Gov't intervention in boiler selection

Robert O'Brien

It's not just the ever increasing DOE efficiency mandates but the the tax credits and state and local "efficiency" programs that have a strong influence on both the choices available and even the fuel chosen. Thoughts?

ChrisJ

I wonder how believable the published efficiency ratings are and I also wonder if we're saving anything with both boilers and other appliances dying so often.

They're more efficient, maybe? But even if they are we're also replacing them 4 times as often as the older stuff.

Our neighbors have a 1920s Redflash boiler mean while a Burnham V8 rotted out twice in our house in only 8 years using the same water. Both systems had leaks, but the Redflash didn't care. Why?

Often, I think we've jumped out of the pan into the fire and we're using both our tax money, and our own money to support the disposable appliances.

The corporations making them must love it.

Those are my thoughts.

Jamie Hall

Like so many good ideas... in my view, at least, the DOE efficiency numbers are, at best, suspect (just the same as the EPA gas mileage figures for your car). I don't think manufacturers fudge them -- I'm not that paranoid! -- but that they reflect only a very limited set of conditions, which are not particularly realistic. The problem is, of course, that the regulatory folks and the consumers then take them as gospel and on the one side require certain values and on the other side place undue emphasis on them.

As to rebates and tax credits and all that -- I am philosophically opposed to this sort of market manipulation by government types. Well-meaning, perhaps, but very rarely if ever to secondary effects or overall impacts get taken into account.

GreenGene

Good points Chris.

The older boilers were made with virgin metals and were thicker so they lasted longer.

During WWII manufacturers looked for ways to stretch the metal supply by adding fillers/recycled and that practice continued because it's more profitable.

AFUE is not an accurate measurement of energy efficiency, Energy Kinetics proved that with their tests at Brookhaven, many modern boilers are actually 60% efficient while claiming 87% AFUE.

The people in charge of running the rebate programs are people that worked in the office at the gas or electric companies, oil companies were blocked out. These people do not have a real sound background in HVACR, some are engineers, but they also need years of experience in the field and factory training in order to have a superior understanding of HVACR equipment.

So what gets rebates sometimes shouldn't, I would be slashing a lot of equipment especially any dry base atmospheric gas boilers.

The government has good intentions, but they place the wrong people in charge just like Brownie got to run FEMA, it's too good 'ol boy, wink wink, nudge, nudge.

GreenGene

Energy Star ratings have to be taken with a grain of salt.

They lump equipment into categories so it can't discern what would be the best approach for a certain building.

For instance you can go look at flat screen tv's and get the best rated one............except your old tube tv is more energy efficient, so it's kept in a separate category.

Check the watts.

GreenGene

The main problem with the energy rebates today when compared to Carter's is that today they are controlled by the corporations, faux agencies were put in place to run them and steer most of the money to large corporations.

Carter's plan was you got a tax rebate, no middle men, one part of his plan stated : -Homeowners will be entitled to a tax credit of 25 percent of the first $800 and 15 percent of the next $1400 spent on approved conservation measures. The credits will be available for measures undertaken between April 20, 1977, and December 31, 1984.

Of course we never made it 1984, the program was killed in 80 and the solar panels were ripped off the WH house roof.

Attached is a report on where Ct's ARRA money went, it failed because the money went to the top where it isn't needed.

I ran some numbers, UTC got @118 million of CT's ARRA dollars.

For that I would have retrofitted every Ct school with banks of modulating boilers saving each town/city at least 100k a year.

I would have @60million left which I would have used to do the same in residences and small/mid size businesses which would have spurred growth and jobs.

SWEI

GreenGene said:

The people in charge of running the rebate programs are people that worked in the office at the gas or electric companies, oil companies were blocked out.

Many states have mandated EE targets, which they enforce through their regulatory authority over public utilities, generally electricity and NG. LPG and oil are rarely (if ever) classified as public utilities (they're not true monopolies) so the states have less leverage over the providers of those.

Steamhead

GreenGene said:

I ran some numbers, UTC got @118 million of CT's ARRA dollars.

For that I would have retrofitted every Ct school with banks of modulating boilers saving each town/city at least 100k a year.

I would have @60million left which I would have used to do the same in residences and small/mid size businesses which would have spurred growth and jobs.

I'm sure plenty of these buildings have steam systems- what would you have done with those?

ChrisJ

Steamhead said:

GreenGene said:

I ran some numbers, UTC got @118 million of CT's ARRA dollars.

For that I would have retrofitted every Ct school with banks of modulating boilers saving each town/city at least 100k a year.

I would have @60million left which I would have used to do the same in residences and small/mid size businesses which would have spurred growth and jobs.

I'm sure plenty of these buildings have steam systems- what would you have done with those?

Every school I went to had, and still has steam heat. Of course that's here in NJ but I'd assume CT is similar.

Guess all of the school's in his area are much newer?

Paul48

Most in CT are still steam.

GreenGene

Depends on the building, there's a lot you can do, you can make steam much more efficient, you can put in a Daiken VRV system, you're talking over 120 million dollars going to UTC for a jet engine they already R&D'd, built and sold.

whatever happened to standing on your own 2 feet?, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps?, is that impossible when you are clearing billions and your CEO's are getting hundreds of millions for hanging around?

Ct schools are mixed, many are hot water with pneumatic controls that don't work.

The BoE's like to play a game, it's called let's blow money on sports because little Jonny must play on a pro type field and let the buildings fall apart and tell the parents we need a new school for 123 million so your kids will be smarter.

If you're going to do that don't build them out of concrete, brick and steel, those buildings can last 100-200 years, keep them in shape, keep them efficient, upgrade in the summer.

I did a school that was turned into a town center, those giant 8ft high x 25ft long single pane windows are a huge loser, one classroom with the early 60's construction needed 5 tons, if they let me replace the wall with SIP's, just where the window was and put in a couple of 4x6 triple pane windows you're down to 1.5 ton.

167 towns in Ct with a few schools each, real energy upgrades would not have eaten up that 125 million.

GreenGene

SWEI said:

GreenGene said:

The people in charge of running the rebate programs are people that worked in the office at the gas or electric companies, oil companies were blocked out.

Many states have mandated EE targets, which they enforce through their regulatory authority over public utilities, generally electricity and NG. LPG and oil are rarely (if ever) classified as public utilities (they're not true monopolies) so the states have less leverage over the providers of those.

Right, but it's a skewed system, fees off the utilities from everyone get directed towards large corporations, they made out, especially in Corrupticut, LP and Oil got blocked because there's no fees into the system, still, a system like Carter's works better because you get to decide and you get a tax write off and your utility bills would be lower (by regulation) because you aren't paying into a system to benefit the few, if X corporation wants to lower their bills with a fuel cell and panels let them pay for it and write it off their taxes just like you and me.

In my state I'm guessing the oil companies forgot to pay off Malloy or the gas company topped them because he's been pro gas running gas lines where we don't need them but perhaps where a chosen few want them, they headed up from Rt 1 into Essex and Deep River, follow the $$$$$

GreenGene

I think with gas people are being misled.

The bottom line is you get more btu's from oil per $, it varies because the costs are changing but generally oil is cheaper until it gets over $3gal. You get at least 40,000 btu more from a gallon of oil than the gas or lp equivalent. I had an old conversion chart can't find now but seem to recall we know #2 @ 140,000 gal and it had NG @96k and LP @98k if memory serves.

This game has been played before, oil prices go up, NG goes down a little, they make a big push expand gas lines and convert.

Voila'......oil prices drop and NG goes up.

Paul48

You have to look at it, long-term. We're going to run out of oil, long before NG. When I converted, I cut my heating bill in half, and paid for the conversion the 1st year. The oil company was nicely going to allow me to have a year-round budget plan(normally 10 mos.), at $420 a month.

ChrisJ

GreenGene said:

I think with gas people are being misled.

The bottom line is you get more btu's from oil per $, it varies because the costs are changing but generally oil is cheaper until it gets over $3gal. You get at least 40,000 btu more from a gallon of oil than the gas or lp equivalent. I had an old conversion chart can't find now but seem to recall we know #2 @ 140,000 gal and it had NG @96k and LP @98k if memory serves.

This game has been played before, oil prices go up, NG goes down a little, they make a big push expand gas lines and convert.

Voila'......oil prices drop and NG goes up.

Yeah,
If you don't count trying to find someone that will actually service your system once or twice a year, good luck. That, and hiring someone to clean your stinky messy chimney from time to time as well. It's amazing how many friend's boiler's I've looked at, and my own once, where a guy said he serviced it, and he didn't even change the nozzle or brush the sections. I'm almost positive one guy didn't even get the burner door open. That's a rant for another thread though.

So tack their fee, and your time trying to find a good guy that actually does his job on top of your fuel costs.

Where NG, systems are rarely serviced at all, even if they should be and they don't usually care.


Even if oil was half the cost of gas, I wouldn't have that stinky disaster back in my basement and crawlspace. Sorry.

No, gas people aren't being mislead. Sadly though, oil guys are shooting themselves in the foot constantly and don't seem to even realize it. There are some really good ones out there, but many terrible ones.

GreenGene

No I think people are misled about efficiency.

The thing with oil is it's not forgiving, you have to know what you are doing to set them up so they don't soot.

I did it because I was sick of sucking soot, my units would be tan inside after a year.

Electrode settings are critical, + - 1/16 is your margin of error.

any idiot can get gas to burn clean

but the worst soot I ever saw was on a gas unit.

The Buderus low/nox burner runs very good, burning the oil inside an inconel tube is the way to go, again, you have to know what you are doing, factory trained.

GreenGene

For instance in the 80's the West Haven schools converted to gas, because of the btu loss per gallon they spent an additional 60k per year.

You have to be in the clique to know that, these things don't get told to the public.

Some see it as getting rid of the tanks and leak liability as justification, we had a sign in front of our shop on Rt 1 for 24 hours before the gas co lawyers showed up, it said Go Modern, Go Gas, GO BOOM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJAC5VDgUYk

ChrisJ

GreenGene said:

For instance in the 80's the West Haven schools converted to gas, because of the btu loss per gallon they spent an additional 60k per year.

You have to be in the clique to know that, these things don't get told to the public.

Some see it as getting rid of the tanks and leak liability as justification, we had a sign in front of our shop on Rt 1 for 24 hours before the gas co lawyers showed up, it said Go Modern, Go Gas, GO BOOM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJAC5VDgUYk

You do realize gas has been a round a very, very long time right? My house still has piping from gas lights in it. I wouldn't call it "modern" I'd call it smart

I do not understand your "btu loss per gallon".
If the fuel is cheaper per btu, it's cheaper. It doesn't matter what amount of energy you get per gallon.



Also,
Both gas, and oil burners need to be set up by a qualified tech using a combustion analyzer. Personally, I don't feel oil is any more or less forgiving than any other fuel.

it's either setup right, or it's not.


Gas explosions are about as rare as properly setup and cleaned oil burners.

If you want to scare people, start talking about electrical fires. Those aren't rare.

SWEI

NG here is $0.501 per therm. Given it's value as a transportation fuel, I don't see #2 hitting $0.70 per gallon anytime soon.

ChrisJ

Hatterasguy said:

SWEI said:

NG here is $0.501 per therm. LMK when #2 hits $0.70 and we'll talk...

Is that "all in.........taxes, delivery, supply...........bottom number on the bill"??

Looks like my total works out to $0.99 per therm total.

ChrisJ

Hatterasguy said:

ChrisJ said:

Hatterasguy said:

SWEI said:

NG here is $0.501 per therm. LMK when #2 hits $0.70 and we'll talk...

Is that "all in.........taxes, delivery, supply...........bottom number on the bill"??

Looks like my total works out to $0.99 per therm total.

The problem here is that it is heavily front loaded. If I use anything less than 75 therms, the cost is about $1.35. If I use 200 therms, the cost is about $0.85. At the end of the year, due to the minimal use for 8 months, the average is almost $1.20.

$0.99 per therm and I used 34.1 therms.

SWEI

Hatterasguy said:

SWEI said:

NG here is $0.501 per therm. LMK when #2 hits $0.70 and we'll talk...

Is that "all in.........taxes, delivery, supply...........bottom number on the bill"??

That number includes all variable costs (Cost of Gas, Surcharge, Distribution, Energy Efficiency Fee, Pipeline Safety Fee, Franchise Fee, and Gross Receipts Tax.) The residential account Access Fee ($11.50 per meter per month) is not included.

Light commercial users incur $20 per month Access Fee but the variable costs are even lower ($0.41 per therm as of March 2016.)

ChrisJ

Ah, I included my $8 service fee.

modconwannabe

GreenGene said:

E
For instance you can go look at flat screen tv's and get the best rated one............except your old tube tv is more energy efficient, so it's kept in a separate category.

Check the watts.

Yeah small point but I'm not so sure about that. Modern LED TVs use a fraction of the wattage of a CRT, especially considering screen size—a 24" CRT uses about 120 watts whereas a 24 LED uses 30 or 40.. Plasma screens, which are just about out of production, were/are high wattage but they have long been a small percentage of sets sold.

SWEI

The fixed fees are part of the real cost of energy, but including them in the unit cost skews calculations for savings and ROI (unless you plan to ditch the meter as a part of an energy upgrade.)

BobC

Last time I looked we are paying about $1.35 in the Boston area and that includes all fees and surcharges. That would be equivalent to $1.89 for oil.

Considering the difficulty I've had getting an oil boiler cleaned I'm very glad I switched back in 2012. My Smith G8 can burn oil or gas (by changing the gun) but I don't see me ever going back to oil.

Bob

ChrisJ

modconwannabe said:

GreenGene said:

E
For instance you can go look at flat screen tv's and get the best rated one............except your old tube tv is more energy efficient, so it's kept in a separate category.

Check the watts.

Yeah small point but I'm not so sure about that. Modern LED TVs use a fraction of the wattage of a CRT, especially considering screen size—a 24" CRT uses about 120 watts whereas a 24 LED uses 30 or 40.. Plasma screens, which are just about out of production, were/are high wattage but they have long been a small percentage of sets sold.

My parent's 50" Pioneer plasma from 2007 uses something like 800 or 900 watts. It feels like an oven when you walk by it.

My 2013 Panasonic 50" Plasma on the other hand is down to something like 150-200W, huge difference from the older plasmas.

I do agree though, 150-200W for a 50" screen is more efficient than 120 for a 20-25" CRT.

The LED lit LCDs are really nice when it comes to heat. I just wish they produced the blacks plasma does.

ChrisJ

SWEI said:

The fixed fees are part of the real cost of energy, but including them in the unit cost skews calculations for savings and ROI (unless you plan to ditch the meter as a part of an energy upgrade.)

I'd love to ditch the meter but something tells me the gas company wouldn't be too fond of the idea.

Canucker

ChrisJ said:

modconwannabe said:

GreenGene said:

E
For instance you can go look at flat screen tv's and get the best rated one............except your old tube tv is more energy efficient, so it's kept in a separate category.

Check the watts.

Yeah small point but I'm not so sure about that. Modern LED TVs use a fraction of the wattage of a CRT, especially considering screen size—a 24" CRT uses about 120 watts whereas a 24 LED uses 30 or 40.. Plasma screens, which are just about out of production, were/are high wattage but they have long been a small percentage of sets sold.

My parent's 50" Pioneer plasma from 2007 uses something like 800 or 900 watts. It feels like an oven when you walk by it.

My 2013 Panasonic 50" Plasma on the other hand is down to something like 150-200W, huge difference from the older plasmas.

I do agree though, 150-200W for a 50" screen is more efficient than 120 for a 20-25" CRT.

The LED lit LCDs are really nice when it comes to heat. I just wish they produced the blacks plasma does.

I wish they produced the picture plasma does. Maybe with oled, we'll see

SWEI

Unless and until we replace a LOT of engines, liquid fuels will continue to command a significant premium (on a per-BTU basis) over solid and gaseous fuels.

Paul48

That is interesting about the West Haven schools. I attended several of them. I looked it up...the price per therm for both in 1980 was about the same, with gas edging oil out slightly. Knowing West Haven politics, the job was probably hacked up.

Jamie Hall

I might make one other set of comments (I won't comment on Connecticut politics as I don't think Erin would like my language...).

The place I care for is in a rural area. We have a choice for fuels: LPG and oil. They both have advantages and disadvantages, but for me, at least, oil is the winner. Of course it helps that I have a competent man (Charles) to service my system!

It will be along time, if ever, before natural gas makes it out my way!

ChrisJ

Jamie Hall said:

I might make one other set of comments (I won't comment on Connecticut politics as I don't think Erin would like my language...).

The place I care for is in a rural area. We have a choice for fuels: LPG and oil. They both have advantages and disadvantages, but for me, at least, oil is the winner. Of course it helps that I have a competent man (Charles) to service my system!

It will be along time, if ever, before natural gas makes it out my way!

Yeah,
Having Charlie is a cheat overall, most don't have that.

JUGHNE

ChrisJ, your parents 2007 Plasma actually saves on the house heating bill. Twice at least I have seen them near the FAF t-stat. This kept the furnace off.....same effect as the "save money" high dollar 1500 watt room heater. In most cases the TV is on 16 hours a day, regardless if watched or not.
Keeps the house cooler in the summer time though! Magic!

Paul48

My flat panel is 200 watts, and it's about 10 years old. It's been a while, but I think it's about half the wattage of the tube-type it replaced. Have the new ones gone up in wattage? Mine is an LCD.

ChrisJ

Paul48 said:

My flat panel is 200 watts, and it's about 10 years old. It's been a while, but I think it's about half the wattage of the tube-type it replaced. Have the new ones gone up in wattage? Mine is an LCD.

No,
Plasma is a totally different technology. LCD and plasma both have advantages and disadvantages.

Plasma, produces fantastic blacks, where LCD is always glowing, producing dark grays at best.

But, LCD technology has consistently advanced more, and always used less power. I doubt we'll ever see 4K plasmas or any larger than 55" or so.

My 50" Panasonic plasma is likely the last I'll ever own. OLED is fantastic, but I doubt will ever catch on, it's just too damn expensive to make.

New, LED backlit LCDs likely use less power than your 10 year old CCFL backlit one.

Paul48

Back when I bought mine, one of my nieces was working for an electronics store. At that time, she said the plasmas were coming back to the store as fast as they went out. That was the reason I stayed away from them. I bought 2 of the LCDs, and 1 has died about a year ago. I paid about twice the price that they are now. I was told( couple yrs ago) about a new technology that was being developed. I'll have to ask my younger brother where that stands.

Robert O'Brien

So rebates and tax credits paid for by the public are OK to sway consumers decision making?

ChrisJ

Robert O'Brien said:

So rebates and tax credits paid for by the public are OK to sway consumers decision making?

Why don't you tell us your thoughts on it, Bob?

ChrisJ

GreenGene

I've noticed a lot of the gas vs oil calculators originate from gas companies and the excel program seems a little skewed.

Wish I could find that old data, last time I got oil I paid $1.60, it blows gas out of the water, checking their conversion excel programs shows they have oil set at $3 or higher, the oil equipment at very low eff and the gas at very high. If I refactor the program properly they come out close to even, hmm.

Fact is if you're going to convert it's going to take 8-20 years to pay you back, THEN you start saving.

With oil you can always get heat with any diesel based fluid, even veggie oil if needed, with gas?

If the unit is due for replacement they'd have to spend the money anyway so if they were on the line it could be justified but to do it just to save money isn't realistic because you aren't going to for years.