Pete C. wrote:
But clearly this whole argument against nat
gas heat is all based on emotion, rather than fact. The price of
heating oil varies. The price of nat gas varies. Over the past, in my
experience, they have been similar enough in their total cost that it's
not a major difference.

Completely false. This argument against nat. gas is based on facts about
it's safety, reliability, cleanliness and the service life of the
equipment. I have ignored price per BTU since that is constantly in
flux.


When you provide links or other credible references that show nat gas
is unsafe, unreliable, unclean and has a short service life, then I'll
say it's based on fact, rather than emotion. I've had 25+ years of
nat gas heat and not a single outage do to eqpt failure or lack of nat
gas supply. I've lived in homes with oil burners that failed right
and left over similar time frames. I've also provided you with many
links that completely refute your claims. Other than you own
assertions and observations, you've provided zippo to support any of
your arguments.

I asked before, if nat gas is so damn inferior, why is it that it's
continuing to gain market share vs oil heat and only 4% of new homes
today use oil heat? Is everyone stupid except you?




Price is the only argument made in favor of nat. gas that has even short
term validity. All other arguments in favor of nat. gas have been based
on either myths, or comparisons of brand new gas equipment to 50yr old
oil equipment.

Only according to you of course.







is subject to outages and is far
more dangerous than oil.

With oil you have multiple suppliers in competition that you can choose
from,

Who all have to buy from the same source yielding little difference in
price.



you have an on-site fuel supply that is not subject to outages


No outage here in 35 years.

I've asked several times where Pete lives that he thinks nat gas
interruption is a big concern.

And I've mentioned several times that I'm referring to the northeast.
It's CT in particular where I lived for 36 years before moving a couple
years ago.

It obviously isn't for 95% of us who
use it. I've had nat gas service for 25+ years, that has never gone
out once. I live in central NJ, 50 miles from NYC. But I've sure had
electricity go out.

Indeed I did as well and when it did I simply started my generator and
went back about my normal business without more that a few minutes
interruption.

And it;s the nature of the two systems that's key.
An underground piped system is immune from much of what can halt
electric service. A thrunderstorm, snow storm, car hitting a pole,
all are common electric system weak points, that gas generally is
immune from.

You are ignoring the fact that it is possible and economical to provide
backup for the electricity, something that is not possible with the gas.

Whoppee de do! And what percent of people have requirements that need
a backup generator? Again, in 40+ years, I've never had one or been
in a situation that would justify it. What percentage of homes have
backup generators, that also come with their own whole set of issue?
I'd bet it's less than 1%, so why drag this into it?



Additionally time to repair a damaged electric line is significantly
less than time to repair a damaged gas line in most cases. You also
don't have to spend additional time purging a repaired electric line
before returning it to service as you do with a repaired gas line.

More theoretical BS. In practice, 25+ years and I HAVE NEVER HAD A
SINGLE GAS OUTAGE. You don't even have gas, so how the hell would
you know how reliable it is? And again, where do you live that the
nat gas system is so poor that outage is such a big deal?




Again, when you put this in perspective, the gas outtage
thing is another red herring.

Tell that to the folks who lived within 10 miles of me that had to spend
several days in a shelter due to a gas outage.

Sure it can happen. And with your jaundiced view, I'm sure if there
was a nat gas leak in Croatia, you would take note of it and chalk it
up. While if you neighbors were out of power for 3 days, well that
goes unnoticed. Or better yet, if their oil furnace quit in the middle
of the night.






If oil is so much better, why do only 4% of new homes use oil heat?

1) Consumer ignorance - Believing nat. gas somehow avoids buying foreign
energy. They apparently are not aware of the LNG super tankers
delivering foreign LNG just like oil tankers delivering foreign oil.
Both nat. gas and oil are produced in the US and both are also imported
from foreign sources.


Yeah, so you do think everyone else but you is stupid. It figures. And
in all my years, I never heard anyone say they are going with nat gas
because it avoids buying foreign oil. They do it because it's either
cheaper or competitevly priced, more reliable, burns cleaner, and
avoids having any oil tank issues or delivery issues.

Note, I'm not saying oil heat isn't a valid choice for some people.
If I didn't have nat gas available, I would probably use it too. But
to claim that nat gas is unsafe or inferior is total BS, unless you'd
like to supply some real world data.



2) Marketing - Some deceptive as in the case of the short lived "safe"
in one gas suppliers advertising. Deceptive price comparisons that do
not account for service charges during periods of no use. Deceptive
claims of reliability of oil fired equipment. Deceptive claims about the
cleanliness of oil burners. Deceptive comparisons of "upgrade" costs to
low end gas equipment with service lives in single digit years.

Now it really gets silly. Everyone but you is so stupid they just
fall for nat gas marketing? Or is it that only nat gas companies can
do marketing? I hear plenty of radio commercials promoting oil heat.





I'll also note that that market share is rather slanted to southern
states whe

1) There are minimal heating requirements which means consumers can get
low end gas systems to last longer.

2) Gas companies cover larger service areas in large part due to lower
installation costs vs. the northern states with more rock to cut and
blast through.

3) Gas companies market more since they generate more profits from
service charges during the long hot months where they have to supply
minimal gas.

4) The southern states have been having a huge housing boom as a whole
due to lower construction costs and most tract housing gets gas systems
not because they are better in any way, but simply because the cheapest
low service life units available are in gas which means more profits for
the developers and replacement costs for the consumer a short time down
the road.


You can't get away from the fact that despite all this, oil heat is
available virtually everywhere. Anyone with a nat gas line passing
their house can still choose oil if they like. Despite this, only 4%
of new homew opt for oil. Yeah, I know we're all stupid cause we
don;t prefer oil heat.








from a back hoe miles away, and I think you'll find the ratio of peoples
houses that have been destroyed by gas leaks compared to those destroyed
by oil leaks astonishing.

Yeah, it;s like arguing the size of an ant to the size of a mosquito.
Look at how many people actually die from a fall. It's orders of
magnitude larger. Should we get rid of bathtubs and tile floors too?

Do we have viable alternatives to bathtubs and tile floors? When there
is a viable alternative to a potentially dangerous item it is worthwhile
to consider them.

Yes we do have alternatives: showers and any other floor material.
So everyone that has a tub or tile floor must be stupid too. Or is it
marketing?





In the case of bathtubs and tile floors however there are patches
available such as non slip mats that can overcome their safety issues.
Equivalent safety patches are not available for nat. gas though CO and
explosive gas detectors do help.

Again safety is only one part of the argument against nat. gas.

Pete C.