[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Posted by HeatPro on October 26, 2005 at 12:28:17:
In Reply to: Replace boiler or freeze posted by Debs on October 26, 2005 at 12:05:13:
You could probably save much more than the difference in AFUE ratings due to lower mass and better operation. Fifteen percent is a guess. But buying one and having it installed probably would cost you the next ten years of savings.
Question #2 This is an idea that hits writers for a magazine article question that recirculates every year. The question translates to: Does setback really work to save fuel? The answer depends on how much mass must be reheated. Most sheetrocked houses with insulation will save some money. Poorly insulated houses save more money that way because they send more of the heat out at higher temperatures and at lower temperatures; but lower temperatures held in a house translates to less time heating which uses less fuel.
Ask yourself: Why does a house in the South use less fuel than in the North? (The technical answer is that there is less difference in temperature between inside and outside - but that is magic to most folks.)
As far as setting back, the question also translates to: Do thermostat manufacturers who make setback thermostats to accomplish that task start out advertising that setback is a good thing (with statements like saving 10% or more by doing so,) really intend to make a product that doesn't really work and do they intend to rip people off making a useless product like a setback thermostat? Do the government energy offices that recommend setback really intend to aid those manufacturers in ripping off the public or does a setback thermostat they recommend to consumers really do the intended job? I'm sure any redneck in any bar can come up with anecdotes about how their relative got one and it didn't work.
So the answer depends upon who you believe and how you plan to start an argument.