Wrong forum but any gas furnace over 20 years old is going to become inefficient very quickly and needs to be replaced.serbianbelle wrote: ↑ As appliances go new ones are sometimes an improvement over older models. Our gas furnace is 23 years old and I wonder if newer models are more efficient? Same with water heaters. They've become smaller and faster. Do they save on energy?
That 'more things to go wrong' actually does make me wonder whether or not a say 96% efficient furnace is all that efficient. The economic and environmental cost to make a complex HE furnace isn't trivial, and of course it costs the consumer a lot more versus a cheaper and less efficient (but more reliable) furnace. If you end up paying a decent chunk more up front and then it breaks more often (and expensively) and gets binned sooner, then do you really actually save the environment or much money by going say 96%?thriftshopper wrote: ↑ If there's a metal flue (exhaust) which is hot when the furnace is on, then it's most likely an 80% efficient furnace. If it has plastic pipe, than it's a 90-96% efficient furnace. These things have limited lifespans too and have more electronic components (more to go wrong).
Mid efficiency furnaces can't be bought anymore in ontario. High efficiency has been mandated since about 2010 I believe. Older furnaces can still be repaired of course but parts are becoming harder and harder to find at a decent price.grumble wrote: ↑ That 'more things to go wrong' actually does make me wonder whether or not a say 96% efficient furnace is all that efficient. The economic and environmental cost to make a complex HE furnace isn't trivial, and of course it costs the consumer a lot more versus a cheaper and less efficient (but more reliable) furnace. If you end up paying a decent chunk more up front and then it breaks more often (and expensively) and gets binned sooner, then do you really actually save the environment or much money by going say 96%?
I guess my point is that a lot of narrative and policy is based around ongoing fossil fuel cost during operation and also the reduction to monthly bills - if you look at the full cycle then stories like this tend to be a bit blurrier and that means that some of this framework might result in poor decision-making at both the consumer and overall policy level. I'm not saying that 96% is a bad decision, but I do think the reality of these types of situations is more complicated and we probably aren't looking at it properly.
Better to keep the CO (carbon monoxide) detectors up to date, that's the gas you should worry about.king_george wrote: ↑ Keep your C02 detector batteries up to date.
Damned autocorrect. You are correct of course and I blame the stupid tablet for all my typos.
Realistically, the same argument can be made between mid- and high- efficiency furnaces - for the extra 10-15%, is the extra cost with the higher complexity worth it? While you can't buy a new mid-efficiency furnace today, this argument works for those with mid-efficiency furnaces thinking that they will save the planet by going to high.grumble wrote: ↑ That 'more things to go wrong' actually does make me wonder whether or not a say 96% efficient furnace is all that efficient. The economic and environmental cost to make a complex HE furnace isn't trivial, and of course it costs the consumer a lot more versus a cheaper and less efficient (but more reliable) furnace. If you end up paying a decent chunk more up front and then it breaks more often (and expensively) and gets binned sooner, then do you really actually save the environment or much money by going say 96%?
I guess my point is that a lot of narrative and policy is based around ongoing fossil fuel cost during operation and also the reduction to monthly bills - if you look at the full cycle then stories like this tend to be a bit blurrier and that means that some of this framework might result in poor decision-making at both the consumer and overall policy level. I'm not saying that 96% is a bad decision, but I do think the reality of these types of situations is more complicated and we probably aren't looking at it properly.
Realistically, once you hit that 90% market, every improvement in efficiency after that comes at an ever-increasing cost per increase. I believe the highest efficiency you can get in a gas furnace is approx 96% so for an extra 6%, it will cost you thousands to replace your current furnace.serbianbelle wrote: ↑ grumble king_ ,george, thriftshopper Thank you all for replying. Furnace has plastic piping. We change filter regularly. Never had any problems with furnace, no malfunctions since installation. I was wondering if there have been improvements in furnaces. One of the things we do is lower temperature when we go to bed. We have a Nest thermostat and it takes care of that.
serbianbelle wrote: ↑ Never had any problems with furnace, no malfunctions since installation. I was wondering if there have been improvements in furnaces.
Seeing as you have plastic pipe for venting you have a high efficient furnace minimum 90% efficient. It will have all the same safety features as a newer high efficient furnaces will have but may just be slightly less efficient but it wouldn't save very much on gas consumption. As newlyborn pointed out that blower motors have changed which reduces electrical consumption but nothing really else has changed much. Start to put money aside for a new furnace as nothing lasts forever.serbianbelle wrote: ↑ grumble king_ ,george, thriftshopper Thank you all for replying. Furnace has plastic piping. We change filter regularly. Never had any problems with furnace, no malfunctions since installation. I was wondering if there have been improvements in furnaces. One of the things we do is lower temperature when we go to bed. We have a Nest thermostat and it takes care of that.
serbianbelle wrote: ↑ As appliances go new ones are sometimes an improvement over older models. Our gas furnace is 23 years old and I wonder if newer models are more efficient? Same with water heaters. They've become smaller and faster. Do they save on energy?
