> I ran the numbers, new, 95% efficient furnace vs. old, 60-65% efficient one.
> Payout, 20-25 years.
Rarely does it make sense unless the old unit goes feet-up or unless
it's new construction. My dad's house has one of those old gravity
monstrosities that used to be a coal-fed unit, but was converted over
to natural gas. Not very efficient when the burner is going, but has a
ton of bricks in it that holds the heat for hours. The biggest
efficiency gain was placing a blower in the system which moved the
heat out of the unit faster. Replacing it never made financial sense.
Additional insulation did, though.
> Estimated life of new furnace, 15 years.
Highly pessimistic.
The first two houses we've bought had high-efficiency furnaces. One
was 93% and the other even higher. The condo had an electric furnace
which is effectively 100% efficient. I'd actually consider going that
route again when this one sings a final song, but am considering the
heat-pump/solar system. The nice thing is that we can heat the entire
house with the gas fireplace (which is also about 93% efficient) as
long as we have the blower going in the central heating system to
circulate the air to the farthest corners of the house.
> My house is much younger, but otherwise our situation is much the same. Hard
> to monetarily justify new tech in a mild climate.
I wouldn't mind it if Iowa was just a little bit milder.
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|