Re: [GBlist] Zero Energy House on Washington Mall (fwd)

["Dr. Carmine F. Vasile" <gfx-ch@email.msn.com>]

John: Your "2 cents" worth took quite some time to answer. I apologize for
neglecting to give a source for conversion-efficiency.  For simplicity &
consistancy, I used conversion-efficiency values used by a NIST (then NBS)
consultant in the DOE Grant Evaluation of our DHR system (GFX),
Recommendation No. 382, OERI No. 009925 Dec. 1986.

    Contrary to your statements below, the conversion-efficiency for a
modern tankless electric water heater, like the Acutemp C-150 with solid
state controls, is nearly 100%, with an EF between 0.98 & 1.0 per the
Virginia Power funded evaluation summarized @ www.oikos.com/gfx/tests.html.
The Bosch, tankless, pilotless gas water heater, Model WR 400-3KB  has a
conversion eficiency of 77%, with an EF of 0.69, according to a May 1999
report by Intertek Testing Services. (604-525-3321)

    For tank-type water heaters, beloved by new builders & utilities & water
heater manufacturers, DOE's efficiency standards issued late last year are:
(a)    0.59, up from 0.54, basic 40-gallon natural gas;
(b)    0.90, up from 0.86, basic 50-gallon electric;
(c)    0.53, no change for oil. [See "DOE, Industry Squabble Over New Water
Heater Standards", Energy Design Update (EDU), September 2000]

    OPEC wins again!

    There are close to 100 million of these tank-type energy hogs in the
U.S., although the Acutemp catalog includes a utility field evaluation to
demonstrate tankless electric water heaters can save 41 % compared to high
efficieny tank-type water heaters. [See
www.thomasregister.com/olc/keltech/]. I've never seen similar tests for
tankless gas water heaters.

    Nevertheless DOE's newly mandated cuts in energy usage (8% for gas & 4%
for electric per EREN's 4/18/01 news release), seem to be too high for the
Gas Appliance Manufacturers Assn. (GAMA), for according to the March 2001
issue of EDU, GAMA formally petitioned DOE to reconsider its rule on water
heater efficiency standards;  "...published in the waning hours of the
Clinton administration."  GAMA's President claims "... the new standards
aren't cost-effective, present unacceptable safety hazards, and don't
satisfy the the antitrust concerns raised by the U.S. Justice Department."

    In other words GAMA and its cronies don't want DOE to trim their
"cash-cow". After years of DOE-stalling despite the National Energy Policy
and Conservation Act (NEPCA) as discussed in the September 2000 EDU story,
GAMA now seems to imply that DOE would compromise public safety to save
energy.

    If this isn't "the pot calling the kettle black", then what is?
Remember, hot water carrying 955-billion kWh or so down U.S. drains each
year, plus more billions of kWh & air pollution (NOx, CO & CO2) that go up
millions of assorted smoke stacks, come from millions of inefficient water
heaters that GAMA now alleges would "present unacceptable safety hazards" if
they were made to be just 8% more efficient; compared to the Bosch WR
400-3KB that's already more efficient by (0.69-0.54)/0.54 = 27.8%.

Regards,
Carmine
=====================================================
 WaterFilm Energy Inc.; P.O. Box 128; Medford, NY 11763
 Voice: 631-758-6271 [Fax: 631-758-0438]
 Email: gfx-ch@msn.com Web: http://oikos.com/gfx/
=====================================================


----- Original Message -----
From: "John Herbert" <john.herbert@kelcroft.com>
To: "Dr. Carmine F. Vasile" <gfx-ch@email.msn.com>; "Del Deletetsky"
<rpdeletetsky@ucdavis.edu>
Cc: "Lisa Barnett" <Lisa.Barnett@ee.doe.gov>; "Mike Buckwald"
<senator@feinstein.senate.gov>; "John Lebo" <johnl@doucetteindustries.com>;
"Donald R. Clem" <donclem@swinter.com>; "Constructive Individuals"
<constructive@cwcom.net>; "Greenbuilding" <greenbuilding@crest.org>; "Rolf
Butters" <rolf.butters@ee.doe.gov>
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 10:45 PM
Subject: Re: [GBlist] Zero Energy House on Washington Mall (fwd)


> Hi,
>
> I would flag your "efficiency" figures quoted
> below:
>
> > Dr. Carmine F. Vasile wrote:
> <snip>
> > a)     $255 to $892 @ 8.5-cents/kWh, 100% conversion (electric);
> > b)     $231 to $808 @ $1.72/Gallon, 55% conversion (oil);
> > c)     $167 to $586 @ $1.25/Therm 8.5-cents/kWh, 76% conversion (gas).
> <snip>
>
> You have not stated any detail, however one
> should note:
>
> 1. The efficiency for fuel oil can be quite
> similar to Gas, depending on the actual fuel
> oil burnt and the type of burner utilized.
> 80% is achievable, however 75% more likely.
>
> 2. Electricity is not and will never be 100%
> efficient. 90 - 95% is expected.
>
> 3. Gas maybe natural gas, town gas or LPG,
> (I guess in the US you would be using
> LPG or Town gas).
>
> All "efficiency" data provided by manufacturer's
> is based on "new" purchase. Without regular
> maintenance efficiency will decline
> rapidly.
>
> Just my 2 cents
>
> Regards,
> John Herbert
>





______________________________________________________________________
This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by REPP/CREST, creator of
Solstice http://www.crest.org, and BuildingGreen, Inc., publisher of
Environmental Building News and GreenSpec http://www.BuildingGreen.com
______________________________________________________________________