Government mandate to thin the walls to save $10

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by bgromicko

Thanks. I'll call you this week sometime if that's okay.

Look forward to it.

[Steven C. Waskewicz]

Suggestion?

On NACHI.TV, on the left, how about you categorize those videos into
TRAINING
and
Others...

?

then we'll know which are not training videos, and which are to be taken with a grain of salt, or not construed as being training...

[Ben J. Gromicko]

Originally Posted by swaskewicz

Suggestion?

On NACHI.TV, on the left, how about you categorize those videos into
TRAINING
and
Others...

?

then we'll know which are not training videos, and which are to be taken with a grain of salt, or not construed as being training...

That's a good idea. Right now on NACHI.TV, most are under "Videos" and only a few are under "Advanced Education."

"Video" is like watching TV. "Education" - you should expect more.

All training, instruction, and education courses (classroom, online text and online video) are here. This where one goes to get the big, master list of education.

[James H. Bushart]

Ben....you're just another vendor. When people try to sell us stuff and we find it to be inferior...we raise hell.

Grow some skin and give us some accurate information.

Since NACHI Tv is for profit and is separate from the association, it would be appropriate for you to offer to compensate those willing to help you make some dollars with your videos.

If not, you may have pierced the corporate veil by intermingling not-for-profit resources (such as members) in your for profit business.

Just a thought.

[John Allingham]

Originally Posted by jallingham

But is it true. Does anyone have documentation to back up the experts claim. It must be in writing somewhere if it's true. Sounds illogical.

Yikes, sorry for causing such a caffufle.

[Ben J. Gromicko]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Ben....you're just another vendor.

I love you too, James.

[Ben J. Gromicko]

Originally Posted by jallingham

But is it true. Does anyone have documentation to back up the experts claim. It must be in writing somewhere if it's true. Sounds illogical.

I believe our guest was accurate throughout the video.

But being a Rinnai vender, he was probably exaggerating. Apparently for many inspectors, they were harmed by the exaggeration/bending of the facts.

Here's the data that I found:

"The water heater energy efficiency standards we are adopting today will have a positive impact on consumers. Consumers with electric water heaters would save $13.05 per year while those with natural gas water heaters would save about $12.74 per year on average. Of course these savings are not free, consumers will have to pay an average increase of $101 for electric and $58 for gas water heaters. Note that the total average increased cost for electric and gas water heaters are $105 and $118, respectively, due to the phase out of the current insulating foam blowing agent HCFC–141b and the compliance to resist ignition of flammable vapors on gas water heaters voluntarily agreed to between the manufacturers and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

The simple payback for cost increases due to efficiency standards is 7.4 years for electric and 3.6 years for gas water heaters. The lifetime owning cost or life-cycle costs are lower than life-cycle costs on current water heaters by $23 for electric and by $30 for gas water heaters.

The design improvements the Department considered are thicker insulation and heat traps on both gas and electric water heaters and an improved heat exchanger (flue baffle) on gas water heaters. These improvements result in a four percent increase in energy efficiency for electric and an eight percent increase in energy efficiency for gas water heaters."

-----------

That's a direct copy-past quote from:
4475 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 11/Wednesday January 17, 2001/Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
10 CFR Part 430
[Docket Number EE–RM–97–900]
RIN 1904–AA76
Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Energy Conservation Standards for Water
Heaters
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy (DOE).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE or Department) has determined that revised energy conservation standards for water heaters will result in significant conservation of energy, are technologically feasible, and are economically justified. On this basis, the Department is today amending the existing energy conservation standards for water heaters.
EFFECTIVE DATES: The effective date of this rule and standard is January 20, 2004.

----------------

So,
(1) the manufacturers did things to increase efficiency of water heater tanks, which included changing the heat exchanger (flue baffle). That's what our guest said.

(2) The increase of efficiency is 4% (electric) and 8% (gas). The increase in efficiency is minimal in my opinion, (although the DOE calls it "significant"). Our guest said the increase was 1 and 1/2 % - exaggeration on his part.

(3) The increase in efficiency equates into only approximately $13 in savings per year (that's only $1 per month!). That's hardly a savings in my opinion.

(4) The average increase cost for a water heater is about $110. I think the average cost for a tank went up more than the DOE's expectation.

(5) In 2004, manufacturers did something to the heat exchanger to increase efficiency (I don't know what - it could have been a thinning of the tube - I don't know), but it only increased efficiency by 4%. Which equates to only approximately $13 per year. That's no increase! On top of that, the price of a water heater increased by around $110. So that "savings" is competely wiped out by the increase in the cost of tank!

(6) Our guest said that the life expectancy of a tank is now only 3 to 5 years based upon his experience. I disagree, but I have little experience with removing tanks from homes that have leaked or failed.

(7) It appears that our guest was correct in many ways. I agree that he was biased and exaggerating the numbers and bending the facts. But it seems that he was correct on the important points.

Anyone see things differently?

I apologize to all those inspectors who were misled by the guest who appeared on the NACHI.TV show about tankless heaters. I apologize to those who have expressed that NACHI.TV (me in particular) has done a disservice in some way by not doing research and confirming everything a guest may propose, state, or conjecture.

In the future, we shall strive to do better and ask our guests to back up whatever they are saying.

I ask for your forgiveness. I take full responsibility.

(If anyone else has any more information about the efficiency increase and the changing of the heat exchanger of water heater tanks, I'd appreciate sending it to me or posting it on the message board.)

Here is the link to the DOE document that mandates the efficiencies for tanks in 2004, from which I got the above quote.
http://www.epa.gov/EPA-IMPACT/2001/J...y-17/i1081.htm

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by bgromicko

(6) Our guest said that the life expectancy of a tank is now only 3 to 5 years based upon his experience. I disagree, but I have little experience with removing tanks from homes that have leaked or failed.

Anyone see things differently?

Sorry Ben, yes I do see it differently.

This hub bub started when you stated in post #1

Originally Posted by bgromicko

Now when you go an purchase a water heater tank that was made 2004 or after, the life expectancy is only 3 to 5 years.

As Joe F. pointed out the minimum warranty he has seen on a tank is 6 years.

Now how likely is it that the tankless water heater advocate is is correct?

Do any of us want HIs out there parroting the tankless water heater advocate's statement?

BTW-Personally I found the video useful and informative.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by bgromicko

I love you too, James.

You ARE just another vendor, Ben.

I did not say that to demean vendors, but to point out that your last name does not make you a part of the management of NACHI in your for-profit endeavors or require allegiance to your private ventures.

You seem to be taking advantage of people and making it appear that they have some NACHI duty to assist you in making money. You solicit free pictures and information from them which you sell back to them with NACHI Tv. You utilize, through the use of this board, conversations to solicit their ideas to assist you in improving your warranty products......then blast people who refuse to participate with you on your terms.

NACHI Tv wants to promote itself, in competition with other means of training, as a valuable tool to inspectors. If this is to be true someday...it will result from a better (screened) product providing accurate information.

Your guest did not provide us with the erroneous information, as you suggest. You did. (He provided it to YOU and you passed it on to US.)

A couple of our members took this information to the field and came home looking like morons. Your inferior product could have caused more harm than that if they actually used your suggested verbage in a report.

Like any other vendor...you have a duty to ensure a superior product and...like any other vendor...will be held accountable by the membership when you fail to do so.

[Joe Farsetta]

The problems, as I see them, are conflicting sources if information.

For instance, let's take Ben's statement:

I learned from a renowned expert that the best practice to disinfect a faucet is to use a flame.

Heat is a great didinfectant. Autoclaves have been used to didinfect surgical instruments for years and years. So, there's no surprise that heat works great. But, I doubt that any surgeon would pass a scalpel over an open flame and watch it get hot. Damage to the instrument would likely occurr. But back to Ben's statement...

While it may be true, let's think for a moment as to which section of this faucet gets disinfected. The answer is which portion gets cherry red.

So, when examining disinfection methods, whether with flame, alcohol, or bleach, the fact remains that a majority of the faucet doesnt get disinfected at all. This does not negate the reality that the initial statement was factual.

The second and more profound revelation and reality is that the preferred collection point should, in fact, be at a location where the dispensing of water is for human consumption. Dispensers intended for human consumption have all the ANSI/NSF rules of the SWDA applied to them.

BUT... these locations typically are decorative, and manu have plastic parts. So, when thinking about applying a flame to any of these surfaces, it's plan to see that significant damage can occur to the faucet.

I believe that enlightenment and evoking a logical thought process is a primary goal of any educator. But, when presenting material, it is a tough spot for the educator to be in, as many sutuations are different, and sometimes unique.

Just because Ben stated that a 4 year old WH may be on its way out does not equate to me buying into it. Again, if I got one thing out of the course than what I knew prior to taking it, he was successful.

We can agree to disagree on things.

[Nick Gromicko]

I just read http://www.epa.gov/EPA-IMPACT/2001/J...y-17/i1081.htm and I hate to read.

I think the guest was pretty darn accurate for an on-site TV interview.

Anyway, I don't think you need to research to death every word every TV show guest utters.

[Ben J. Gromicko]

Originally Posted by jbushart

....
Your guest did not provide us with the erroneous information, as you suggest. You did. (He provided it to YOU and you passed it on to US.)
...

I just want to be clear....
I believe our guest was mostly accurate throughout the video.

But being a Rinnai vender, he was probably exaggerating. Apparently for many inspectors, they were harmed by the exaggeration/bending of the facts.

Here's the data that I found:

"The water heater energy efficiency standards we are adopting today will have a positive impact on consumers. Consumers with electric water heaters would save $13.05 per year while those with natural gas water heaters would save about $12.74 per year on average. Of course these savings are not free, consumers will have to pay an average increase of $101 for electric and $58 for gas water heaters. Note that the total average increased cost for electric and gas water heaters are $105 and $118, respectively, due to the phase out of the current insulating foam blowing agent HCFC–141b and the compliance to resist ignition of flammable vapors on gas water heaters voluntarily agreed to between the manufacturers and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

The simple payback for cost increases due to efficiency standards is 7.4 years for electric and 3.6 years for gas water heaters. The lifetime owning cost or life-cycle costs are lower than life-cycle costs on current water heaters by $23 for electric and by $30 for gas water heaters.

The design improvements the Department considered are thicker insulation and heat traps on both gas and electric water heaters and an improved heat exchanger (flue baffle) on gas water heaters. These improvements result in a four percent increase in energy efficiency for electric and an eight percent increase in energy efficiency for gas water heaters."

-----------

That's a direct copy-past quote from:
4475 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 11/Wednesday January 17, 2001/Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
10 CFR Part 430
[Docket Number EE–RM–97–900]
RIN 1904–AA76
Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Energy Conservation Standards for Water
Heaters
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy (DOE).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE or Department) has determined that revised energy conservation standards for water heaters will result in significant conservation of energy, are technologically feasible, and are economically justified. On this basis, the Department is today amending the existing energy conservation standards for water heaters.
EFFECTIVE DATES: The effective date of this rule and standard is January 20, 2004.

----------------

So,
(1) the manufacturers did things to increase efficiency of water heater tanks, which included changing the heat exchanger (flue baffle). That's what our guest said.

(2) The increase of efficiency is 4% (electric) and 8% (gas). The increase in efficiency is minimal in my opinion, (although the DOE calls it "significant"). Our guest said the increase was 1 and 1/2 % - exaggeration on his part.

(3) The increase in efficiency equates into only approximately $13 in savings per year (that's only $1 per month!). That's hardly a savings in my opinion.

(4) The average increase cost for a water heater is about $110. I think the average cost for a tank went up more than the DOE's expectation.

(5) In 2004, manufacturers did something to the heat exchanger to increase efficiency (I don't know what - it could have been a thinning of the tube - I don't know), but it only increased efficiency by 4%. Which equates to only approximately $13 per year. That's no increase! On top of that, the price of a water heater increased by around $110. So that "savings" is competely wiped out by the increase in the cost of tank!

(6) Our guest said that the life expectancy of a tank is now only 3 to 5 years based upon his experience. I disagree, but I have little experience with removing tanks from homes that have leaked or failed.

(7) It appears that our guest was correct in many ways. I agree that he was biased and exaggerating the numbers and bending the facts. But it seems that he was correct on the important points.

Anyone see things differently?

I apologize to those who have expressed that NACHI.TV (me in particular) has done a disservice in some way by not doing research and confirming everything a guest may propose, state, or conjecture. Remember, it's a NACHI.TV show. Not a training/educational video.

(If anyone else has any more information about the efficiency increase and the changing of the heat exchanger of water heater tanks, I'd appreciate sending it to me or posting it on the message board.)

Here is the link to the DOE document that mandates the efficiencies for tanks in 2004, from which I got the above quote.
http://www.epa.gov/EPA-IMPACT/2001/J...y-17/i1081.htm

[Michael Larson]

Ben, one can tell you two are brothers.

Go read your post #1 and please try to understand why this "controversy" happened.

You are promoting the idea that a water heater only lasts 3 -5 years.

You said nothing about disagreeing with that statement until very late in the thread.

In promoting your video, you even said "Do you know that"?

Buck up man. Everyone is wrong now and then.

[James H. Bushart]

And...I will repeat...it is YOUR responsibility as a vendor to ensure the quality of what you provide to the members. Not your guests.

Being "mostly accurate" is equivalant to being wrong when the product is designed to inform. Your follow-up with suggested verbage for a report calling out a 2004 water heater as defect or concern is icing on the cake.

You put out wrong information which casts a shadow on everything that you have already or will produce. Did the same research (or lack thereof) go into any other video? We have no reason to believe otherwise, at this point.

As a vendor, the burden is on you to prove your product to be of the quality you hype it to be. As consumers, we have a duty to of our own to question the quality of your product when we find such things as this.

[Ben J. Gromicko]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Ben, one can tell you two are brothers.
Go read your post #1 and please try to understand why this "controversy" happened. You are promoting the idea that a water heater only lasts 3 -5 years. You said nothing about disagreeing with that statement until very late in the thread. In promoting your video, you even said "Do you know that"?
Buck up man. Everyone is wrong now and then.

I apologize if I'm wrong. I take full responisibility for my words and actions. One of the points the expert stated was that when you go and purchase a water heater tank that was made 2004 or after, the life expectancy is only 3 to 5 years. He stated it, I repeated it. Is that true? (the life expectancy) Do you know that it's false? Am I wrong about the life expectancy? All of the other things that he claimed about the efficiency, percentage, and cost are correct.