hover2gb - I'll wish you all the best and I hope the site you mentioned improves greatly in the coming weeks and months. You referenced it here and in other threads earlier today. Today is the first day you joined here. I won't be going back to your site until I read here that it has fewer ads. Everyone agrees EnergyStar's current methods have visible flaws. About EnergyStar, which is a dumb rating system, we can agree it will get replaced with some other method one day. - -- Let this thread now opened here be a discussion for what we would like to see EnergyStar account for in its Next Generation of criteria that will one day replace the current set of criteria. The good thing that EnergyStar and EnerGuide have done is to make our society think more all the time about consumption, and in so doing the net result is less consumption. Manufacturers got swayed to get involved without being fed money to do so. Sounds like it worked up till now. I saw on an EnergyStar site that the average annual energy consumption of new refrigerators, in kWh/year, was 1984 1990 1997 1999 2004 1457, 1044, 664 , 664 , 465 This was for top-mounted Refrigerators in the size range of 16.5Â18.4 cu. ft. which I believe was considered normal size back in 1984. Today's refrigerators are much better energy performers than older models. This came about without a scandal and without wasting a billion or two on incentives. So even a dumb measuring system can make a positive impact in the right direction. Let this new thread be to discuss the ideal criteria for an ideal future rating system for appliances. -david Here is a link that might be useful: Energy savings of new refrigerator vs. 10 year old model

My builder does not do his own rating---and I don't think that is allowed in TX or any state--there is third party inspector sent out to inspect each house and do evaluation. At our first meeting I was asking about his Energy Star rating and different inspectors, and he said that the city inspectors are no problem but the energy star inspectors are much more picky in evaluating ratings--they do the vacuum test and rate the HVAC system with acutal window placement and windows efficiency. He said that in the past if a house failed to get the Energy Star rating, it was usually because the home plan had too many windows to make the efficiency rating. Almost all of his homes are subdivision built which means they can't all have optimum orientation to the sun. Most of them seem to have owner-input on design so the window count probably has owner-driven wishes for natural light or esthetics not necessarily energy efficiency as primary goal. He said that in his opinion it was currently too expensive to do what it would take to construct a stick-built house for Level 3 Energy Star efficiency--that most people would not pay the price per sq foot it would take for such a long payout--in some cases maybe 10 years plus, that there was a function/price ratio that he tried to meet with what he did -- like using radiant barrier roofing, but having a 16 SEER AC unit was not worth the extra money nor using geo-thermal or foam insulation instead of a quality cellulose job with attention to foaming cracks and making sure all seams were sealed--- While many of the builders in this area are starting to encorporate things like radiant barrier sheathing on roofs and the side walls, few strive for Level 2 Energy Star (and most people don't know there is a difference). Is there any way to contact an Energy Star rater for specific information--I know there are web sites to locate home inspectors, some of whom are liscensed engineers---can I call my unility companry and get info about where to get Energy Star inspector information? Guess I can do that Monday...

Nate is a good thing. It indicates that people have had continuing technical training in the business. I have done a lot of training of HVAC techs and always asked if anyone was looking for Nate credits. Some guys were into it, some weren't. They all got the same training. My trainings were nate certified and the tech would get credit for them. I would rather check a contractors referrals. Nate is a part of the package but I wouldn't eliminate a company because they aren't in that program.

You should post your question in the fireplace forum to get lots of opinions. There is such a forum on gardenweb. My neighbor had some sort of deluxe fireplace installed. Not sure if it was an upgrade or if he never had one. He goes through mountains of wood but says it heats his whole house. He has a family room with a cathedral ceiling that has an opening to the second floor hallway and since heat rises...I think he said he used 5 cords of wood. I'm not sure, but I do recall thinking it was a lot of wood and it wasn't free (maybe one batch was free). I don't know how healthy that is to heat your house all the time with wood. Maybe it has doors and a filter...I don't know. He just got his gas bill and it was $50. Mine was $115, but I did have my mother-in-law here for a week with her "thin" FL blood so we had to keep the heat at 70-72 rather than 66-68. Neighbor and I both have tankless water heater. You might consider wood as a cheaper back up option and also ask on the other forum about a unit that can use gas and/or wood. That's what I would do if I had the $. On another note...MY gas usage on the current bill was higher than last year. Last year we used 65 ccf for a 28 day bill period with avg temp on bill listed as 49.6 This year we used 82 Ccf on a 33 day cycle with a temp of 45.5. The longer bill cycle, lower temp and mother-in-law makes it hard for me to see if my 97% heater,air sealing and tankless SAVED me anything over my old 91% furnace without air seal and my 57% water heater. I have to wait for a bill cycle that more closely matches the temp etc to tell if it helped or not.