Why are energy efficiency standards so far behind the technology?

Steamhead

We still see grates like that in very old houses. They originally had stoves or floor furnasties, and the owners later installed steam or hot-water as an upgrade. I still consider this to be an upgrade over any kind of forced-air.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

BobC

Window rattlers may be old school but they can be very effective. I have a 14 year old 14,000 btu window ac (EER > 10) that cools the first floor of my house for about $30 in a hot month. Considering the cost of the unit they are hard to beat. BTW the SEER numbers are absolute lies, at least the old EER number was a real world number.

Sad to say I'm going to replace that with a mini-split this year because I cant get it from the garage into the window by myself any more. If I spend 6 or 7 times what that unit costs today it might be 50% more efficient in real world numbers.

From an economics POV it really doesn't make a lot of sense but I don't have much of a choice in the matter.

Bob

Unknown

This content has been removed.

ChrisJ

AJinCT said:

SEER has a temperature basis, so it doesn't work well in warmer climates. So yeah, it is harder to compare SEER to EER when the conversion is variable. I know the window rattlers work, they are just annoying to use and be around.

And it will be way quieter and won't block your window.

Window rattlers are cheap. And that's about it. There's nothing else good about them.

They're cheap and get the job done.
They're also disposable so when they fail it's no big deal. That's pretty much the only reason I'm glad to have them right now. I see several minisplits in my future for cooling only when money and time allow.

I often run my window units to cool an 80F bedroom down when it's 40-50F outside and I can tell you without a doubt the rotary compressor hates it. I'd bet the oil ends up with a ton of refrigerant in it and I wouldn't be surprised if it slugs from time to time. But, it's easily and cheaply replaced.

Do that with a split unit especially without a crank case heater. I dare you.

As far as, why do I do that? Because we live in a somewhat mountainous area that gets very damp at night. It may be 80F+ during the day but then it drops into the 40s or 50s at night and very humid, often foggy.

BobC

Again we come to the problem of what people can afford. The best system in the world is useless if you can't afford it. What chance is there that a mini-split will run for 15-20 years with virtually ZERO MAINTENANCE. Since 1970 I have owned two window AC's, neither one was ever serviced beyond my bushing it down before installing it each summer.

Same thing with 82 - 85% steam systems, I paid for ONE SERVICE CALL in 35 years in this house and never had the steam system in the old apartments boiler repaired in the 11 years I lived there before I bought this house.

People want comfort and something they can afford, pie in the sky is nice but it really doesn't apply to a lot of folks in the real world.

Bob

ChrisJ

And as far as why are window units inefficient.

1: They're cheap.
2: They're portable and small.


@BobC Remember the GE Carry Cool? Clinton E Ring had a lot to do with them, he also did a lot with monitor tops. The GE Carry Cool was both cheap and bullet proof. Lexan housing and all.

Gordy

I use window shakers. My wife hates the look of a mini split wall units. At least the window shakers come out for the heating season. where as the wall unit for a mini split is there always. To put in conventional duct work for AC means it has to go in the attic. No way. Thought about HV, but again duct work in the attic.

BobC

@ChrisJ I remember those well, they were a great option for a single room.

When I got home from Korea in 1970 I had a Fedder's in my bedroom for those sultry nights we have in the summer. The next year I ditched that and put a 14,000 BTU unit in the dining room of my 5 room apartment (first floor of a 2 family house), that did all five rooms with the help of a fans\ to distribute the cooling to room that were dead ended.

It worked very well and was something we could afford. It's amazing that the 14,000 unit I bought in 1971 was only about 15% less eficient than what you can buy now in that size range.

Why don't they offer some of the technology of the mini splits in the larger window units?

Bob

ChrisJ

BobC said:

@ChrisJ I remember those well, they were a great option for a single room.

When I got home from Korea in 1970 I had a Fedder's in my bedroom for those sultry nights we have in the summer. The next year I ditched that and put a 14,000 BTU unit in the dining room of my 5 room apartment (first floor of a 2 family house), that did all five rooms with the help of a fans\ to distribute the cooling to room that were dead ended.

It worked very well and was something we could afford. It's amazing that the 14,000 unit I bought in 1971 was only about 15% less eficient than what you can buy now in that size range.

Why don't they offer some of the technology of the mini splits in the larger window units?

Bob

ChrisJ said:

And as far as why are window units inefficient.

1: They're cheap.
2: They're portable and small.


.

Small means undersized condenser.
Cheap means........................ well you already know what that means.

The Steam Whisperer

The proof is in the pudding

I also have used "window shakers" for years and have been able to cool about 3200 sq ft. of space with 800 sq ft of windows (most facing east and South) with about 1 1/2 tons of window units cooling with some fans to circulate the air. My highest electric bill was about $180.00 here in Northern Illinois, with some of the highest electric rates in the country.
It's interesting that the "efficiency ratings" of ducted central air units don't take into account the massive power draw of the air handler fan. They also appear to ignore the heat this fan motor generates in the cooling air stream. For each btu of cooling supplied, window units, as a system, are inherently more efficient that central ducted air systems. And lets not forget ductwork losses and the increased air infiltration of the structure due to the pressure effects of the fan in operation ( see DOE research). If you look hard enough, and especially deal with an independent retailers, you can find 14 EER window units. They are usually very well built and very quiet. Its quite interesting when you calculate the EER rating of 14 SEER central units and then take into account the power draw and increased cooling load caused by the fan motor in the air handler, you'll typically see EER's in the 8 range. This explains our very low cooling costs compared to most new central air systems.

And for the OP, the return temperatures from well controlled and updated two pipe steam systems are typically about 70F to 80F, not 200F. Even standard older systems poorly controlled typically don't reach above 130 to 140F. 200F returns usually indicate bad traps and the pumps will often cavitate due to the water boiling in the low pressure zone of the pump. You need to do more reading and research.

ChrisJ

The Steam Whisperer said:

The proof is in the pudding

I also have used "window shakers" for years and have been able to cool about 3200 sq ft. of space with 800 sq ft of windows (most facing east and South) with about 1 1/2 tons of window units cooling with some fans to circulate the air. My highest electric bill was about $180.00 here in Northern Illinois, with some of the highest electric rates in the country.
It's interesting that the "efficiency ratings" of ducted central air units don't take into account the massive power draw of the air handler fan. They also appear to ignore the heat this fan motor generates in the cooling air stream. For each btu of cooling supplied, window units, as a system, are inherently more efficient that central ducted air systems. And lets not forget ductwork losses and the increased air infiltration of the structure due to the pressure effects of the fan in operation ( see DOE research). If you look hard enough, and especially deal with an independent retailers, you can find 14 EER window units. They are usually very well built and very quiet. Its quite interesting when you calculate the EER rating of 14 SEER central units and then take into account the power draw and increased cooling load caused by the fan motor in the air handler, you'll typically see EER's in the 8 range. This explains our very low cooling costs compared to most new central air systems.

And for the OP, the return temperatures from well controlled and updated two pipe steam systems are typically about 70F to 80F, not 200F. Even standard older systems poorly controlled typically don't reach above 130 to 140F. 200F returns usually indicate bad traps and the pumps will often cavitate due to the water boiling in the low pressure zone of the pump. You need to do more reading and research.

These efficiency ratings seem to be getting worse and worse.
It's almost as if they're intended to sell product rather than indicate actual efficiency.

My biggest issue with my window units are the poor isolation between inside and outside and the cheap sliders on the sides of the units. They're no where near as good as the older machines had and I have to stuff foam in all of the gaps around them.

That, and it'd be great if they could use a TXV instead of a capillary tube, and for me, I'd love crank case heaters on my units.


@BobC
Here's a picture of Clinton Ring on the right.
30 years later he'd be head of the Carry Cool project.

BobC

GE was a great company back then, they were breaking new ground in many areas. Now with a moribund reactor business (here and Europe) I think the only really active area is the jet engine group.

People fail to realize that when you stop manufacturing a line of products it's not to long before any expertise the company had in that field gets scattered to he winds and all that research impetus gets lost. Sometimes it seems all we seem to do in this country is push paper and machines can do that a lot better than we can.

Bob

Unknown

This content has been removed.

ChrisJ

Where have you seen a 23 SEER "central system" which I assume you really mean a split system?

njtommy

I think Trane, Lennox and carrier make up 25 seer ducted units

ChrisJ

njtommy said:

I think Trane, Lennox and carrier make up 25 seer ducted units

Interesting.
Last I heard they were only up to 14 or so, but I guess things are catching up over the past few years.

At the same time though, put a 25 SEER split unit in the attic and compare it's overall power consumption to a 25 SEER mini-split and it'd probably me sickening.

BobC

Most ducted systems lose efficiency because of leakage in the ducting. I'd love to see MEASURED EER of typical installed systems and compare that to published specs. Using a high SEER unit as a replacement on an existing installation is probably a waste of money unless the ducting is gone over with a fine tooth comb.

The minisplits can be more efficient because they don't have ducts. If you put that same technology in a window unit (one ton and up) it could be a wonderful thing.

As i said before SEER is a term they came up to pull the wool over regulators,those ratings are not worth the ink they are printed with.

Bob

Bob Bona_4

Trane has a 20 SEER variable speed compressor condenser and a variable speed composite cabinet push thru air flow air handler. Nice stuff.

njtommy

Tranes Tam 7 is the nicest constructed unit I've ever seen. Sold as a rock.

The condensers are crazy tall.

ChrisJ

Wait,
Who invited Bob Bona to this argument?

I'm actually surprised to see someone say something good about a Trane. Usually all I see is complaints.

njtommy

Theirs complaints about every brand. Especially when you get to higher end or higher efficiency units with sensors and inverters. Guys don't understand there for it sucks or it's a piece of crap.

vaporvac

NO complaints on Trane from me!

Fred

I had Trane central air for 21 years. Not a single problem. It finally died three years ago and I installed a Carrier. No problems so far but we'll see if it is as reliable as the Trane was.

Brewbeer

I have 2 window units in upstairs bedrooms that keep the entire house comfortable in the summer. They aren't obtrusive since they are in the bedrooms and the only time we are in the bedrooms is when we are sleeping. I might need air conditioning 20 days per year, I need heat for about 220 days per year.

Ditching the central forced air system wasn't radical, it was necessary, since for me it's all about comfort. The old forced air system didn't cool the bedrooms in the summer, and the lower level was always cold in the winter. And you needed to make the TV louder when the central blower was running.

Mini splits may make sense in some locations, but for my house, in my location (4 level split in western mass), hot water heat provides superior comfort. I'm never going back to forced air.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Brewbeer

A few weeks shorter? Not at my house. I need heat from October to May. Never used AC between mid September and mid June. I imagine you might need AC if your windows don't open, but mine do and if you use a fan to move cool air into the house at night, it really cuts down on the need for AC. Only time I really need AC is when the dew point is over 60, otherwise fans do the job nicely and with much lower power consumption.

SWEI

BobC said:

The minisplits can be more efficient because they don't have ducts. If you put that same technology in a window unit (one ton and up) it could be a wonderful thing.

Can't do it -- at least in the real world. Near perfect thermal separation of the hot side and the cold side trumps a Watt or two of friction losses in a lineset any day.

That said, there are a couple of companies getting close on inverter-driven PTACs.

KC_Jones

Brewbeer said:

A few weeks shorter? Not at my house. I need heat from October to May. Never used AC between mid September and mid June. I imagine you might need AC if your windows don't open, but mine do and if you use a fan to move cool air into the house at night, it really cuts down on the need for AC. Only time I really need AC is when the dew point is over 60, otherwise fans do the job nicely and with much lower power consumption.

This is why I LOVE my whole house fan so much. Compared to AC that thing sips electric and does a great job keeping the house comfortable. I live in southern PA and I run my AC MAYBE 2 months out of the year, heat for roughly 6 months.

KC_Jones

AJinCT said:

E

Brewbeer, Western MA with almost all heating load? I don't believe that for one second. In New Haven and Groton CT, our cooling season is *maybe* a few weeks shorter than our heating season, and we can coast for about a month to a month and a half on either side in a typical year, although it can vary. You are in a somewhat colder climate, but not *that* much. Even in NH, they have a couple weeks of cooling a year and more heating, but lots of coasting in-between.

You do realize with these comments you are basically doing 1 of 2 things.
1. Calling Brewbeer a liar
2. Saying you know more about conditions at his house than he does.

If it's the first one that's just rude, if it's the second one that is just dumb at some level that I shouldn't have to explain to you. He is presenting FACTS about HIS house that you CAN'T possibly know anything about and you are acting like you know more about it than they do. Really? And you wonder why people on this thread are blasting you?

ChrisJ

KC, that's all he does on here is call everyone liars.

Once I posted data backing what I said he stopped responding.
He provides zero data to prove his points and just calls everyone else wrong.

vaporvac

That's a cute little Troll @Hatterasguy ! He actually hasn't called me a liar yet. He just said my system is an "experiment"!!! Well, perhaps it is, but it's based on lengthy field experiments by experts and manufacturers and the proof is in the pudding, as they say. In fact, he really only glanced through my comments because he didn't seem to grasp the importance of phase change, multi-staged boilers and/or burners or modulation. He only looked at the 87.4%. However, I don't see how running half the load can exceed the usage of something else running full load, regardless of the "numbers".

His comments regarding windows were my fault because I forgot to specify well-fitting interior and/or exterior storms. The numbers , including data from the US Park services, supports this assertion. I guess, I assumed it was implied as single-pane without any additional protection obviously isn't as good a having an air gap.

No comments were made concerning my fridge, thank goodness. I forgot to mention that my compressor is in the basement, is quiet, easy to work on AND easily and economically replaced.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

njtommy

Just can't stop doing it lol

It's like staring at a butt crack you don't want to, but yet some how you still look.

ChrisJ

njtommy said:

Just can't stop doing it lol



It's like staring at a butt crack you don't want to, but yet some how you still look.

I don't think I've ever had that problem.................

R Mannino

I'd like to feed the troll. Energy standards? I'm more interested in comfort, particularly in my own home. What is the definition of comfort, it does have a financial component.

ChrisJ

R Mannino said:

I'd like to feed the troll. Energy standards? I'm more interested in comfort, particularly in my own home. What is the definition of comfort, it does have a financial component.

When my house was built in the 1860s it had several coal stoves, the bedrooms had them too.

I'm betting the house used less energy back then by a lot. No bathrooms, no running water, a cistern under the kitchen that held rain water to wash dishes. No electric, no central heating and I'm sure they didn't light fires unless it was well worth the effort. Especially carrying fuel up the stairs to the bedrooms.

Energy consumption vs comfort. Comfort always wins.
ALWAYS.

R Mannino

ChrisJ said:

R Mannino said:

I'd like to feed the troll. Energy standards? I'm more interested in comfort, particularly in my own home. What is the definition of comfort, it does have a financial component.

When my house was built in the 1860s it had several coal stoves, the bedrooms had them too.

I'm betting the house used less energy back then by a lot. No bathrooms, no running water, a cistern under the kitchen that held rain water to wash dishes. No electric, no central heating and I'm sure they didn't light fires unless it was well worth the effort. Especially carrying fuel up the stairs to the bedrooms.

Energy consumption vs comfort. Comfort always wins.
ALWAYS.

Proof that energy efficiency standards have been consistently lowered over time . Comfort and convenience win out almost every time. AND if I'm elected energy czar air conditioning will be abolished HUGE waste of energy.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Steamhead

Not off topic by my standards. Oh yeah, I forgot- you're an engineer, so our standards and our experiences mean nothing to you.