Why are energy efficiency standards so far behind the technology?

R Mannino

AJinCT said:

R Mannino, installing equipment that's inefficient is a shortcut.

I'm really not sure how to reply to that statement because it is absurd and borders on unintelligent and ignorant.

So if I install a system that saves the customer 50% over what they had it's a shortcut because it doesn't meet YOUR standards. Utterly ridiculous.

ChrisJ

R Mannino said:

AJinCT said:

R Mannino, installing equipment that's inefficient is a shortcut.

I'm really not sure how to reply to that statement because it is absurd and borders on unintelligent and ignorant.

So if I install a system that saves the customer 50% over what they had it's a shortcut because it doesn't meet YOUR standards. Utterly ridiculous.

I truly believe this is who you're arguing with right now.
I'm not sure which one, but one of them, probably the left.

The Steam Whisperer

To continue my orig. post. If a typical 95% efficient furnace can only achieve a 60% overall efficiency for the reasons stated previously, and the system efficiency for hot water and steam system using a 82% boiler are much higher, around the 70% to 75% range, it's going hammer the forced air industry. Probably the best way they could rate heating equipment is to take typical system efficiencies into account, use national average gas and electric rates, assume proper sizing ( and maybe a separate, sub number for typical oversizing) , and then simply give a cost per year to operate the equipment. They do this with all other appliances....sorts of makes you wonder why boiler/ furnaces don't follow the same pattern.

This is why the I think the Forced air manufacturers do not want to see real efficiency standards. When the typical forced air system is at 60% and a hot water or steam system with an "82% ci iron clunker" is at 75% (using a scale based on forced air system requirement.... ie added electrical usage, higher temperatures required in forced air systems for equal comfort levels, etc) , the consumer will be seeing these other systems are much more viable alternatives.
Gerry Gill removed the forced air heating system in his home and replaced it with a modern steam minitube system, complete with a two stage atmospheric ci boiler. His gas usage dropped about 30% or more. He didn't track electrical usage, so there are additional savings there. His fuel usage is about 30% or more lower than his neighbors. This points to the enormous problem of system efficiency of forced air, as the DOE studies have already pointed out.

As to free markets driving the change, its been 50 years since a Nobel Prize winning American economist proved that free markets alone do not work. If you take the US housing market since about 1970, the average homeowner was only keeping a home for 5 to 7 years. There is no incentive for an owner to install more efficient equipment. In addition, in rentals, the landlord cares nothing about efficiency since he is not paying the gas bill. This is why you see so many central systems ripped out and the cheapest forced air put in. The rest of the world can hardly believe this.....ripping out inherently more efficient central or district systems to install less efficient systems. The "free market"has reinforced putting in the cheapest, least efficient equipment. The only way to lift the standard is to require everyone to install better grade equipment. Then, as people sell a home and buy another, everyone benefits from the better equipment.

Installing direct vent, "high efficiency" forced air equipment, is a major problem in cities. To meet clearance requirements from windows and adjacent buildings, all the separate vent lines need to almost always go to the roof. In addition, those vents lines need to be accessible for yearly inspection, so they can't be run in enclosed chases. Also, they can't be run outside. Then of course, are the maximum vent run lengths. In a three story buildings ( typical of Chicago at least) you are probably near the limit or beyond. Looking at a typical 5 story building in New York, you are dead in the water. Then if you start looking at 7 to 15 story buildings that are so common in high density areas ( most of Chicago's Lakefront) there are no options.
Using a rubic that looks at system efficiency, rather than just gas in, heat out of an appliance would eliminate this issue of venting for high density buildings. In addition, high density building are inherently more efficient than a free standing home ( more enclosed area for every square foot of exterior). It's interesting that free standing homes are also very rare outside the US.

Abracadabra

ChrisJ said:

the government should enforce new energy standards that limit the size refrigerator you can buy. Anything over 10 cubic foot is wasteful in my opinion as is automatic defrost so the government should enforce those rules and stop wasteful people like you from making poor decisions and destroying our planet.

Anyone else agree?

(sarcasm) Yes... more government is what we need. Government should also enact curfews after sundown to reduce electricity use so we don't have to light up all the streets. Limiting my refrigerator size is an obvious next step. (/sarcasm)

Abracadabra

Electric cars such as the Tesla should be mandatory as per government laws.

And where does electricity magically come from? You know most of our electricity is fossil-fuel derived right?

Abracadabra

ChrisJ said:

Bob, we can't have that!
At least that's what the OP is claiming about HVAC systems. Apparently it cannot be left up for people to decide, we must force them.

Ok... now I have to admit.. I just started kind of reading this thread. I don't know if you are joking or serious... I didn't see a smiley face on that last one

ChrisJ

Abracadabra said:

ChrisJ said:

Bob, we can't have that!
At least that's what the OP is claiming about HVAC systems. Apparently it cannot be left up for people to decide, we must force them.

Ok... now I have to admit.. I just started kind of reading this thread. I don't know if you are joking or serious... I didn't see a smiley face on that last one

Of course it's a joke.

Leon82

Those Tesla cars are sold at a loss so the guy could make billions selling carbon credits.

Gordy

@AJinCT you really have to do some cost comparisons between ci, and a HE boiler before making those assumptions. I don't mean the cheap HE boilers either there is a difference in controls, HX quality, and warranties. If your on NG that ROI gets much longer.

njtommy

Efficiency???

Gordy

Tidy that insulation up a bit eh NJ...lol

njtommy

Lol I stole the pic from Mechanical hub on fb.

The Steam Whisperer

It's not fair to compare a perfectly tuned steam system to a FHA system that's leaking air like crazy and a hot water system with high standby losses and poorly set up radiation.
The forced air systems the DOE tested were standard new construction forced air systems using standard installation practices. 23% loss was the average, some where as high as 40% or higher IIRC. 60% overall system efficiencies are the norm for new construction forced air systems

. Finding a place to vent is part of the challenge that the contractors have to deal with. It's a challenge now if the consumers are educated about the equipment and will thus demand high efficiency condensing.

Finding a place to put the vents is not just a challenge, it is physically impossible in most environments in high density areas. I already listed all the typical limitations. Please read more carefully. Otherwise I will also have to assume that you really don't want answers, you just want to tell everyone your belief is the truth, despite the results of testing and code and life safety requirements.

Abracadabra

njtommy said:

Efficiency???

LOL! looks like some kind of Paul Bunyan insulation job

SWEI

AJinCT said:

a fair comparison might help a decision making process of whether to fix and upgrade an existing system or go to FHA/hot water in an old building.

The answer in almost all cases there is to fix the steam.

ChrisJ

I think the best part in all of this is @AJinCT actually believes published numbers.

Anyone got a 6 horsepower shop vac they want to sell him?

ChrisJ

They published it and are advertising it, so it must be true right?


AFUE numbers aren't much different in the real world.

Steamhead

Interesting article regarding this. Someone actually met with some contractors and got their take- oh, the horror, the humanity.............

http://contractingbusiness.com/service/future-energy-efficiency?NL=CB-01&Issue=CB-01_20160311_CB-01_786&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1_b&utm_rid=CPG04000000266069&utm_campaign=7134&utm_medium=email&elq2=cfbc724d6e3f49d585e6de50fd18b330

SWEI

Steamhead said:

Interesting article regarding this. Someone actually met with some contractors and got their take- oh, the horror, the humanity.............

http://contractingbusiness.com/service/future-energy-efficiency

Thanks for posting that. I am part of an advisory group working on the 2017 electric utility rebates here in NM and said essentially the same thing on our call yesterday. This will be helpful.

Several of us raised issues with the existing HERS scheme. I am suggesting that they require a Manual J or ASHRAE calc performed by a qualified party and a properly sized appliance in order to qualify for the HE appliance rebates.

We're hinting about BTUs per square foot now on new home credits.

Gordy

ChrisJ said:

They published it and are advertising it, so it must be true right?


AFUE numbers aren't much different in the real world.

And shop vac has a class action law suit on this very hp rating sham.. They claim peak horse power from power spike upon first turning it on. Impossible without tripping even a 20 amp breaker at 120v..


It won't be long before these types of class actions find their way into other realms.

BobC

We went through this back in the early 70's when stereo manufacturers were rating the amplifiers in instantaneous peak power. The FTC stepped in and made them rate amps in RMS watts.

In most cases the heavier amplifier is the better amp because the transformer is the most expensive part and if they are spending the money on that it generally reflects well pon the quality of the amplifier.

Bob

ChrisJ

BobC said:

We went through this back in the early 70's when stereo manufacturers were rating the amplifiers in instantaneous peak power. The FTC stepped in and made them rate amps in RMS watts.

In most cases the heavier amplifier is the better amp because the transformer is the most expensive part and if they are spending the money on that it generally reflects well pon the quality of the amplifier.

Bob

Yeah well, they're back at it.
I have two home theater receivers, a 5 channel and a 7 channel Yamaha, they were $500 and $700 new in 2004 and they cheated on the power ratings. They will do 100 watts per channel, no problem but they can't handle all channels driven, the power supplies cave and the single heatsink can't handle it. But, they rate them as 500W, and 700W receivers because they can do 100 watts per channel. No "all channels driven" statement though.

I tested them on the bench into 8 ohm 250W 1% dummy loads. From what I recall, they would do around 100W x2, both channels driven but nothing over that. So a total of around 200W output, not 500, not 700. Their models are RX-550 and RX-750. The "700W" RX-750 is not even in the same league as a 1978 Pioneer SX-1980 which would actually be a 560W receiver.


The 1970s-1980s standards in audio power rating are long gone and have been for over 10 years.

Published specs, mean diddly.

R Mannino

AJinCT said:

R Mannino, If the CI clunker can save them 50%, then a mod/con could save them significantly more than that.

Buderus CI is a clunker?

Define significant.

Gordy

BobC said:

We went through this back in the early 70's when stereo manufacturers were rating the amplifiers in instantaneous peak power. The FTC stepped in and made them rate amps in RMS watts.

In most cases the heavier amplifier is the better amp because the transformer is the most expensive part and if they are spending the money on that it generally reflects well pon the quality of the amplifier.

Bob

Love my Harman Kardon. Only receiver I can turn all the way up with no distortion.

njtommy

@Gordy So would Bose be equal to Navien? Lol
I'm not really a home theater guy, but Car Audio I was very much into for a long time.

Gordy

In the car stereo world Kraco

Gordy

ChrisJ said:

BobC said:

We went through this back in the early 70's when stereo manufacturers were rating the amplifiers in instantaneous peak power. The FTC stepped in and made them rate amps in RMS watts.

In most cases the heavier amplifier is the better amp because the transformer is the most expensive part and if they are spending the money on that it generally reflects well pon the quality of the amplifier.

Bob

Yeah well, they're back at it.
I have two home theater receivers, a 5 channel and a 7 channel Yamaha, they were $500 and $700 new in 2004 and they cheated on the power ratings. They will do 100 watts per channel, no problem but they can't handle all channels driven, the power supplies cave and the single heatsink can't handle it. But, they rate them as 500W, and 700W receivers because they can do 100 watts per channel. No "all channels driven" statement though.

I tested them on the bench into 8 ohm 250W 1% dummy loads. From what I recall, they would do around 100W x2, both channels driven but nothing over that. So a total of around 200W output, not 500, not 700. Their models are RX-550 and RX-750. The "700W" RX-750 is not even in the same league as a 1978 Pioneer SX-1980 which would actually be a 560W receiver.


The 1970s-1980s standards in audio power rating are long gone and have been for over 10 years.

Published specs, mean diddly.

Should have bought Harman Kardon.....

ChrisJ

Gordy said:

ChrisJ said:

BobC said:

We went through this back in the early 70's when stereo manufacturers were rating the amplifiers in instantaneous peak power. The FTC stepped in and made them rate amps in RMS watts.

In most cases the heavier amplifier is the better amp because the transformer is the most expensive part and if they are spending the money on that it generally reflects well pon the quality of the amplifier.

Bob

Yeah well, they're back at it.
I have two home theater receivers, a 5 channel and a 7 channel Yamaha, they were $500 and $700 new in 2004 and they cheated on the power ratings. They will do 100 watts per channel, no problem but they can't handle all channels driven, the power supplies cave and the single heatsink can't handle it. But, they rate them as 500W, and 700W receivers because they can do 100 watts per channel. No "all channels driven" statement though.

I tested them on the bench into 8 ohm 250W 1% dummy loads. From what I recall, they would do around 100W x2, both channels driven but nothing over that. So a total of around 200W output, not 500, not 700. Their models are RX-550 and RX-750. The "700W" RX-750 is not even in the same league as a 1978 Pioneer SX-1980 which would actually be a 560W receiver.


The 1970s-1980s standards in audio power rating are long gone and have been for over 10 years.

Published specs, mean diddly.

Should have bought Harman Kardon.....

"Turning all the way up without distortion" means nothing, other than perhaps your preamp doesn't have enough gain for your source.

Never had much respect for Harman Kardon and they follow the same rules as Yamaha now. My last highend power amp was a Bryston before I started building my own. If you're not familar with Bryston, they come with 20 year warranties and are made in Canada. My amp was a model 4B rated "more than 1 horsepower".

My home built amplifiers are better though. Jstar now has a set as well. 200W + 50W biamped with active crossovers and 500VA power supplies per channel. I believe I used something in the neighborhood of 70,000uf worth of capacitance per supply as well.

hot_rod

Gordy said:

ChrisJ said:

They published it and are advertising it, so it must be true right?


AFUE numbers aren't much different in the real world.

And shop vac has a class action law suit on this very hp rating sham.. They claim peak horse power from power spike upon first turning it on. Impossible without tripping even a 20 amp breaker at 120v..


It won't be long before these types of class actions find their way into other realms.

Pop Science magazine did a myth buster on theses claims a few years back. They found that a breaker can take a surge over the rated amperage, if you catch the very short high current draw, use it in the calculations the claims may hold up. Circular saws do the same fuzzy math.

But what is the point? the people buying those devices neither know or care how they come up with the ratings.

ChrisJ

hot rod said:

Gordy said:

ChrisJ said:

They published it and are advertising it, so it must be true right?


AFUE numbers aren't much different in the real world.

And shop vac has a class action law suit on this very hp rating sham.. They claim peak horse power from power spike upon first turning it on. Impossible without tripping even a 20 amp breaker at 120v..


It won't be long before these types of class actions find their way into other realms.

Pop Science magazine did a myth buster on theses claims a few years back. They found that a breaker can take a surge over the rated amperage, if you catch the very short high current draw, use it in the calculations the claims may hold up. Circular saws do the same fuzzy math.

But what is the point? the people buying those devices neither know or care how they come up with the ratings.

Yes, circuit breakers and fuses are designed to handle a quick burst intentionally. Amplifiers I built could do a 400A draw @ 120V for a split second if you turned them on at the right point in the wave. I think most circuit breakers are rated for 10,000A for a certain amount of time, and 1000A for a longer amount etc.

So you're saying they took the locked rotor amps, and used that to lie about the horsepower!?

The point is, it seems boiler AFUE ratings are just as bad. Looking at the numbers I got back from both Tim M and Jim D they inflate the numbers.

hot_rod

So you're saying they took the locked rotor amps, and used that to lie about the horsepower!?


I'm just repeating the explanation that the magazine published. Fudging the numbers I suppose, but the math does add up.

To me it a lot like the BTU formula all these gpm and ∆T examples pencil out, but I doubt they are all really attainable.

500 X 32 X 5= 80,000BTU/hr
500 X 160 X 1= 80,000
500 X .02 X 800= 80,000

Mark Eatherton

Which moves more energy, 1 GPM @ 1,000 degree DT, or 1000 GPM @ a 1 degree DT... You guys keep feeding this troll, and he will keep coming back for more Soon, this thread will break the old Wall record for most posts and reads.

Reminds me of the saying about building inspectors and wrestling with a pig in poop. The more you wrestle, the more the pig likes it. SOUEEEE, here piggy piggy piggy, SOUEEE.

ME

The Steam Whisperer

Mark is the man. At least the rest of us are learning a few things, but I'm afraid you're right. I'm done.

Gordy

hot rod said:

Gordy said:

ChrisJ said:

They published it and are advertising it, so it must be true right?


AFUE numbers aren't much different in the real world.

And shop vac has a class action law suit on this very hp rating sham.. They claim peak horse power from power spike upon first turning it on. Impossible without tripping even a 20 amp breaker at 120v..


It won't be long before these types of class actions find their way into other realms.

Pop Science magazine did a myth buster on theses claims a few years back. They found that a breaker can take a surge over the rated amperage, if you catch the very short high current draw, use it in the calculations the claims may hold up. Circular saws do the same fuzzy math.

But what is the point? the people buying those devices neither know or care how they come up with the ratings.

The point is praying on consumers knowledge. Knowingly consumers buy on hp,mpg,efficiency, etc manufators pray on lack of understanding

Gordy

Anyone got Muskie lures..........

R Mannino

You neglected to define significant. I suspect because you have no idea.

Gordy

Hatterasguy said:

We don't need 'em.

Apparently AJ is simply irresistible.

If he does this well with women, he's all set.

Actually I'm enjoying the off topic. No need for the lure found an empty beer can, and some treble hooks all set.

Steamhead

AJinCT said:

Gordy, I did find a couple of CI boilers that are marginally cheaper than the mod/con, but still... marginally.

Post your numbers. If you have them, that is. I suspect you don't.

AJinCT said:

a lot of steam systems are a total mess.

Post the basis for this statement. How many is "a lot"? Where and when did you inspect all these steam systems, and what were the problems you found?

AJinCT said:

Maintaining the steam would probably be cheaper, but wouldn't the ultimate be to replace with hydronics?

Nope. Even if you could gain a real-world increase of 3% or so, you'd never get your money back.

I am sure you will never be able to substantiate any of this with real numbers. Go back to your ivory tower.