"Pete C." wrote:
John wrote:
"Pete C." wrote:
trimmed
They *should* have the minimal skills necessary to change an oil burner
nozzle by following instructions. Recall this requires only the skill to
operate two wrenches and is little different from the skill to change a
faucet aerator, couple a garden hose or connect a propane tank to a
grill. Changing a nozzle does not require any knowledge of burner
controls, combustion adjustments or anything else technical.
So since this is so easy, safe, and common, which oil equipment manufacturers recommend
this service as a customer done item, like changing light bulbs? (and lighting pilot
lights in the old days)
None that I know of since as I indicated the population as a whole has
lost a lot of skills and common sense over the years.
trimmed
Noise levels for modern gas or oil furnaces of comparable capacity are
comparable as well. Older units of both types were noisier.
I've never heard an oil furnace, even brand new top of the line, that was even close to
silent. Even thirty years ago natural gas was nearly silent (except the ho hum blower
motor and maybe the click of a relay and gas valve opening).
Perhaps the comparison is better between gas and oil boilers which I
have more experience with. Even so, with current oil furnaces the
difference isn't that significant. Old units were certainly louder.
trimmed
Yes and average oil furnaces are cast iron with similar warrantees. Many
low end gas furnaces are not stainless steel and have much shorter life
expectancies. Only a very few bottom of the barrel oil furnaces use
plain steel heat exchangers.
Cast iron would rust in a high efficiency (condensing) furnace.
Yes, it would. Oil furnaces don't do the condensing thing (yet) due to
cost factors mostly. If a fair increase in upfront cost would be
tolerated by the market they could bump the efficiency up further that
way with more expensive materials.
And what is causing the aforementioned "cost factors???"
(dirty exhaust, sulfer, soot, acids....)
trimmed
In the town I was in and the adjacent towns during the past couple
decades I recall hearing of a gas outage of some duration at least every
few months. This is also an area with relatively sparse gas service,
probably less than 50% coverage of residences in the area. I recall
several times there were multi day outages during the winter where
people had to go to shelters.
What town was that in? If natural gas service was really that unreliable, I'd be
looking at propane.
Look to the northwest corner of CT.
trimmed
Where should I look there?
The costs of nat. gas also go up with the cost of other energy
commodities and also with the growth of nat. gas fueled electric
generation "peaking" power plants. Nat. gas is not some fixed cheap
energy source unaffected by the rest of the energy market.
And gee, why is so much electric production being shifted away from oil and to natural
gas?
Because it hasn't?
Nope.
Very little electric production was ever oil.
Oh really?
"At the time of the 1973 oil embargo, about 17 percent of U.S. electricity was generated by
burning oil, and about five percent from nuclear energy. But, twenty-five years later, oil
represents only about three percent of U.S. electricity production, while nuclear energy
supplies almost twenty percent."
http://www.house.gov/science/ee_charter_072500.htm
It's
gone to nat. gas from coal and of course nuclear because of both
political and economic reasons. Nat. gas used to be a lot cheaper before
those peaking plants were built, which is one reason they were built to
begin with. The siting and permitting for the relatively small nat. gas
peaking plants was also easier which also led to the increase.
By the way, a number of larger power plants have been outfitted to burn either oil OR gas.
Yet they are burning gas predominantly nowadays. Why?
And why would permitting and siting be so much easier for those natural gas plants? Seems
that it would be lot more harder. You know, they must be blowing up and exploding on a
regular basis.
trimmed
Excuse me? I have solid reasons to have a generator as backup for the
electric companies outages. Outside of that the electric company can
provide me power at a lower effective rate than I can generate it myself
for since they can keep their generators fully loaded and therefore at
optimum efficiency.
A generator loaded to 25% of it's rated capacity as it would by much of
the time supplying a single home will still consume far more than 25% of
it's full load fuel consumption. If you could maintain a steady load
from the house so that you could match the generator size perfectly then
you could generate at close to utility rates.
So it is most economical to use an electric utility because of the lower
cost and the fact that it is practical and economical to have backup for
that utility. Electricity (like oil) also does not present the hazards
of gas. If the insulation on an electric line fails it does not fill
your home with explosive gas. If an electric line is shorted a circuit
breaker or fuse interrupts the power. Gas services generally do not have
comparable protective devices other than very recent seismic valves in
earthquake areas and those provide no protection from any other faults.
You said you are dislike gas because it is a regulated monopoly utility. You said you
dislike gas because it has nominal fees for minimum usage per month. Electric service
has both of these qualities. Therefore, your arguments are also in opposition to
electric service.
I *also* said nat. gas is less safe and less reliable than oil. All
those factors combine to give more than adequate reason to avoid nat.
gas.
And I *also* said that I disagree with your hypothesis.
You are also incorrect with your electric service analogy.
Too bad you snipped it out, because you missed the point. You were all hot and bothered
about gas because a gas bill contains a minimum billing charge. I pointed out that
electricity utilities have the same deal, and also the savings from gas makes up for that
nominal fee in spades.
I have more
than a dozen electric suppliers I can choose from, only the distribution
is a monopoly.
Umm, that's no different than gas supplier choice. You were all upset about the gas utility
"monopoly" so I pointed out that electricity is a monopoly too. Both for the distribution
portions. You appear to be located in Texas with a incumbent distributor of TXU and "choice"
options range from about 13.4 cents to 16 cents per kW/hr. So some "choice" but a very
minor spread between the highest and lowest, with most options very close together in
between, all with varying terms.
Electric also is practical to provide backup for during
outages where nat. gas is not.
Absolutely false. Natural gas generators are a wonderful thing, and do not require tanks,
fuel storage, deliveries, etc. They also burn much cleaner than say, a diesel fuel.
Extremely practical.