If EPA and Energy Star goes away

BobC

I remember doing an inrush current test for UL and having the inspector tell me I couldn't use a variac to adjust the line up to 276v LL. I had to prove to him the copper loss in the duct was more than that 50 amp 3 phase variac I was using. I measured how many feet of #10 wire there was between the overhead power duct and the circuit breaker box. 240 ft as I recall and that meant we had 0.24 ohms in copper loss in the circuit. It took some dancing but I finally proved my point.


The Bargain Center used to sell jeans for 3 or 4 dollars, sneakers were $5 for Keds. I remember having to wear dungarees for a week before they got even close to comfortable, one pair lasted forever.

Bob

JUGHNE

Chris, just think that in 1935 how many people could afford a fridge? That Monitor Top was just coming into the market.
GE knew that there was still a huge market out there untapped and why cheapen something up that had a good track record?
They were not looking for replacement business rather than new first time customers and there were probably a lot of them available. Redesign new tooling would have cost the company money, also there was less variety of jobber/parts available for choices for GE. I would guess they had a payment plan available as this would have be almost like buying a car dollar wise.

Tinman

@Gordy - I think @hot rod was just stirring the pot with his last two threads. : )

hot_rod

Knowing that mod cons cost more, require more maintenance, are more expensive to repair, parts obsolete in 10 years, etc. Mid efficiency equipment operating cost may be less, considerably less factoring in the above

What would motivate a homeowner to buy, other than imposed energy standards HE boilers.

How many folks here would chose HE over mid 80% for their own projects?

Maybe we even go back to coal fired boilers, now that taxpayers will be reviving that energy industry. Even though we have a glut of less expensive western coal looking for buyers.

Paul48

The automobile industry has handled complexity, quite well. Unfortunately it hasn't done anything to extend the life span of vehicles. I'd say that they are so complex, we are more likely to say goodbye to them sooner because we can't work on them. I don't feel they have done a good job with efficiency. They are cleaner running without maintenance, but some of the things they do to achieve that bring the fuel economy down. That's not their fault....they focused on what they were told to. If the government required it, we'd all be driving 100 mpg vehicles, by now.

Gordy

What should the life span of a vehicle be? Should it be measured in miles, or age?

Mileage wise I think we have came a long way really. We have not gained much in mpg that we did not already achieve years ago. However what did happen is increased size, and safety for same mpg through lighter materials, and design.

Engines easily go 100k with out being touched other than routine maintenance. Wait maintenance???

Gordy

hot rod said:

Knowing that mod cons cost more, require more maintenance, are more expensive to repair, parts obsolete in 10 years, etc. Mid efficiency equipment operating cost may be less, considerably less factoring in the above



What would motivate a homeowner to buy, other than imposed energy standards HE boilers.



How many folks here would chose HE over mid 80% for their own projects?



Maybe we even go back to coal fired boilers, now that taxpayers will be reviving that energy industry. Even though we have a glut of less expensive western coal looking for buyers.

Your probably right @Hotrod. The feed back I'm seeing from some is that even mid 80's efficiency equipment is considered high efficiency compared to yesteryear, and because of that its why they will not last as long as the old boat anchors..........

We should all probably go back to being hunter,gatherer,wanderers in search of food, fire, and shelter. Things were simpler then.

Jean-David Beyer

My July 2006 LG $818.97 dishwasher is still working. The main problem I have with it is that the heavy wire baskets (there is an upper and a lower one) are plastic-coated steel (NOT stainless), and that is starting to peel off, so rust is beginning.

On the other hand, when I bought this house in 1976, it still had its original appliances. The house was built in 1950. In about 1995, I replaced the refrigerator. That one one lasted about 11 years, and I have now the current one. According to Consumer Reports, you can expect a modern refrigerator to last about 9 years.

ChrisJ

Jean-David Beyer said:

My July 2006 LG $818.97 dishwasher is still working. The main problem I have with it is that the heavy wire baskets (there is an upper and a lower one) are plastic-coated steel (NOT stainless), and that is starting to peel off, so rust is beginning.

On the other hand, when I bought this house in 1976, it still had its original appliances. The house was built in 1950. In about 1995, I replaced the refrigerator. That one one lasted about 11 years, and I have now the current one. According to Consumer Reports, you can expect a modern refrigerator to last about 9 years.

Like I said to my mom when she was amazed I was keeping expensive medication in my 84 year old refrigerator instead of our 2011 Kitchenaid.

Which one do you think is most likely going to fail?



Maybe Gordy has a point.
A monitor top is pretty damn efficient, and yet, also reliable. More reliable than pretty much anything else, really.

I'm sure one day one of mine will have an issue. You can only expect so much from an old cotton insulated motor.

Gordy

Now Chris someone who owned that reliable efficient MT put it to pasture for the next best thing than sliced bread. You resurrected it. I wonder what the original owner thought after owning that presumed better refrigerator.

ChrisJ

Gordy said:

Now Chris someone who owned that reliable efficient MT put it to pasture for the next best thing than sliced bread. You resurrected it. I wonder what the original owner thought after owning that presumed better refrigerator.

Depends on how you define better.
By the 1940s new styles and bigger refrigerators came out with fancy features like a heated butter compartment. Yes, that existed.

My specific one, had a damaged float valve due to flash gas and wire drawing. This happens if NCG builds up and is ignored and not bled like it should be. Fact is, no one knows how long this took. 10 years? 40 years?

So the person likely thought "I'm so happy we have a new stylish refrigerator and it gets cold!"

People who traded in 1935-1938 machines which rarely had problems likely also were thrilled to get the latest models after the war.

From what I've seen, reliability and efficiency peaked in 1935, they stayed there until WWII. After the war, efficiency went down the toilet. 1950s machines are still very reliable but high speed compressors came out in the late 50s and reliability dropped and noise went up.

A monitor top runs at 1800 RPM as opposed to newer machines running at 3600.

A mid-late 30s machine could've been even more efficient, but they were also all competing for who could freeze the most ice the fastest. A tiny 6 cubic foot 1935 model has more power than a modern 20 cubic foot refrigerator. About 40 btu/h more. My 7 cubic foot 1933-34 models are about identical power wise to a modern 20 cubic foot model. 490 btu/h. Still grossly overpowered for their size.

But the lack of a defrost heater and 3" insulation make up for it.

Gordy

Sooo modern refrigerators use the same power to cool 3 times the volume. How does this make a MT efficient?? I'll buy into longevity however it needed help to last 84 years. Longevity was just a part of how things were built in those days. Reasons which have been mentioned by others.

ChrisJ

> @Gordy said:
> Sooo modern refrigerators use the same power to cool 3 times the volume. How does this make a MT efficient?? I'll buy into longevity however it needed help to last 84 years. Longevity was just a part of how things were built in those days. Reasons which have been mentioned by others.

Like I said they could have been a little more efficient. However. A 1935 CK series monitor top will consume between 15 and 20 kwh per month with a 6 cubic foot cabinet. If you recall a while back I posted how this was slightly less than a comparable sized modern energy star manual defrost mini fridge.

One big difference is a monitor top was designed with a 100f ambient and 80f dew point in mind. They will maintain temp fine under those conditions even while freezing ice,cooling hot food and the door being opened a few times per hour. Try that with a modern one of any brand or size.

I have the actual performance requirements that it was designed for somewhere.

Tinman

Shouldn't there be one, singular, global EPA?

Gordy

Think things are tough now. My uncle in Italy just his garbage pick up, and sorting is a huge deal. Glass,plastic,paper,metal,yard waste, and what does not fall into those sorted categories. Each separate receptacle is picked up a different day of the week. Mix an item in the wrong bin fined 1500€ I believe. No warning, and no second chances. Very hard line.

Not a bad thing though. The compost is free to the public.


However it is a global effort. More, or less if you follow the guidlines, and your neighbor doesn't, or they have different less strict guidelines what's the point.

Kinda like Europe who is very strict, and then there is China.....

The Steam Whisperer

I think when looking at these efficiency standards we should follow the money. This is especially the case when you see a huge outlier like AFUE. All other appliances are provided with a DOE sticker that states the estimated annual operating cost ( of energy use) of the appliance....not an "efficiency number". It makes you wonder why heating equipment is not rated like all other appliances. I believe the main reason is that a certain segment of the industry greatly benefits from this rating system....and that appears to be the forced air industry. AFUE numbers leave out huge items that effect the real life operating costs of the appliance including electrical use ( forced air furnaces use about 20 times more electricity that basic CI water boilers and about 80 times more than CI steam boilers), the supplemental heating caused by that electrical use (which increases AFUE), the type of heat delivered and how it increases or decreases comfort levels (radiant heat produces comfort at lower air temps, forced air requires higher temps and therefore increased energy use), how the system interacts with a building ( forced air greatly increases air leakage of typical homes), and, of course, system losses ( placed at about 23% for typical modern forced air homes). The DOE has all the studies that have produced this data and the national research arm for the gas industry (located in Chicago) has tried since the early 90's to get AFUE changed, yet it still persists. While I do believe efficiency requirements should exist because the free market cannot lead to higher efficiencies unless extreme energy costs strike and cripple our economy and that energy costs are, in part, set by demand and those that can afford high demand raise costs for those that can't, the current system is a lie and needs to be replaced by one more reflective of reality.

Gordy

And agree since I can't give two different ratings.

Jamie Hall

A couple of points here I'd like to make...

First, there is no way you can legislate or regulate your way to a desired ethical or behavioural end -- such as energy conservation -- unless you are willing to essentially dictate who can do what when, from the top down. Some people like that idea, some don't -- but that's the way people are.

Second, there are a whole bunch of tradeoffs involved in designing something -- particularly consumer goods, but almost anything else as well. The really difficult triangle is cost vs. efficiency vs. longevity. It is sometimes possible to get two out of the three corners. It is not possible -- I will state that very firmly -- to get all three corners.

As I see our present state of affairs, we have actually done pretty well on holding costs at least in line with overall inflation. Further, we have done remarkably well at improving efficiency (however you want to define it!) -- but that has come at the expense of longevity (which is really a cost, but not one that most consumers factor in). We could build things with today's efficiency, and yesterday's longevity -- but you wouldn't get anyone to pay for them (in general -- there are exceptions, such as aircraft engines for which both efficiency and longevity have improved, but the folks who fly are willing to pay millions of dollars for one engine, too).

Gordy

I think an efficient higher cost longer lasting product is marketable. Sure there will always be the cheap crowd of consumers. There's a line for them too. However I think there are consumers that would pay more for a said product if longevity was a concrete aspect to the product.

You could easily give all three it's just wanting to do it. Longevity does nothing but make that ROI to the consumer more palatable. As for the company producing not so much.

The Steam Whisperer

I have to disagree with Jamie, we have not kept the first cost of heating systems in line with inflation....it has gone down dramatically. From what I understand, when building a home back in the 20's, the cost of the heating system was around 15% the cost of the home now its probably under 5% ( with cooling added). The cost of buying a clothes washer was probably a much higher percentage of the income of a typical Joe or Jane back in the 60's and earlier than it is now, even despite the average income dropping against inflation for about 35 years now.
An economist, back a few years ago, finally said what many have been saying for a long time, that one of the fundamental reasons the US economy is so bad is that we can no longer afford cheap goods. Typically, cheap goods equal high long term costs which equals a big drop in living standards. This defines alot of our economy in the past 35 years.

Gordy

The Steam Whisperer said:

I have to disagree with Jamie, we have not kept the first cost of heating systems in line with inflation....it has gone down dramatically. From what I understand, when building a home back in the 20's, the cost of the heating system was around 15% the cost of the home now its probably under 5% ( with cooling added). The cost of buying a clothes washer was probably a much higher percentage of the income of a typical Joe or Jane back in the 60's and earlier than it is now, even despite the average income dropping against inflation for about 35 years now.
An economist, back a few years ago, finally said what many have been saying for a long time, that one of the fundamental reasons the US economy is so bad is that we can no longer afford cheap goods. Typically, cheap goods equal high long term costs which equals a big drop in living standards. This defines alot of our economy in the past 35 years.

I agree totally @The Steam Whisperer (Formerly Boilerpro) especially about the decline of income verses inflation. The spending power of the dollar is a dilemma.

ChrisJ

One of the issues, I feel, is back in the 1920s central heating was a big deal. People had little to spend money on aside from their homes, and of course you wanted what was the new fad. I mean, besides the fact that it's much more convenient etc. It was similar to a color TV in the 1950s or a VCR in the early 1980s.

Now, central heating is not only expected, it's required by code. People don't want to spend time or money on something that's expected. It's no longer something special. It's in the same category as underwear and paper towels.


That means people don't want to deal with it, pay for it, or even know it' exists. It's not something new an exciting, it's an annoyance.

Same thing with home maintenance.

Back in the late 1800s, people wanted a fancy house. The more woodwork, windows etc, the better. Now, they want a square box they can live in and spend their money on everything else like new iphones for the whole family every year.

Those are my thoughts.

Jamie Hall

In some ways I too agree with @The Steam Whisperer (Formerly Boilerpro) . For a given level of functionality, the cost of a heating system has gone down -- certainly relative to the cost housing in general (one might note that the cost of cars and trucks has, too). Unfortunately, looking back at my triangle, this means that something had to give somewhere -- and the something is longevity and reliability. Don't misunderstand me -- I love the efficiency and ease of operation of Cedric, and my wife's new car is a lot better than my 1970 Chevy truck in many ways. But will Cedric last as long as the H.B. Smith which was installed in 1930 and was still going strong -- if inefficiently! -- in 1980? Will my wife's new car still be running in 2064? I wonder...

ChrisJ

@Jamie Hall Oh, my dad would likely disagree with you there.
I think his 1970 C-20 was his all time favorite vehicle.

ratio

Hmmmm. Didn't someone suggest here that perhaps the overarching "cost" of things are fixed, and we are merely pushing parts of that "cost" around until it ends up where no one sees it?

Gordy

The cost of cars, and trucks has gone down?? I have bought two new vehicles off the lot in my life. An 84 Buick Skyhawks, and an 88 GMC s-15. Both out the door for 8k. Touch something for 8k plus inflation brand new today.
Use to be pickups were the cheapest thing on the lot. Today they are the most expensive.

ChrisJ

Gordy said:

The cost of cars, and trucks has gone down?? I have bought two new vehicles off the lot in my life. An 84 Buick Skyhawks, and an 88 GMC s-15. Both out the door for 8k. Touch something for 8k plus inflation brand new today.
Use to be pickups were the cheapest thing on the lot. Today they are the most expensive.

Whoever said that was mistaken.
Cars may have come down, but I doubt it.

Trucks have gone up. big time. They were the cheapest thing on the lot,. now they're not "work trucks" anymore, they're luxury vehicles.

Find a 2500 series stripped vehicle, is it even possible?
Stripped meaning manual transmission, manual bench seat, manual windows, heat only, no radio.

Even my 1992 C-2500 was pretty much stripped, though it did have a radio and A\C. Manual everything else.

Some guys just want a truck to get work done and make a living. That seems to be gone.

Gordy

I will agree,there is a heck of a lot more items to spend money on than 30 plus years ago even. Go back farther, and much less. Go back farther we were hunters,gatherers, and wanders.......

Gordy

Yeah hand crank windows is a special order, and upcharge.

Jamie Hall

You have to take overall inflation into account, folks -- and it has been terrific. It's sometimes easy to forget -- but when I got my first job, somewhat longer ago than I care to admit, I thought I was doing really really well -- at $ 0.75 per hour. And... I could live on that. Not well, but live. Now there are people pushing for 20 times that as the minimum wage, and there's still some evidence that it might be hard to live on. I can also remember pumping gas on Rte. 66 for $ 0.099 per gallon, and thinking we were ripping the customers. That is inflation, and you have to apply it to any sort of useful comparison.

Gordy

The decline of spending power of the American worker started in the early/mid seventies.

Sorry Jammie I'm not as old as you, but I can remember coming out of the grocery store with two full carts for 200 bucks. Today I can carry two hundred bucks worth out to the car.........that's inflation.

ChrisJ

What cost $55000 in 2016 would cost $8758.65 in 1970

@Jamie Hall was your truck almost $9000 in 1970?

Luckily, math never lies and it never forgets.

For $9000 I'm betting you could've bought three of your 1970 pickups brand new.

Jamie Hall

ChrisJ said:

What cost $55000 in 2016 would cost $8758.65 in 1970



@Jamie Hall was your truck almost $9000 in 1970?



Luckily, math never lies and it never forgets.



For $9000 I'm betting you could've bought three of your 1970 pickups brand new.

Probably. As I recall, it was around $3000, in fact. But I was taking a somewhat longer view -- being able to. That starting wage I mentioned was in 1955, for instance. McDonalds cheeseburgers were expensive at 19 cents. I got a four year college education -- at, honestly, one of the best small private colleges in the nation (Carleton, for the detail minded) -- for the whopping total of $10,000, all inclusive (books, housing, meals, instruction, etc.). I really did pump gas for 10 cents a gallon -- that was in 1964. I paid what I thought was the exorbitant sum of $3260 for my first showroom new car in 1966 -- a car you couldn't buy today for less than $60,000.

An overall inflation of about 7 times from 1970 to now? Possible. As you say, math never lies and never forgets -- but then there is also the comment someone made about statistics... And, with inflation particularly, one has to be very careful about specifying starting and ending points.

L Thiesen

Back to the original question, I have 40 year old cast iron hot water boiler with standing pilot in my house and after reading all the posts about problems with mod cons and the extra dollars they cost with short life's I hope to replace it something similar when the time comes.
In my opinion a lot of the high tech stuff on the market today are of no real benefit. For example tankless water heaters, when I put my information in the savings calculator one major manufacturer had on their website it showed a break even point for me at 22 years, that if the unit needed no repair in that time. So why would I install one?

ChrisJ

L Thiesen said:

Back to the original question, I have 40 year old cast iron hot water boiler with standing pilot in my house and after reading all the posts about problems with mod cons and the extra dollars they cost with short life's I hope to replace it something similar when the time comes.
In my opinion a lot of the high tech stuff on the market today are of no real benefit. For example tankless water heaters, when I put my information in the savings calculator one major manufacturer had on their website it showed a break even point for me at 22 years, that if the unit needed no repair in that time. So why would I install one?

You shouldn't.

Gordy

Especially a tankless.......

Jamie Hall

Precisely...

Mark Eatherton

I guess it all comes down to the installing contractors beliefs. I believe that every boiler installed (where possible) should be as high an efficiency as it can be. I've not sold anything less than 95% efficient boiler since...they became available. If a contractor wants to be the low bidder, then they have options, even WITH the overreaching federal governments current controls. In reality, I think the Feds are basically useless when it comes to dictating appliance efficiencies. They just did adopt 82% as the minimum allowable efficiency...

People (contractors) differ in their opinion and approach. I know mine is if you're going to do it, do it as right as you possibly can.

Personally, I am tired of ALL governments telling me what I have to do and when. But I guess there are still some people out there that need that kind of guidance.


ME

Jamie Hall

Mark Eatherton said:

...

Personally, I am tired of ALL governments telling me what I have to do and when. But I guess there are still some people out there that need that kind of guidance.


ME

I'm right there with you, Mark!

ChrisJ

I really wish there was an easy way to set up a test to actually compare overall energy used between boilers.

For example, take 5 of those 95% boilers and put them up against 5 simple cast iron HW boilers over a 30 (or even 60?) year period and see which consumes less energy and produces less pollution from start (creation) to finish (repairs, landfill etc).

Energy and pollution aside I'd also be curious which costs the end user the least in the end as well.