Why are energy efficiency standards so far behind the technology?

@AJinCT , One of the problems you're having with this thread, I think, is that you ask questions about energy policy but you give everyone your perspectives on every technology they have or are passionate about, as if you're the expert. That's why you are not getting policy perspectives. Forget being a heating, refrigeration, envelope expert and stick to your specific policy questions. I'm not sure this site is the best place for that, although these guys know how to wring every ounce of energy out of the technology that they have the opportunity to install/maintain, they can't dictate to a Home owner what to install and how much to spend. Consider that most on this site are doing their best to properly Maintain what they have and that is what they can afford in the near term and even when the time comes to install new, they may not be in a position to afford the most energy effecient systems/products. Policy or otherwise. Put taxes on fuel and energy if you want, many will be cold because they are already stretched to the limit and, while we have demonstrated that we can pay $3.00 for a gallon of gas (and you can get by with a tax, today that takes it back up to $3.00) that is the tip of the iceberg. Just means there is less money for a more effecient heating system or better windows or whatever.

@AjinCT I would venture to say that if it becomes the law of the land that all heating equipment be over 90% efficient, it will be become so labeled... like magic. But when you actually test this stuff out in the field, it will be less than what the label says.

I would venture to say that "real world" efficiency is more like 89%. The 90+% numbers currently advertised on heating equipment are pure absolute unalloyed marketing wank.

Why do I say this? Because when I test my very own furnace, it's only 88.7% steady state. It is only 90+% for a few seconds during the cycle, at best.

But you have shown that if facts are presented to you that do not fit neatly into your weltanschauung, you would rather disbelieve them and denigrate the informant .

I think there is at least one answer to @AJinCT 's question as to why energy standards lag so far behind technology; that being, as has already been said, the energy ratings of equipment/systems today are, for the most part, marketing hype and these technology companies and their special interest groups (including the oil industry) do what they have to to ensure there is no legislation/standards put in place that would require them to make the changes necessary to meet those standards. In reality, the lag isn't as great as what it appears. More profit for them by not having to invest in the R&D and retooling. JMHO

AJinCT, I'll ask this again: You are aware the Empire State Building is LEED Gold certified after a recent renovation- and it has steam heat, correct?

That's right- a LEED Gold building that has a steam heat system. This would not be possible if steam was as inefficient as you say.

Some efficiency facts for our guest that He may not know.
The average 92% AFUE efficient hot air furnace uses about 70 times more electricity than a standard 80% AfUE steam boiler.
The average new forced air heat home leaks about 10% more air when the fan is off and 50% more air when the fan is on compared to other heating systems.
92% efficient hot water boilers typically use 3 to 4 times more electricity than "cast iron clunkers" .
The typical radiant system (nearly all steam systems and many hot water systems) achieve comfort levels at air temperatures about 2 to 3 degree less than air heating systems. This alone is a 6 to9 % fuel savings.
In order to achieve high AFUE number, or high combustion efficiency numbers typically electrical use must go way up.
When you take into account overall efficiency of equipment ( both gas and electrical input) and how the system interacts with the building and occupants, the old clunker cast iron steam or hot water boiler (80%) systems use less energy than 92% AFUE hot air furnace.
Steam systems do not have to be built of large pipes. Steam minitube systems have been around for 70 years or more and use small copper supply mains. A typical home uses a 1 inch copper supply with 3/8 flexible copper lines to the vary small radiation, and 1/4 inch returns. The efficiency of these systems is exceptional with an old clunker 80% efficient boiler.
96% efficient steam boiler are becoming more and more popular. The Art Institute of Chicago recently made this upgrade and it appears that there is interest at my Alma Mater, IIT in Chicago, after I was a guest lecturer on modern steam heating for the graduate Mechanical Engineering Department.
You're dismissing of steam as inherently inefficient is based on a lack of information about the development that is going on in the industry and the reapplication of vacuum system design that is beginning to occur.
One thing to remember, steam as an inherent advantage of operating at very large delta tees, which are optimum for condensing technology In addition, there are no additional energy needs for distribution.

Much of this information above is available at the US DOE.

OK. The OP's question is "Why are energy efficiency standards so far behind the technology?" It's a legitimate question with no easy answer. In fact there's no single answer. And it's complicated.

I work in the electric power industry and am a former state energy policy official. I have opinions about this topic based on my own experience and political leanings. Here are some ways I'd answer the question:

1. It's tough for government to impose stuff on consumers they may not want. It's an interesting problem: we expect politicians to do what we elect them to do (representative government) but we also expect them to 'lead', which often means telling us what's best for us.

2. It's irrational to expect that a vast majority of consumers (voters, etc.) will become self-educated and objective experts on energy policy or any other complicated subject.

3. In the energy sector consumers have historically had two primary concerns: it should be cheap and reliable. In recent years society is also much more sensitive to environmental impacts. An inside joke in my world is: cheap, clean, reliable -- pick two. Because we don't have a technology that perfectly meets all three criteria. There's (still) no free lunch.

4. A significant number of Americans think energy costs too much (due to ill-conceived government tax policy, corporate greed, or whatever).

5. A significant number of Americans think we should make fossil fuels more expensive because low prices are inhibiting the development of renewables, etc., and killing the planet.

6. Consumers in general don't want to take responsibility or make sacrifices. Another inside joke: folks show up to protest new power plants, pipelines, or whatever driving SUVs with Sierra Club stickers on the window. Or people show up in their Priuses to fight a wind farm that will ruin their view. I respect their opinions and passion but it is kind of ironic how people expect somebody else to address climate change or whatever while they live large, drive around in big cars and fly all over the place for business and pleasure. I'm not sure we really want fuel efficiency and emissions standards for airplanes. The answer to that problem, like almost every other energy problem, is to actually use less.

7. Lots of people in this country can't afford the latest and greatest technology and understandably don't want to pay for other folks (through taxes, higher electric bills, etc.) to install solar panels or insulate their homes.

I could go on and on. But when I said above that, at a high level, our energy policy is essentially "use as much as you can afford" I meant that in the context of how we don't live in a socialist economy where government gets to make all our decisions for us. A better policy, in my view, might be "only use as much as you really need." (But what if I want a big boat?)

Just my opinion but I think we're lucky to have appliance efficiency standards in the first place. Nonetheless we still have to recognize that efficiency standards in and of themselves can't overcome the impact of living in large houses, driving big cars and expecting to have unlimited hot water to take 20-minute showers everyday.

And then there's the little problem of having AFUE stickers on boilers that are essentially meaningless unless someone dials in the ODR curves, etc.

Thanks for letting me get this off my chest.

Chester said:

OK. The OP's question is "Why are energy efficiency standards so far behind the technology?" It's a legitimate question with no easy answer. In fact there's no single answer. And it's complicated.

I work in the electric power industry and am a former state energy policy official. I have opinions about this topic based on my own experience and political leanings. Here are some ways I'd answer the question:

1. It's tough for government to impose stuff on consumers they may not want. It's an interesting problem: we expect politicians to do what we elect them to do (representative government) but we also expect them to 'lead', which often means telling us what's best for us.

2. It's irrational to expect that a vast majority of consumers (voters, etc.) will become self-educated and objective experts on energy policy or any other complicated subject.

3. In the energy sector consumers have historically had two primary concerns: it should be cheap and reliable. In recent years society is also much more sensitive to environmental impacts. An inside joke in my world is: cheap, clean, reliable -- pick two. Because we don't have a technology that perfectly meets all three criteria. There's (still) no free lunch.

4. A significant number of Americans think energy costs too much (due to ill-conceived government tax policy, corporate greed, or whatever).

5. A significant number of Americans think we should make fossil fuels more expensive because low prices are inhibiting the development of renewables, etc., and killing the planet.

6. Consumers in general don't want to take responsibility or make sacrifices. Another inside joke: folks show up to protest new power plants, pipelines, or whatever driving SUVs with Sierra Club stickers on the window. Or people show up in their Priuses to fight a wind farm that will ruin their view. I respect their opinions and passion but it is kind of ironic how people expect somebody else to address climate change or whatever while they live large, drive around in big cars and fly all over the place for business and pleasure. I'm not sure we really want fuel efficiency and emissions standards for airplanes. The answer to that problem, like almost every other energy problem, is to actually use less.

7. Lots of people in this country can't afford the latest and greatest technology and understandably don't want to pay for other folks (through taxes, higher electric bills, etc.) to install solar panels or insulate their homes.

I could go on and on. But when I said above that, at a high level, our energy policy is essentially "use as much as you can afford" I meant that in the context of how we don't live in a socialist economy where government gets to make all our decisions for us. A better policy, in my view, might be "only use as much as you really need." (But what if I want a big boat?)

Just my opinion but I think we're lucky to have appliance efficiency standards in the first place. Nonetheless we still have to recognize that efficiency standards in and of themselves can't overcome the impact of living in large houses, driving big cars and expecting to have unlimited hot water to take 20-minute showers everyday.

And then there's the little problem of having AFUE stickers on boilers that are essentially meaningless unless someone dials in the ODR curves, etc.

Thanks for letting me get this off my chest.

Condense that @Chester into Money. Money for fossil fuel markets. The only energy markets that do not depend on fossil fuels are wind, solar, nuclear, and hydro. Other than lubricants for components a small fraction of the energy sector. You can bet big oil has their controlling fingers in those markets also. Supply, and demand. There are lots of new extraction methods that require a barrel of oil to be at a certain level before its cost effective to do.. Very complex global market that effects huge pockets with a lot of pull.

Steamhead said:

The fact that the Empire State Building uses ConEd steam makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. Their steam is generated in boilers like everyone else's, so there is no difference in efficiency. Nice try.

And is that 96% mod-con actually 96%? There has been at least one instance where these efficiency numbers have been questioned. In some cases, manufacturers were quoting numbers that were almost 100%. Here is a thread on this that I was able to find quickly:

http://forum.heatinghelp.com/discussion/143588/afue-on-all-boilers-reduced-to-90

I'm sure this won't be the last time.......................

I seem to recall Jim Davis telling me many 90+ appliances run as low as 40% at times.

Suppose it's just like the 6HP shop vacs that may produce 1HP at most. Sure looks good on the sticker! Too bad it's a complete lie.

@Steamhead what would you prefer?
A snowman running @ 60% connected to a properly working steam system in a super insulated and sealed home by today's standards.

Or a 95% modcon in a drafty house with typical 1950s insulation (some places 3", some places none) and windows?

Personally, I'd take the snowman setup.

Not a snowman. Some of those were truly horrible. I'll go with a MegaSteam.

The envelope, of course, should be as good as one can make it. For example, as nearly as I can calculate using the Slant/Fin program, my house originally had a heat loss of 134,549 BTU per hour at a 70°F inside/0°F outside design when my great-grandfather had it built in 1924. Its present heat loss, as calculated, is 78,485- about 58% of the original loss. In my lifetime, the firing rate has been reduced from 1.65 to 0.75 GPH through a newer boiler and envelope improvements (yes, I'm still on oil). I'm still improving things as I go.

But even with a tight envelope, if there is an extended power or fuel failure, the house would eventually get down to freezing during the winter. So steam would win, since the radiators and most of the pipes drain dry when the system shuts down, drastically reducing the potential for freezing damage.

AJinCT said:

Steamhead, It's absolutely relevant. It is co-generated.

Is it? Most district steam systems I'm familiar with are entirely separate from power generation- to the extent that they are operated by entirely separate companies. The one in Baltimore was one part of BGE but has passed thru several different companies, currently owned by Veolia.

AJinCT said:

And were those 84% boilers really 84%? And what about standby loss? The mod/cons have very little standby loss, a chunk of cast iron has significant standby loss.

The AFUE testing procedure supposedly covers standby losses. And, if you minimize drafting thru a cast-iron boiler when it's off, it will hold its heat for a long time. A low-mass mod-con will cool down quickly and have to start from scratch.

AJinCT said:

Steamhead, Throw some Cryo-Tek in a hot water system, and get a generator. Now, no matter what, you don't have to worry about pipes freezing. Your water pipes are going to freeze too, so you have to do something to keep the building warm.

What happens when you have to drain the system? Eventually any kind of antifreeze will have to be recovered for environmental reasons- I believe some European countries already regulate this. Better to not have the issue in the first place, and be able to get the heat back on with minimal repairs so you can work in a warm building fixing everything else.

I think he's claiming AFUE doesn't account for standby losses.

Should I post Penny again?

I have a comment when it comes to nuclear power. Any and all solid fuel boiling water reactors are unsafe and completely inefficient.

It's time we revisit the Oak Ridge liquid sodium research that Nixon shut down to funnel jobs to California. That style of reactor is 96% efficient vs 3% for solid fuel reactors. That means the waste is about 30X less and the worst of that waste has to be sequestered for 300 years not 25,000 years. If you use thorium instead of uranium the fuel can't be used to build bombs and the reactor can use the long term waste from boiling water reactors as fuel - it's the only known way to get rid of long term nuclear waste.

Also liquid fuel reactors can't melt down because they are already in liquid form. With careful engineering they can be made walk away safe and need no external power for cooling - you might recall the problem at Fukushima was caused by the loss of coolant.

Bob

I am beginning to see a common denominator... Energy Kinetics. Nice website. Based out of Lebanon, NJ. Anybody have experience with them?

I didn't find steam on their website?

I looked also, no mention of steam which is why the OP elected to exclude it frrom the discussion??? @AJinCT , do you have any affiliation with EK?

I have had in depth conversations with manufacturers in the past and I understand the the AFUE standards are done with water temperatures of 140f supply and 120f return. Standby losses are also checked thus the difference between the input efficiency and DOE output which is tested. The Net rating is just a formula not a test.
The reference to the reduction of all mod/cons to 90% was due to a formula error given out by the DOE.
The R&D of any product is very expensive. Many boilers are in R&D for a year or more before they go out for testing which account for many man hours. Next is certification for the boiler and the Installation manual which is very costly. To bring a new product to market probably costs upwards of $100K or more.
When the company sells internationally such as Weil or Burnham they will offer multi level efficient boiler models at different price points to meet all needs. The more expensive equipment like the Burnham MPO has better insulation (3") like Buderus.
This is different than a company that sells in 25% of the country and offers a couple of lines like EK.
Just eliminate chimney vented boilers use OD air for combustion, install OD reset or indoor, properly size the boiler, set up the OD reset properly, avoid a lot of micro-zones and even with cast iron you'll still save 25%-40% plus for the owner. Use a mod/con and improve on that a little bit more.
I personally don't want more mandates from the government. Better educate the homeowner. We need to get more articles in places they can read them instead of hiding all our good news in industry publications.