Robert Gammon wrote:

John wrote:
"Pete C." wrote:


John wrote:

"Pete C." wrote:


wrote:

Pete C. wrote:


In other words the oil furnace burns dirtier and pollutes more.

False. Modern oil and gas furnaces produce comparable amounts of
emissions. The exact composition is different, but the overall pollution
is the same (the EPA and DOE have studies that confirm this if you want
to look).

Now, I'd love to see the supporting data for the claim that modern gas
and oil furnaces produce the same amount of pollution. Why do you
think many cities have replaced diesel bus fleets with ones that run
natural gas if burning oil is just as clean? Natural gas produces only
water and CO2. And nat gas even produces a third less CO2 than
burning oil. Burning oil, in addition to the above, produces
particulates, nitrous oxide, and sulfates.

http://www.tevisoil.com/fuel/compare.asp
http://www.cecarf.org/Programs/Fuels...%209-12-03.pdf

Try looking at the EPA and DOE sites.

Ok. What pages on these sites should we look at?

I don't have specifics handy, but I'm sure you can find them with a
search.


Oh, I thought you knew what you are talking about. Now you want me to go on an egghunt for your
claims.



The poster is right. First, you proclaim the smell produced by burning
oil to be a virtue, because it may save you from dying from CO. . Then
you claim oil heat is as clean as nat gas.

You don't read well do you? I indicated that both are not very
detectable when combustion adjustments are proper and neither produces
much CO under those conditions either. It is when combustion adjustments
are out of whack that a lot of CO is produced and it is also under those
abnormal conditions that oil exhaust is much more detectable than gas
exhaust.


Did you ever see an oil
based appliance of any kind vented into a home? Yet millions of nat
gas kitchen stoves work exactly that way. Gee, I wonder why?

Not for the reasons you apparently think.


A whopping total of 28 people a year die in the US from CO from natural
gas heat systems period. I'd like to see any real world evidence that
oil heat systems are any safer overall.

Indeed they are. CO is not the only way a nat. gas heating system can
kill you. Add in the number of deaths from gas explosions to the CO
deaths and then compare to oil. Then compare the number of injuries from
gas explosions to the number of injuries from oil explosions. Then tell
me which is safer.

What is the number of deaths from natural gas versus oil? Can you show us the numbers or is
this just a FUD campaign?

They are out there on one of the government sites.


Oh you know the numbers are out there. Since you know, which sites did you find them on?


Certainly the ratio
of hundreds of gas explosions to zero oil explosions should be pretty
obvious. Someone was killed in a gas explosion at a motel just a month
ago, and no, I don't count the deliberate gas explosion suicide in NYC.


Zero oil burner explosions? Here's a recent one in New Jersey (nobody was killed in this case,
thank goodness!)

On March 21, 2005 at 8:44 p.m., the Teaneck Fire Department (TFD) responded
to a report of a loud explosion and smoke in the house at 501 Rutland Avenue.
Upon arrival, responding firefighters were guided into the basement to investigate
a problem with the boiler; however they could not find an odor or smoke. The
firefighters, who combined have more than 100 years of experience, began
investigating the area. They found that the emergency switch of the boiler had
been shut off and later learned that the mother living in the home had turned it
off.
The basement of the home was sectioned off to provide for various uses of the
area. There was a large portion that was used for a recreation/family room, an
area that contained two beds that were usually used by the house keeper and
one of the children, and two small rooms; one containing the oil fired boiler, the
other utilized as a laundry room.
After investigating the basement area, the responding firefighters determined that
a “blowback” of the oil burner had caused the reported explosion and smoke.
“Blowback” occurs when an accumulation of vaporized fuel oil in the combustion
chamber suddenly ignites due to a delayed ignition. This causes too much
pressure, which results in a loud bang and the release of smoke.
The firefighters found multiple problems with the boiler, including closed water
valves, a low water level, a non-functional low-water cut-off and a dirty flue pipe.
Fire personnel made the necessary adjustments to restore the boiler to a safe
and operable condition and advised the owner of the problems that were found.
The owner was also directed to have the boiler serviced as soon as possible.






Nat gas continues to increase
in market share, while oil heat is now down to 4% of new homes. If
it's so unsafe and unreliable, why is that?

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.

The amount and proportion of natural gas that is imported to the USA is tiny compared to
oil. Much of the imported natural gas comes from right here in North America, not hostile
areas of the world like the Middle East.

How does it compare to the 50% or so of oil that we import?


The best numbers I have are the US produced 539 cubic meters in 2003, (exported 24.19 cubic
meters) and imported 114.1 billion cubic meters of natural gas. Compare those ratios.


The general
public seems to think we get 99% of our oil from the middle east which
certainly isn't true.


No it's not, nevertheless middle east oil production has a huge impact on our foreign policy and
national spending.



2) Marketing - Some deceptive as in the case of the short lived "safe"
in one gas suppliers advertising.

Which supplier are you talking about? What is the definition of "safe?"

It was Connecticut Natural Gas as I recall. I don't know the details
exactly, but their "Clean, Safe, Dependable Natural Gas" campaign only
lasted like six months before mysteriously becoming the "Clean,
Dependable Natural Gas" campaign.


On their web page, I noticed that it is "What can Natural Gas offer over my existing fuel?
Dependability. Versatility. Affordability. Convenience. Efficiency. Plus, it is also
environmentally friendly! "



My definition of safe would be free from threat of catastrophic and
potentially fatal failures i.e. explosions.


So oil heat is not "safe" under your definition.


http://www.newburyfd.org/responding_...er_emergen.htm



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.

Service charges? Like the $4/month minimum billing fee that I pay for my natural gas
service? My electric company charges more than that so your argument is opposing electric
service too. Even including that fee (which includes service for my hot water heater, gas
grill, stove, and dryer) I'm still way ahead with gas, and I have a very efficient furnace
too.

Electric service is rarely without some usage. With gas service it is
not uncommon to have periods of zero use. Certainly this is not true in
every case, but again, this is only one of many reasons to not use nat.
gas, not the sole reason.


Well yeah the reason not to use natural gas is to save a few bucks in non usage charges (similar
to what you get with electric service) to save far more in higher efficiency. Besides even in
those "zero use" periods, I'm still making hot water, and if I'm home there is a good chance I'm
eating (using the grill, stove) or doing laundry (dryer.)



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.

How so?

When the low end gas furnace is only required to operate from November -
February it will clearly have a longer service life than the same unit
required to operate from September to April.


Oh I see. Good thing that same furnace wouldn't be needed for a/c in those climates.



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.

Huh? What is your source of this claim?

Check with any gas company for the cost of extending gas service to your
street in say CT vs. OK for comparable distances.


You made the claim. Which gas company(ies) did you check with?


When I was in CT I watched the town blast for three days just in the few
hundred foot stretch in front of my house to install storm drains. I
also watched weeks of blasting when widening the main road down the
street. I've watched major construction in my new location in TX as well
and there was no blasting required.


I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing natural gas lines, not huge storm drains, which often have
to be buried much deeper for gravity flow reasons anyway.

So if I could find an area in Texas where blasting WAS required, and some other area in
Connecticut where blasting was NOT required, that would pretty much "proove" the opposite,
wouldn't it?



Blasting IS required in the Hill Country of texas where rock is
frequently only a few feet below the top soil.

Right. Is that where the big housing boom is? The DFW area sure is
growing fast.

Pete C.