New DOE boiler standards

Thank you Robert, and this is NOT meant to reflect on you, but..

This is GARBAGE.

IMHO, the only reason "THEY" didn't adopt higher standards is because all of the boiler/furnace manufacturers were worried about what they would do with the back log of the boat anchors running in the eighties that they had already built.

Our gutless Federal Gubernmint at work, cowtowing to the people with money, ignoring the fact that there is a much greater conservation potential that is HERE TODAY and being employed by contractors like US.

THe $1500.00 tax credit for high efficiency retrofits is a step in the right direction. A baby step nonetheless, but at least it is a step in the right direction. Now, if THEY would just grow some cajones, and require a minimum of 90% thermal efficiencies for ALL boilers (yes, steam included) we could put some people to work, reducing our carbon footprint by a minimum of 30%, employ people and save money and energy.

Maybe the boiler/furnace industry needs to step up to the podium and ask for a bail out, subsidizing their losses for all the boat anchors they have in inventory. Seems to be the thing to do these days...

I've been applying 90+ efficient boilers for over 10 years now... I think the technology is proven...

Again, thank you for sharing this information.

The soap box is now free....

ME

How? and...

How do you propose to make the steam systems a minimum of 90% efficient? As for one aspect, there's barely enough water in the new boilers now, especially when incorporated in old, old systems. Some day, when we're all dead, there will be no residential steam systems, except for those Mad Dog has built from scratch, so the residential steam efficiency problem will be solved.

Also, I guess you are an 100% proponent of the more problematic electric ignition.

Susan

You're joking about standing pilots,right?

Mike

I agree with as little government intervention as possible.But if it weren't mandated would there be seatbelts and airbags in most cars today?

Good questions.

As usual, the standards can detrimentally over simplify reality. Boiler--control--actual heat loss--actual heat load--heat load profile: These all make the system and how effectively we use our energy. I think setting standards for improvement over a standard baseline for each heating medium is reasonable until near-theoretical maximum efficiency is reached.

Furthermore, designing to specific mandates can unintentionally close a really big door on whole fields of creative solutions that will become unallowable under narrow mandates. This, of course, is foolish but very often the bureaucratic way.

Beyond that, an ever more stringent single standard will require extraordinarily costly retrofits to heating systems and buildings without addressing actual energy usage. Ultimately a good but narrow standard taken to extremes results in waste, and worst of all, the waste of buildings, materials and systems of irreplaceable quality. It can even damage transitional urban neighborhoods when its discovered that the cost of retrofits results in destruction of older structures and neighborhoods in favor of new construction elsewhere and immensely wasteful sprawl.

I have my own questions and hypotheticals regarding the long term impact of boiler efficiency standards and implications for specific heating media:

Will that 92% mandated HW boiler ever condense in the application and installation? Does a high mass radiant system allow any room temperature setback? Can the 86% steamer with full modulation bring a space up to temperature so quickly that setbacks are practical? Which building uses less energy then?

If you've heavily insulated your steam heated house and have at least two mains coming off the header and you then install a boiler sized only for one zone operation at a time, can we use an nice PID controller to cycle each zone in sequence based on pressure gradients across each main and room temperature setpoints? Which building uses less energy then?

Supposing we now effectively downsize existing radiation with inlet restrictors the way we did in the "vapor system era" or control single pipe with piped vents the way we did in the "Paul vapor era?" Can we now modulate steam supply pressures to some extent based on outdoor temperatures to provide steam at higher pressure and temperature only when heat demand is greatest?

Visualize modern public spaces and institutional settings with lower thermal mass, good insulation and lower mass heat emitters. Can steam be a more appropriate heating medium in these modern spaces where individual room occupancy sensors are used and fast recovery times significantly reduce mean space temperatures?

Can modern steam be utilized the way the SelecTemp system was designed using unimaginably small supply and return lines made of refrigeration copper? [its in the Library. Look under "resources" to get to the library, look under "unusual systems"] Wouldn't we wind up with small pipe diameters, ultra low pick-up factor requirements and low materials and installation costs? Examples of this rare system seen today have proven that the materials hold up well. Can't we use return temp sensors to modulate steam pressure instead of using steam traps at every radiator?

And for the manufacturers: Is latent heat recovery for small steam boilers really economically out of reach in the long term? Is the "super boiler" 94% heat extraction technique scaleable? If so, wouldn't such a steam boiler would operate at 94% at all times, even when a condensing HW boiler wouldn't be condensing or condensing much? Wouldn't making instantaneous steam DHW would look attractive too?

I have a good idea that the answers to all these questions affirm that generating steam for space and water heating has a valid place in the long term big picture of total energy conservation.

Mandates of crushing inflexibility will make all of the above unallowable. Then what have we achieved with our good intentions? IMO, dogma has never saved anything, let alone the planet. I think the stakes are too high to "outlaw everything except X."

I think the idea of setting goals for total energy use for a structure based on occupancy, type and expected heat loss for the volume of the structure is a good way to go. Take arial thermal images. Or actual fuel and electric usage. This would force results, not just specific out-of-context actions. Let the all technologies compete. Let people alter wasteful lifestyles in ways appropriate for them.

I forget who said it, but the point has long been made that increasing the efficiency of something usually doesn't result in less energy used. People simply consume more of it since its cheaper to use. CFL's? Great. Now all the lights in the house are left on. Radiant heating? Now the whole house is 72 degrees 24/7 with minimal occupancy.

We can do better on boiler efficiency and we should. But lets stop before it becomes a distraction from our actual goals.

-Terry

(C) EXCEPTION

‘(C) EXCEPTION- A boiler that is manufactured to operate without any need for [external] electricity or any [external] electric [power] connection, electric gauges, electric pumps, electric [power] wires, or electric devices shall not be required to meet the requirements of this paragraph.’.

I took this to be specifically intended to mean thermopile steam or gravity hot water systems, where "electricity" was understood to be externally supplied/connected, power not level, not pilot or signal level (e.g. 750 mV from a powerpile integral to the boiler to to a remote thermostat).

I would admit the insertion of the word "exernal" or "power", etc. in a couple key locations might have been helpful, for I do not believe the primary intent was to hand fired solid fueled (coal, wood, etc.) boilers w/ mechanical linkage type damper controls, though clearly they too would be permitted by this clause.

Whether standing pilot, off the grid (the boiler, not necessarily the structure to be heated), gas fueled boilers should be allowed is another question.

In general. I read it with relief... NOT! For we've moved to late 1970's state of the art! (sigh). Perhaps tax credits are a better way however to encourage installation of higher efficiency systems, at least in the replacement market, though other parts of the tax code could perhaps apply to builders, so that new construction too might get something more than the minimum available.

Mark....

Weren't you the one who at one point railed against the cost calculations that the government was allowing you for overhead on a job you were proposing? Now that the government announces that it cannot justify a condensing standard for boilers, the laws aren't tough enough? Be careful what you wish for...

Bottom line is, until regional standards were enacted, justifying high minimum standards for the whole country re: any HVAC appliance was usually not possible. Just as the South doesn't need a lot of heating, the North doesn't need as much cooling. Congress recently enacted a law allowing DOE to consider regional standards, which may or may not have a significant impact on HVAC appliances going forward. Time will tell.

However, in the meantime, why not get involved? The Wall has so many subject matter experts for many appliance categories... and consider that the only stakeholders they usually interact with are manufacturers and environmental advocates. You guys could inject an important point of view, i.e. the one of the folk in the field that install and maintain some of the appliances under review. Getting involved is easy, the EERE appliance standards website lists them for each program manager by rulemaking.

Widespread Steam Efficiency 90+


Thanks; no, I hadn't seen that thread and now have only glanced through it. One of my points is that, in the current and near future time, it will be pretty difficult to achieve this efficiency widespread in old steam systems. Once the more efficient small residential boiler is perfected and readily available, I guess maybe the 90+ efficiency will be attainable. I just HOPE I'm dead when someone tries to incorporate this into my old system. I can envision even the good Wall professional listed people (which mine is) happily dealing with all the adjustments and problems of achieving this - I don't mean the few real steam enthusiast perfectionist professionals who will happily take whatever time and effort is required to perfect systems etc., like you and Mad Dog and some others, I mean the usual good pros but pros concentrating on (and necessarily so) everyday profit and loss. (And yes, I know you enthusiasts have to concentrate on profit and loss also, but you know what I mean.)

I find that doing much of anything with an old system (and yes, with proper near boiler piping for new boilers, etc.)is sort of a demonstration of the domino theory in action. Designing and installing an entire system from scratch would be a different situation.

As for residential steam being around after we're all dead, note that I said "some day." I didn't say right after we're dead. Some day even these old houses will crumble and they and their heating systems will be gone and I doubt that the new houses will be built with steam heating systems. I may be wrong given the twists and turns of technology; we'll never know.

As for standing pilots, I hear more problems on this forum with electronic ignition (at least a greater variety of problems) than with standing pilots and I also hear of an advantage of some warmth to the system during the long seasonal down period. Perhaps the energy-savings should trump that now.