Please Note! This is our archived old board, it is “read only.”
To visit our current active discussion board click below.
https://www.replacement-windows.com/windowbb/
| Author: | Mark |
| Subject: | Triple pane vs double pane in SE - worth the added cost? |
| Posted At: | 2004-10-01 21:56:57 |
In particular the SE being Atlanta GA. On double-hung windows, the quoted cost to go from double pane to triple pane is +$40. Is it worth it? Would it be worth it just for the windows that face due east (with no shade)? I think the DOE says triple panes aren't needed here. Does it change your answer if I say that we have a 14SEER a/c unit (meaning it is highly efficient)?
Thank!
| Author: | doe |
| In Reply To: | Triple pane vs double pane in SE - worth the added cost? (posted by Mark) |
| Subject: | RE: Triple pane vs double pane in SE - worth the added cost? |
| Posted At: | 2004-10-01 22:51:41 |
Good basic and general advice from our gov. for those who want independent third party opinions without sales hype.
http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumerinfo
| Author: | Mark |
| In Reply To: | RE: Triple pane vs double pane in SE - worth the added cost? (posted by doe) |
| Subject: | RE: Triple pane vs double pane in SE - worth the added cost? |
| Posted At: | 2004-10-02 03:06:51 |
Those websites didn't help me as much as you liked them. Sorry. Thought they were hard to use, and confusing.
http://www.efficientwindows.org/city_c.cfm?id=12
The above website (for Atlanta) says that my single pane windows cost me $917 per year in heating+cooling costs per year. (I know that it is really a computer program with certain variable in it). It says that if I switch to triple-glazed with moderate solar gain low e, then I will be paying $652 per year. Sounds real good, until you figure that I got to pay out about $14k to buy and install those new windows. Makes payback about 52 years. Hey anyone - if you will loan me the money, then I promise to pay you back at the end of 52 years.
| Author: | Steve G. |
| In Reply To: | RE: Triple pane vs double pane in SE - worth the added cost? (posted by Mark) |
| Subject: | RE: Triple pane vs double pane in SE - worth the added cost? |
| Posted At: | 2004-10-02 10:22:44 |
Mark --
I'm not a window pro, just a homeowner who recently bought new windows. But I had a few comments.
First of all, I am not sure I would look at the "payback" the way you are looking at it. You may have just been being facetious, but saying your payback is "52 years" is probably not really accurate. You obviously HAVE to have windows. Thus, there is some "base" cost to put in windows that is a given. To me, the only time "payback" makes any sense is in terms of an energy-efficient upgrade. If "generic" window A costs $10,000, but the upgrade to triple pane, low E window B costs $14,000, then how long will the energy savings provided by window B pay for the extra $4000 window B costs. I am fairly sure you already know this, and were just joking about the "52 year payback," but I thought I would throw that out there just to be sure.
Secondly, to give an opinion about the question you asked in an original post about double vs. triple pane. This is related to the "payback" idea above. My guess would be that triple pane would not be cost-effective in your area (I think triple panes are more for cold climates). But, the way to compare is of course the "payback" idea. You said it is $40 per window to go from double to triple pane. Let's assume you have 20 windows. That's $800 extra. How much in energy costs would you would save by having the triple pane windows, and then how long would it take to see that $800 payback. If it saves you $20 per year, then you are looking at 40 years, probably not worth it. But, if it saves you $200 per year (which I doubt), they the 4 year payback would probably justify the extra expense.
Anyway, like I said, you probably already know all this, but I thought I'd toss it out there. By the way, the program that calculates this is called "RESFEN." I've never used it, but apparently it can be downloaded for free and might give you some answers regarding savings related to various window options.
Steve
| Author: | Mark |
| In Reply To: | RE: Triple pane vs double pane in SE - worth the added cost? (posted by Steve G.) |
| Subject: | RE: Triple pane vs double pane in SE - worth the added cost? |
| Posted At: | 2004-10-02 13:55:27 |
Hey Steve,
I really appreciate your comments. Right on the mark. But me, facetious? I wouldn't even have a idea as to how to begin to spell facetious. 8>)
As to that www.efficientwindows.org website, the more I try to use, the less it makes any sense. I click on Alberta Canada to see the outrageous amount that they have to pay out for new construction with single pane windows, and it says $526/year. And with an existing house with single pane it says $956. What does that mean. Then in Atlanta, if my existing house has triple panes, I would pay out $652/year. So why would someone in Alberta ever get triple panes? I'm sure I'm reading this all wrong (like I'm ignoring the low cost of energy in Alberta), but then again I already said that I don't really like the website.
I think I will try to download RESFEN (which I didn't know I could do until you told me - it isn't clear on the website) and see what fun I can have with it.
As to payback, I know that NPV is a more accurate way to analyze purchases. There are really two decisions, replace windows or not replace windows, (and if choose replace windows then >) triple pane or double pane? But according to that website, really no matter what the new windows cost, I will never recoup the cost of replacing my windows (through energy savings).
| Author: | Steve G. |
| In Reply To: | RE: Triple pane vs double pane in SE - worth the added cost? (posted by Mark) |
| Subject: | RE: Triple pane vs double pane in SE - worth the added cost? |
| Posted At: | 2004-10-03 12:18:23 |
Mark --
Despite my previous post, I can see why you used your "52 years payback" perspective. I argued that since one has to have windows, one should only consider a "payback" on the upgrade cost from a generic window to a more energy efficient option.
However, my point of view is only accurate with the assumption that one does indeed HAVE to buy windows -- i.e. new construction, or if windows are so worn out that they have to be replaced, or whatever. I didn't consider folks like you who, apparently, have ok windows already (i.e. they don't HAVE to be replaced), but are simply considering an upgrade for energy efficiency purposes. In that case, the "52 years payback" obviously has some validity, since none of your $14,000 HAS to be spent. So, I agree with you -- unless your windows HAVE to be replaced, replacing them simply for energy savings would basically never result in a "payback." You are correct. My bad.
Also, I see your point about Alberta. There seems to be something wrong with that web page. I noticed that last night. In ANY city (not just Alberta), if you choose "new construction," the energy usage cost for any given window is about 1/2 of that for the "existing" option -- for the very same window. I don't understand that. For your Atlanta example, choosing "existing" does indeed say $652 for your energy cost. But, for "new construction" with the very same window in Atlanta, the program says $362. That makes more sense when compared to the Alberta numbers, but no sense whatsoever that changing from new to existing -- in any given city -- increases the estimated energy cost by about a factor of 2. Very confusing, as you said, and it seems that something is wrong.
If you do download the RESFEN program, let me know how well it works. Hopefully, better than this web page!!
Steve
| Author: | FenEx |
| In Reply To: | Triple pane vs double pane in SE - worth the added cost? (posted by Mark) |
| Subject: | RE: Triple pane vs double pane in SE - worth the added cost? |
| Posted At: | 2004-10-03 22:08:03 |
Mark
Simple question... simple answer. For $40 per unit.... yes it's worth it... well worth it. It's not a matter of exposure other than multiple coatings of Low-E reflecting radiant heat.... but it is a matter of U-factor. Even if it's 90 outside in the shade... and it's 70 inside... the heat will make a line through the windows. Hot air rises, heat does not! It moves equally in all directions.
As for your 14 seer ac unit... it has nothing to do with reducing need. An air conditioner does not create cold air... it simply removes infiltrating heat. Your new unit might do it faster, but it's not helping the problem in the slightest.
Simply stated... if the heat can't get in as much... than the A/C won't turn on as much. If it's running... you are paying.
FenEx