapplication of vacuum system design that is beginning to occur.
One thing to remember, steam as an inherent advantage of operating at very large delta tees, which are optimum for condensing technology In addition, there are no additional energy needs for distribution.

Much of this information above is available at the US DOE.

CMadatMe

Here's why the US will never get on the European standard of Condensing on all gas boilers.. There is no "trade in/scrap program" here in the US and never will be. The incentive for the consumer just isn't there.

I don't want to hear about ROI. The house you own now a days doesn't even pay an ROI for the majority of us if you add in the 30 years of taxes, maintenance, blood, sweat and tears you put into it. It's a liquid asset and so should your boiler or any piece of heating equipment.

You have to give the Hot Air industry some credit in the aspect of incentives for the consumer to purchase. Because the Hot Air Industry is more "dealer" focused unlike the hydronic industry they are more creative when it comes to the marketing of rebates and getting equipment into the consumers home.

Chester

OK. The OP's question is "Why are energy efficiency standards so far behind the technology?" It's a legitimate question with no easy answer. In fact there's no single answer. And it's complicated.

I work in the electric power industry and am a former state energy policy official. I have opinions about this topic based on my own experience and political leanings. Here are some ways I'd answer the question:

1. It's tough for government to impose stuff on consumers they may not want. It's an interesting problem: we expect politicians to do what we elect them to do (representative government) but we also expect them to 'lead', which often means telling us what's best for us.

2. It's irrational to expect that a vast majority of consumers (voters, etc.) will become self-educated and objective experts on energy policy or any other complicated subject.

3. In the energy sector consumers have historically had two primary concerns: it should be cheap and reliable. In recent years society is also much more sensitive to environmental impacts. An inside joke in my world is: cheap, clean, reliable -- pick two. Because we don't have a technology that perfectly meets all three criteria. There's (still) no free lunch.

4. A significant number of Americans think energy costs too much (due to ill-conceived government tax policy, corporate greed, or whatever).

5. A significant number of Americans think we should make fossil fuels more expensive because low prices are inhibiting the development of renewables, etc., and killing the planet.

6. Consumers in general don't want to take responsibility or make sacrifices. Another inside joke: folks show up to protest new power plants, pipelines, or whatever driving SUVs with Sierra Club stickers on the window. Or people show up in their Priuses to fight a wind farm that will ruin their view. I respect their opinions and passion but it is kind of ironic how people expect somebody else to address climate change or whatever while they live large, drive around in big cars and fly all over the place for business and pleasure. I'm not sure we really want fuel efficiency and emissions standards for airplanes. The answer to that problem, like almost every other energy problem, is to actually use less.

7. Lots of people in this country can't afford the latest and greatest technology and understandably don't want to pay for other folks (through taxes, higher electric bills, etc.) to install solar panels or insulate their homes.

I could go on and on. But when I said above that, at a high level, our energy policy is essentially "use as much as you can afford" I meant that in the context of how we don't live in a socialist economy where government gets to make all our decisions for us. A better policy, in my view, might be "only use as much as you really need." (But what if I want a big boat?)

Just my opinion but I think we're lucky to have appliance efficiency standards in the first place. Nonetheless we still have to recognize that efficiency standards in and of themselves can't overcome the impact of living in large houses, driving big cars and expecting to have unlimited hot water to take 20-minute showers everyday.

And then there's the little problem of having AFUE stickers on boilers that are essentially meaningless unless someone dials in the ODR curves, etc.

Thanks for letting me get this off my chest.

Jamie Hall

There is another factor to consider -- well, several more! -- when trying to compare European practice with that in the US or Canada. I'll just hit a few.

First, there is an odd mix of very old buildings -- like very old (one place my daughter lived for a while was built in 1547, for instance) and may be difficult -- or impossible -- to put any sort of central heating in. This tends to result in either no central heat -- or very creative mini systems of one kind or another, most of which have been put in very recently. They are also rather energy inefficient in terms of envelope...

Second, there are, in many cities on the continent and southern England, many very new buildings, partly as a result of destruction during WWII. This is particularly true in Germany. They tend to be small, but were often built with more modern systems.

Third, the climate -- despite some chill conditions -- is generally warmer at the minimum and cooler for the highs. This has made the adoption of heat pumps considerably more practical.

And one last -- despite strenuous efforts on the part of far more control freak governments, the programs for retrofitting are a dismal failure. There is no reason to suppose that government mandates on the west side of the pond would be any more popular!

Gordy

Chester said:

OK. The OP's question is "Why are energy efficiency standards so far behind the technology?" It's a legitimate question with no easy answer. In fact there's no single answer. And it's complicated.

I work in the electric power industry and am a former state energy policy official. I have opinions about this topic based on my own experience and political leanings. Here are some ways I'd answer the question:

1. It's tough for government to impose stuff on consumers they may not want. It's an interesting problem: we expect politicians to do what we elect them to do (representative government) but we also expect them to 'lead', which often means telling us what's best for us.

2. It's irrational to expect that a vast majority of consumers (voters, etc.) will become self-educated and objective experts on energy policy or any other complicated subject.

3. In the energy sector consumers have historically had two primary concerns: it should be cheap and reliable. In recent years society is also much more sensitive to environmental impacts. An inside joke in my world is: cheap, clean, reliable -- pick two. Because we don't have a technology that perfectly meets all three criteria. There's (still) no free lunch.

4. A significant number of Americans think energy costs too much (due to ill-conceived government tax policy, corporate greed, or whatever).

5. A significant number of Americans think we should make fossil fuels more expensive because low prices are inhibiting the development of renewables, etc., and killing the planet.

6. Consumers in general don't want to take responsibility or make sacrifices. Another inside joke: folks show up to protest new power plants, pipelines, or whatever driving SUVs with Sierra Club stickers on the window. Or people show up in their Priuses to fight a wind farm that will ruin their view. I respect their opinions and passion but it is kind of ironic how people expect somebody else to address climate change or whatever while they live large, drive around in big cars and fly all over the place for business and pleasure. I'm not sure we really want fuel efficiency and emissions standards for airplanes. The answer to that problem, like almost every other energy problem, is to actually use less.

7. Lots of people in this country can't afford the latest and greatest technology and understandably don't want to pay for other folks (through taxes, higher electric bills, etc.) to install solar panels or insulate their homes.

I could go on and on. But when I said above that, at a high level, our energy policy is essentially "use as much as you can afford" I meant that in the context of how we don't live in a socialist economy where government gets to make all our decisions for us. A better policy, in my view, might be "only use as much as you really need." (But what if I want a big boat?)

Just my opinion but I think we're lucky to have appliance efficiency standards in the first place. Nonetheless we still have to recognize that efficiency standards in and of themselves can't overcome the impact of living in large houses, driving big cars and expecting to have unlimited hot water to take 20-minute showers everyday.

And then there's the little problem of having AFUE stickers on boilers that are essentially meaningless unless someone dials in the ODR curves, etc.

Thanks for letting me get this off my chest.

Condense that @Chester into Money. Money for fossil fuel markets. The only energy markets that do not depend on fossil fuels are wind, solar, nuclear, and hydro. Other than lubricants for components a small fraction of the energy sector. You can bet big oil has their controlling fingers in those markets also. Supply, and demand. There are lots of new extraction methods that require a barrel of oil to be at a certain level before its cost effective to do.. Very complex global market that effects huge pockets with a lot of pull.

Steamhead

The fact that the Empire State Building uses ConEd steam makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. Their steam is generated in boilers like everyone else's, so there is no difference in efficiency. Nice try.

And is that 96% mod-con actually 96%? There has been at least one instance where these efficiency numbers have been questioned. In some cases, manufacturers were quoting numbers that were almost 100%. Here is a thread on this that I was able to find quickly:

http://forum.heatinghelp.com/discussion/143588/afue-on-all-boilers-reduced-to-90

I'm sure this won't be the last time.......................

ChrisJ

Steamhead said:

The fact that the Empire State Building uses ConEd steam makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. Their steam is generated in boilers like everyone else's, so there is no difference in efficiency. Nice try.

And is that 96% mod-con actually 96%? There has been at least one instance where these efficiency numbers have been questioned. In some cases, manufacturers were quoting numbers that were almost 100%. Here is a thread on this that I was able to find quickly:

http://forum.heatinghelp.com/discussion/143588/afue-on-all-boilers-reduced-to-90

I'm sure this won't be the last time.......................

I seem to recall Jim Davis telling me many 90+ appliances run as low as 40% at times.

Suppose it's just like the 6HP shop vacs that may produce 1HP at most. Sure looks good on the sticker! Too bad it's a complete lie.

@Steamhead what would you prefer?
A snowman running @ 60% connected to a properly working steam system in a super insulated and sealed home by today's standards.

Or a 95% modcon in a drafty house with typical 1950s insulation (some places 3", some places none) and windows?

Personally, I'd take the snowman setup.

ChrisJ

Smart...... the new house would have quality double pane windows with storms.

Steamhead

Not a snowman. Some of those were truly horrible. I'll go with a MegaSteam.

The envelope, of course, should be as good as one can make it. For example, as nearly as I can calculate using the Slant/Fin program, my house originally had a heat loss of 134,549 BTU per hour at a 70°F inside/0°F outside design when my great-grandfather had it built in 1924. Its present heat loss, as calculated, is 78,485- about 58% of the original loss. In my lifetime, the firing rate has been reduced from 1.65 to 0.75 GPH through a newer boiler and envelope improvements (yes, I'm still on oil). I'm still improving things as I go.

But even with a tight envelope, if there is an extended power or fuel failure, the house would eventually get down to freezing during the winter. So steam would win, since the radiators and most of the pipes drain dry when the system shuts down, drastically reducing the potential for freezing damage.

SWEI

AJinCT said:

our energy policy is to not have an energy policy.

We definitely have an energy policy. It's defined and guided behind closed doors by huge multinationals (large portions of whose bottom lines depend on it) and their political minions. It may not be published, but it's quite real.

When oil prices cover a 5:1 range in just a few years, the likelihood of making either good public policy or good business decisions begins to approach zero.

Steamhead

AJinCT said:

Steamhead, It's absolutely relevant. It is co-generated.

Is it? Most district steam systems I'm familiar with are entirely separate from power generation- to the extent that they are operated by entirely separate companies. The one in Baltimore was one part of BGE but has passed thru several different companies, currently owned by Veolia.

AJinCT said:

And were those 84% boilers really 84%? And what about standby loss? The mod/cons have very little standby loss, a chunk of cast iron has significant standby loss.

The AFUE testing procedure supposedly covers standby losses. And, if you minimize drafting thru a cast-iron boiler when it's off, it will hold its heat for a long time. A low-mass mod-con will cool down quickly and have to start from scratch.

AJinCT said:

Steamhead, Throw some Cryo-Tek in a hot water system, and get a generator. Now, no matter what, you don't have to worry about pipes freezing. Your water pipes are going to freeze too, so you have to do something to keep the building warm.

What happens when you have to drain the system? Eventually any kind of antifreeze will have to be recovered for environmental reasons- I believe some European countries already regulate this. Better to not have the issue in the first place, and be able to get the heat back on with minimal repairs so you can work in a warm building fixing everything else.

Steamhead

A couple of buckets? Once you add the antifreeze to the system, you would have to recover all the water in the system. That's a lot more than a couple of buckets. You really need to actually WORK with heating systems to know this,.

The AFUE standards don't.....what?

ChrisJ

I think he's claiming AFUE doesn't account for standby losses.

Should I post Penny again?

Jamie Hall

In an odd sense I sort of agree with with some of the OP's aims -- better conservation is a Good Thing.

However...

In order to get any sort of consensus or discussion going, it is absolutely necessary to abandon any claims or statements which cannot be supported, with references or one's own actual experience. Such an example being the claim "a Weil-Mclain 87% boiler burns 25%+ more oil than an 87% Energy Kinetics boiler" which, in the absence of supporting field documentation -- which is not provided -- can be seen to be a product of a male bovine.

Similarly, any appeal to some sort of "standard", such as the AFUE (or, in the auto industry, the equally ludicrous CAFE or individual vehicle mileage statements) must be to a standard which is known to be fair, inclusive, and accurate. Part of the problem, of course, is that there isn't such a critter.

It is a real shame that a potentially useful thread, taking advantage of the collective knowledge which is here assembled, has been lost. That is, however, the nature of these things; I have yet -- with one or two notable exceptions -- encountered a discussion where the convinced, with little or no experience, would listen to those who actually do know what they are doing. Unfortunately, the convinced are often those in government...

BobC

I have a comment when it comes to nuclear power. Any and all solid fuel boiling water reactors are unsafe and completely inefficient.

It's time we revisit the Oak Ridge liquid sodium research that Nixon shut down to funnel jobs to California. That style of reactor is 96% efficient vs 3% for solid fuel reactors. That means the waste is about 30X less and the worst of that waste has to be sequestered for 300 years not 25,000 years. If you use thorium instead of uranium the fuel can't be used to build bombs and the reactor can use the long term waste from boiling water reactors as fuel - it's the only known way to get rid of long term nuclear waste.

Also liquid fuel reactors can't melt down because they are already in liquid form. With careful engineering they can be made walk away safe and need no external power for cooling - you might recall the problem at Fukushima was caused by the loss of coolant.

Bob

SWEI

If we priced our energy sources using some variation of full cost accounting, we might be able to eliminate 50% of related regulations and perhaps 80% of the associated bureaucracy. The consumer might not like the resulting price, but would at least be aware of the real cost. Result: a working market, much better decisions (on both sides) and a much nicer place for our descendants to live.

Doing so would pretty much turn our entire consumer-industrial-marketing-consumption complex on its head -- but that may well be what it needs.

Jamie Hall

I am beginning to see a common denominator... Energy Kinetics. Nice website. Based out of Lebanon, NJ. Anybody have experience with them?

njtommy

I've worked on a hand full of EKs system 2000 they feed heat to an ice rink. The place had four of them. Two on top two on the bottom. They seem like really good boilers. No DHW on them tho
I think that's there whole selling point is they put btus into heating the DHW so your not wasting any heat.

Jamie Hall

I didn't find steam on their website?

njtommy

I don't believe they do steam.

Fred

I looked also, no mention of steam which is why the OP elected to exclude it frrom the discussion??? @AJinCT , do you have any affiliation with EK?

ChrisJ

Fred said:

I looked also, no mention of steam which is why the OP elected to exclude it frrom the discussion??? @AJinCT , do you have any affiliation with EK?

Ahhhhh............

Jason_13

I have had in depth conversations with manufacturers in the past and I understand the the AFUE standards are done with water temperatures of 140f supply and 120f return. Standby losses are also checked thus the difference between the input efficiency and DOE output which is tested. The Net rating is just a formula not a test.
The reference to the reduction of all mod/cons to 90% was due to a formula error given out by the DOE.
The R&D of any product is very expensive. Many boilers are in R&D for a year or more before they go out for testing which account for many man hours. Next is certification for the boiler and the Installation manual which is very costly. To bring a new product to market probably costs upwards of $100K or more.
When the company sells internationally such as Weil or Burnham they will offer multi level efficient boiler models at different price points to meet all needs. The more expensive equipment like the Burnham MPO has better insulation (3") like Buderus.
This is different than a company that sells in 25% of the country and offers a couple of lines like EK.
Just eliminate chimney vented boilers use OD air for combustion, install OD reset or indoor, properly size the boiler, set up the OD reset properly, avoid a lot of micro-zones and even with cast iron you'll still save 25%-40% plus for the owner. Use a mod/con and improve on that a little bit more.
I personally don't want more mandates from the government. Better educate the homeowner. We need to get more articles in places they can read them instead of hiding all our good news in industry publications.

ChrisJ

You know what we should focus all of our efforts on?


Where's my MR FUSION???

BobC

Fusion will be the answer to most of our problems regarding electricity when we figure it out - I don't see it happening for 30+ years but hope I'm wrong.

Until then we can get efficient and clean nuclear power in 10 years if we have the will to start building generation 4 nuclear designed plants now.

Bob

ratio

<sigh>

While there is a place in the world for government regulations, I'm hard-pressed to think of circumstances promoting the adoption of regulations that the express intent of which is nothing other than increasing my cost.

New regulations on something as poorly understood by the average homeowner (or politician) will undoubtedly be at best ineffectual, likely counterproductive in some not-uncommon circumstances, and most certainly gamed.

And of course the problem will not be fixed by better efficiency regulations, even in the dubious circumstances of correct, effectual implementation.

The problem is too much use, the only solution is to use less. Arguing for anything else is merely concealing the problem, and suffers from the same critical flaw as all the other current "solutions", namely pushing the problem down stream, to be dealt with at a later date.

Dave0176

The majority of steam owners who actually take care of there stuff, regularly clean it, will get 35-40 years of service and replace possibly a couple thermo couplers, a $6 item or now a spark ignitor, this being done for higher efficiency, and they do fail.

Even conventional cast iron hot water boilers go 40-50 years with 0 maintinence other then the usual thermo coupler or circulator replacement. Try neglecting a mod/con....!!!!!

As steamhead already stated I have the parts on my truck to repair any of these heating units, I don't have any for the high efficiency stuff.

I don't really install much high efficiency stuff unless the customer REALLY wants it.

ChrisJ

AJinCT said:

ratio, for homeowners who are making good choices with HVAC equipment, stricter efficiency standards would mean nothing, as they would already comply with them. For homeowners who are poorly informed, then they would save money with more efficient equipment. The only people who would spend more are landlords, but their tenants would benefit.

Speaking of landlords, don't even get me started on all-electric apartments with resistance baseboard. Utterly ridiculous in this day and age. It wouldn't be hard to plop a Mitsubishi MSHP in each apartment.

Insulation is definitely one way to use less heating energy, and you can try some sort of campaign to get people to stop blasting the heat, and keep thermostats at 65 or less, but even *I* wouldn't want the government reaching in and controlling thermostats (unless it's voluntary like the A/C peak load programs). And beyond that, how do you cut usage? You have to heat with something, whether it's oil/gas or wood or a heat pump.

Dave0176, You make it sound like mod/con boilers are so difficult and some new-fangled tech. They aren't. They've been proven over and over, and unless you live in east Timbuktu or something, there are dealers with the parts for them. There is simply no good reason for CI gas hot water boilers to exist. None. They're big, bulky, awkward, heavy, and worst of all, inefficient. Buderus is the last domain of a good use for a CI boiler, and only on oil.

65F?
I keep our heat at 72F, anything less would never fly with the wife and to be honest, 65 wouldn't fly with me either. 68 or 69 maybe.

You really love heatpumps.
Wonder how long they last? Judging by all other modern refrigeration equipment I'm going to guess not terribly long.

What's the MTBF on a Mitsubishi MSHP?
I'd tell you what it is for a monitor top, but you'd call me a liar.

Steamhead

AJinCT said:

Dave0176, You make it sound like mod/con boilers are so difficult and some new-fangled tech. They aren't. They've been proven over and over, and unless you live in east Timbuktu or something, there are dealers with the parts for them. There is simply no good reason for CI gas hot water boilers to exist. None. They're big, bulky, awkward, heavy, and worst of all, inefficient. Buderus is the last domain of a good use for a CI boiler, and only on oil.

There you go again. Since some mod-cons have only lasted five years, are you saying you would want to replace yours every five years? Well, it's a free country, but most of us prefer something that lasts longer. That in itself justifies cast-iron boilers. And we can handle moving them around- sure beats paying for a gym membership.

ChrisJ said:

What's the MTBF on a Mitsubishi MSHP?
I'd tell you what it is for a monitor top, but you'd call me a liar.

That seems to be AJ's standard response to someone who posts something that doesn't match his narrative. Don't forget, he's never actually worked with this equipment.

ChrisJ

When it comes to being "green" and actually trying to do the best thing when it comes to the environment I have big concerns about a ton of mini-splits being in a land fill in 10-20 years.

Not to mention we allow (is allow the right word? yeah, we pay them to do it, so I'm going with it) China to make them with zero environmental regulations. Even if they're assembled in Japan or USA I bet 95% of the parts are made in China.

I've seen how many modern compressors, evaporators and condensers are made and I really have a hard time believing they can last as long as a decent boiler and hot water or steam system. A really hard time.

This is also the reason I'm against geothermal, for now. I always keep an open mind and will change my option when presented with different facts.

let's see those MTBF specs!

njtommy

Mini splits / VRV systems or modulating compressors are the wave of the future. I don't believe they will ever replace boilers that are steam or hydronic. They are inexpensive to run and make zoning easy. If a home owner has solar panels it's silly not to use heat pumps as the first stage of heating. Sure there comfort level my drop a bit, but I guess that's what you deal with or become accustomed to.

I'm not sure about the whole being green crap. I just do not want not to pay high utility bills so if the math is ther for saving and return on investment is good why not.

ChrisJ

njtommy said:

Mini splits / VRV systems or modulating compressors are the wave of the future. I don't believe they will ever replace boilers that are steam or hydronic. They are inexpensive to run and make zoning easy. If a home owner has solar panels it's silly not to use heat pumps as the first stage of heating. Sure there comfort level my drop a bit, but I guess that's what you deal with or become accustomed to.



I'm not sure about the whole being green crap. I just do not want not to pay high utility bills so if the math is ther for saving and return on investment is good why not.

Solar panels.
That's a whole other can of worms right down to the utility companies limiting the amount you can feed back into the grid.

As far as the whole being green crap, that's what this thread was allegedly about.

njtommy

I'm not sure how the solar panel thing works with pushing power back to the grid, but I can say they are being installed everywhere and on a good amount of houses. A good buddy of mine just had them install on his house I think it will cost him around 40k or so by the time he pays his system off.

ChrisJ

njtommy said:

I'm not sure how the solar panel thing works with pushing power back to the grid, but I can say they are being installed everywhere and on a good amount of houses. A good buddy of mine just had them install on his house I think it will cost him around 40k or so by the time he pays his system off.

From what I understand, they limit you to the amount you typically consume so the panels are intended to cancel out your energy bill. However, you often hear about selling power to the electric company, but they don't want you doing that. You can have a huge roof, but you're only allowed to install enough panels to primarily feed your own stuff.

There's also problems if a panel gets damaged, I believe they all need to be matched so if your panel is no longer made, tough noogies.

This is my understanding of it and it could be skewed.

Also not sure on what the environmental impact of making the panels is. I've heard it's terrible but don't know if I can believe that or not.

KC_Jones

njtommy said:

If a home owner has solar panels it's silly not to use heat pumps as the first stage of heating.

This is an excellent point! What drives me nuts about people slamming heat pumps down our throats is it's VERY short sighted. First of all since it runs off of electric you are automatically starting off at roughly 40% efficiency because that's the approximate efficiency of power generation. If you want to talk about energy consumption and efficiency you must look at the whole not just some small portion of it to make your point or support your agenda. Honestly if we want to explore energy efficiency and being green I really feel looking at house design and leveraging passive solar concepts is a much better place to put our efforts....if this is being put squarely on the homeowner. The most energy efficient thing you can do is use none....it's cheap too.

ChrisJ

KC_Jones said:

njtommy said:

If a home owner has solar panels it's silly not to use heat pumps as the first stage of heating.

This is an excellent point! What drives me nuts about people slamming heat pumps down our throats is it's VERY short sighted. First of all since it runs off of electric you are automatically starting off at roughly 40% efficiency because that's the approximate efficiency of power generation. If you want to talk about energy consumption and efficiency you must look at the whole not just some small portion of it to make your point or support your agenda. Honestly if we want to explore energy efficiency and being green I really feel looking at house design and leveraging passive solar concepts is a much better place to put our efforts....if this is being put squarely on the homeowner. The most energy efficient thing you can do is use none....it's cheap too.

5.5" of spray foam in walls sounds like a good place to start to me.

njtommy

Building a home like that is great and it drives the cost up big time.

Yes we talk to people who are building homes, but I think the majority on this site is existing homes and retro fits or upgrading. So housing design is limited for these home owners.

I believe we should be looking how to make homes more energy efficient and not just selling more energy efficient equipment in leaky homes.

We are behind on energy efficiency items as Americans, because we are Americans lol, but in mind it's hard for people to say you have to install that 90% furnace in a condo. Because in some cases it almost impossible to do so.