ziggy29
Moderator Emeritus
Just to add to my previous discussion about SEER and diminishing returns: while the percentage savings I listed are accurate, in actual energy units saved the diminishing returns are even greater.
If you would use 100 units of energy with 14 SEER (using 14 as a base since that it usually the lower-end "baseline" these days), you'd use:
92.9 units at 15 SEER (7.1 less than 14)
87.5 units at 16 SEER (5.4 less than 15)
82.4 units at 17 SEER (5.1 less than 16)
77.8 units at 18 SEER (4.6 less than 17)
73.7 units at 19 SEER (4.1 less than 18)
70.0 units at 20 SEER (3.7 less than 19)
So again: The higher you go, the higher the cost to get to the "next level" and the lower the savings for doing so. For most people, the payback for anything above about 15 or 16 is way too long to justify the added up-front cost. When I priced them about three years ago, 14 was the "sweet spot" but with tax credits, improving technology and ever-increasing electricity costs, it might be closer to 16 now.
If you would use 100 units of energy with 14 SEER (using 14 as a base since that it usually the lower-end "baseline" these days), you'd use:
92.9 units at 15 SEER (7.1 less than 14)
87.5 units at 16 SEER (5.4 less than 15)
82.4 units at 17 SEER (5.1 less than 16)
77.8 units at 18 SEER (4.6 less than 17)
73.7 units at 19 SEER (4.1 less than 18)
70.0 units at 20 SEER (3.7 less than 19)
So again: The higher you go, the higher the cost to get to the "next level" and the lower the savings for doing so. For most people, the payback for anything above about 15 or 16 is way too long to justify the added up-front cost. When I priced them about three years ago, 14 was the "sweet spot" but with tax credits, improving technology and ever-increasing electricity costs, it might be closer to 16 now.