Windows on Washington wrote:
EcoStar Remodeling wrote:
Generally, because it's usually not that much more to get a better quality window. When you consider a window is something you should never have to replace as long as you get a good quality product, why wouldn't you want to invest in the best product you could buy?
In your case, you are looking at $1200 difference but if you divide that over 20 years it's only $60 per year more. So the question then becomes, isn't it worth spending an extra $60 per year to get one of the very best products available? Are you really willing to live with a lower quality product for the next 20 years just so you can save a whole $5.00 per month?
That is about as good as you can put it right there. When you break it down over a given time frame like that, the differences become quite slight.
Well said Eco!
This is why I am also a proponent of triple pane glass. I would like to see it become the standard in window technology. Assuming an additional cost of even $150 per window in a home with 20 windows, the extra cost is $3000. Divide that by 20 years and it's $12.50 per month. Divide that by 20 windows and it's $0.62 per window per month to buy a window that is 30-40% more energy efficient than a double pane window.
I know the argument is "we won't be in the home that long". OK, then why not buy a car that only gets 8 mpg? You will probably only keep it for 5 years.