Stephen Thwaites wrote:
So to drift even farther off topic, it's a bit rich to hear Canadian and US manufacturers complain that E-Star is already stringent enough........
Yes, I agree. I feel future Energy Star requirements being phased in over the next several years ought to be much more stringent. Who ever said that every window should be able to pass the requirements, and that standards should be kept at a level to make that happen?
I say raise the bar, and let ingenuity and invention thrive to meet the challenge. If only 40% of the windows are energy efficient enough to pass, would that be so bad? The 40% who chose to make windows that meet the new standards would be financially rewarded by helping save our precious energy supplies. Isn't that what this Energy Star program is all about?
Hear's a letter just posted in Window & Door Magazine from the WDMA to the US Dept. of Energy regarding future Energy Star requirements.
I have not seen factual data stating the exact numbers Energy Star will require by next year, but feel a substantial improvement is long overdue. A u of .35 in the Northern zone I can build in my garage and windows in the .32 range are still inadequate for upper Midwest cold winters and have minimal impact on fuel savings.
Companies like Softlite and Okna already have numbers that should appease the most ardent efficiency freaks and they did it without reinventing the wheel and others can also. Accurate Dorwin and other Canadian Fiberglass companies are also coming around and a new round of Fiberglass poltrusions are on the horizon to provide both narrower frames and reduced cost.
Bottom line here is many companies are already well beyond Energy Star dream numbers and the letter from the WDMA seems more like a cop out for the big three.
The NFRC originally had more mandatory data which was relaxed and they should climb on board also with more important data on their labels.
Like Window4U stated if only 40% qualified it would be a boon to those that did and the other 60% would be exposed as inferior a separation which is now blurred.
They are discussing phasing in the changes over time. See the chart for timelines. I for one don't need a mandate or to wait until 2015 to recommend windows with a U-factor in the .20 range. I don't think that consumers or builders need to wait either. It saddens me that we are still a society that waits for changes to be forced upon us before the majority will act responsibly. I see this in Illinois everyday with the poor performance of homes we test... even brand new multi-million dollar homes. Illinois is one of four states that does not even have a mandatory residential energy code! We share the same "voluntary" status as the American Samoa Islands!!!
Last edited by FenEx on Sun Mar 30, 2008 9:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Thanks for all the info. I think I will look at the Milgard FG as the first solution if the intercept spacer is better than want the Pella has.
I have been reading specs and it seems that most of the FG windows do not fill the sash profiles with foam. Why not? I guess it may not impact the unit U value enough to justify the cost, but it is the right thing to do.
It looks like there are people out there that recognize the advantage of sinking the edge spacer in the frame. I do agree that consumer preference is probably the biggest factor in companies not doing this...of course 9 out of 10 consumers also want hideous between the glass grill patterns on their sliding windows.
Of course a company that had a bigger picture view and looked at the amount of resources wasted on dealing with calls/concerns/FAQ's and warranty issues concerning edge condensation could probably justify the investment and probably use it as a marketing differentiator..."our windows do not have edge condensation problems up to 70% humidity at X delta".
Once again, I find myself in the 1-10% of the 'thinking market'.
