"Pete C." wrote:
John wrote:
"Pete C." wrote:
John wrote:
"Pete C." wrote:
trimmed
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.
Spend some time there, you might learn something.
WHERE is this "THERE" you speak of?
www.epa.gov? www.doe.gov?
Those are home pages. There is nothing on those home pages that support your claims. So you don't even read
the pages you say proves your claim.
trimmed
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?
I'm not sure at the moment, I have too many bookmarks to find it easily.
Suppose that rather defeats the purpose of bookmarks.
Yes, how convenient.
Not really.
Oh, I'm sure you have all of those sites on natural gas deaths versus oil deaths all bookmarked. I really am.
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.
That is / was *not* an explosion, not even close. I don't think a
blowback on a residential boiler has ever injured anyone, much less
killed them. Certainly it will scare the **** out of them and perhaps
teach them not to keep messing with the thing if they don't know what
they are doing.
Oil burners do *not* have blowbacks on their own, they have had the
safety devices to prevent that for decades. Blowbacks occur when someone
keeps pressing the reset button ignoring the warning not to press it
more than once. Oil burner controls from the last couple decades have
incorporated a "three strikes and you're out" lockout to prevent this.
Yet it didn't work in this one case.
What didn't work? The lockout? There is no mention of the boiler being
new enough to have the lockout controls. Indeed from the long list of
problems mentioned it appears likely it was a pretty old unit.
Ok.
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.
I'm assuming you forgot a billion on the US numbers. So importing
something like 18% nat. gas vs. 50% oil. Not that drastic a difference
and given the current trends the gap is likely to close further.
Yes all numbers are in billions sq meters. It's a huge difference in terms of energy, as total gas
imports was estimated at 114.1 billion cubic meters total for the year. Oil imports were 13.15 million
barrels per DAY average or 4.790 billion barrels .
To compare, 1 cubic meter of natural gas contains about 36 409.2241 BTUs, 1 barrel of oil contains about
5 800 000 BTUs.
(calculations by the Department of Energy website
http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfa...alculator.html)
4154293 billion BTUs natural gas imports
27782000 billion BTUs oil imports
Or to put it in another way, natural gas was about 1/7 of oil imports.
Not really a valid comparison. Compare US oil production to oil imports
and US gas production to gas imports. In both cases we are importing
sizable amounts because we do not produce enough domestically.
Are you serious? Earlier you just made the claim to wit, "So importing something like 18% nat. gas vs. 50%
oil."
I give you the ACTUAL figures and now you say, oh that's "not really a valid comparison."
You'd make a helluva football official. Keep moving those goal markers around until your guys could a ball in
the endzone. Or just keep changing your mind about what you are asking.
US Oil production 2.77 Billion barrels per year
US Net Oil imports 4.412 Billion barrels per yeyar
US Nat Gas production 539 billion cubic meters per year
US Nat Gas net imports 89.91 billion cubic meters per year
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.
Our perpetually inept middle east foreign policy has less to do with oil
than the anti war folks claim. There are serious issues there that we
need to deal with that have nothing to do with oil. Those issues did
come largely as a result of oil, but not directly from US actions.
Please. I'm not an "anti war folk" but get real. The United States will spare no expense to keep the
Straits of Hormuz open and flowing.
I don't know about that. It's a different world and different US from
the 70s oil embargo days. I'd be rather interested to see what effect
another embargo would have. I also seriously doubt that any of the OPEC
folks would consider an embargo and indeed would fight one since they
have learned that it would not be in their interest and could do them
long term damage if people once again get serious about alternatives.
Why do you thing the 70s embargo ended? Couldn't have had anything to do
with people starting to look seriously at alternatives could it?
Embargo? If the USA was so dependent on middle east oil, it could get the hell out of the Persian golf.
Instead we make pals with our "friends" the Saudis, sail nuclear carriers up and down the persian golf, and
spend much of our foreign policy trying to "stabilize" that minefield as much as possible.
The sudden appearance of the oil wealth in the middle east contributed
to the downfall of their other economic sectors and the rise of their
corrupt / oppressive governments and the resulting collapse of most of
their civilization.
Which civilization was "collapsed" by oil? Saudi Arabia (formerly wandering nomads?)
The whole islamic world which used to be a seat of learning and
knowledge but has now degenerated into a cesspool of violence and
hatred.
Oh ok.. The "whole islamic world," right?
If we had not been in the market for oil when it was discovered there,
if there culture had advanced more and stabilized before oil was
discovered there, or if the Brits hadn't been meddling over there the
problems would likely have been avoided.
Uh huh.
Yea, that hindsight thing. A bit late now to undo the mistakes of many
decades ago.
Yeah just blame it on the Brits running around almost a hundred years ago. US oil dependence TODAY has
nothing to do with our foreign policy expenditures in the region. No siree bob.
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! "
That campaign was a while back. Notice that safety is not included in
their current campaign either. Their claim that it is environmentally
friendly is more or less true, the implication that other options are
not is however untrue.
Natural gas burns much cleaner than oil. Don't take my word for it, super efficient condensing furnaces
are common with natural gas but oil doesn't even burn clean enough for a condensing application, all the
soot and sulfur and crap makes it a show-stopper. New electric plants are favored to be gas because it
burns cleaner and has lower emissions, which is now important. Transit agencies are even starting to
buy clean "natural gas" buses for the simple reason that they have so much less emissions than #2 oil
(aka Diesel fuel)
Not really, there are a number of available technologies that make oil /
diesel burn cleaner however they are being largely overlooked due to the
political / emotional stigma of the word "oil" due to the middle east
issues.
The cleanest oil or sweet light crude comes from the Middle East.
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
That is an interesting link however you probably didn't read it
thoroughly:
"There are many possible causes of oil burner emergencies and fires.
Fortunately, despite human error and poor maintenance practices, the
millions of oil burners in use today function without a mishap year
after year. When they do malfunction, the fire department is called and
usually remedies the situation with little effort. But never forget that
these seemingly harmless emergencies can and sometimes do turn deadly,
whether it be from fire, explosion, or carbon monoxide poisoning, and
you must be ever on guard against such instances."
Additionally most of the failure modes they indicate are all but
impossible with burners and controls manufactured in the last couple
decades. Most are very unlikely with burners or controls even older. Due
to the longevity of oil equipment there are however some really old
units out there.
This other bit:
"Fuel oil comes in several grades, number 1 to 5 grade oil, and has the
following general fire hazard properties: a flashpoint of 1007F to
1507F, a flammable (explosive) range of 0.7 to 5 percent when mixed with
air, and an ignition temperature of 4947F."
should give a bit of a reminder on just how difficult it is to get oil
to burn and the near impossibility of igniting oil spilled from a tank
leak.
No oil will generally not go boom, unless it is atomized, but that doesn't mean that an oil burner
malfunction can't fill your house with soot or burn it down.
In Eastern Massachusetts last winter, a home had to be abandoned due to an oil leak causing heavy fumes
and making the home uninhabitable. The family wasn't going home anytime soon, and the last I heard
about it they were talking of demolishing the structure.
What they do in the People's Republic of Taxachusets
And what is the Sales Tax in Texas again?
is hardly a model
for the rest of the world. Look at their big dig disaster.
What does the big dig have to do with an abandoned house due to an oil heating system? Please explain your
fancy comparison.
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.)
A 10% efficiency difference
Efficiency difference? Read again, I was referring to your complaints about "service charges" during
non-use periods (summer).
during a period when you were only heating
hot water (to keep the comparison fair) would amount to about $5 with
today's high prices.
Yeah, except the main consumption of natural gas and reason for using it is heating the HOUSE.
I don't know about you, but during the summer months I am not heating my
house, I am only heating water.
Irrelevant to the comments about "service charges" which is what I was directly responding to. Another
non-sequitur.
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.
A/C operation only affects the blower. There is no stress on the burner
or heat exchanger. Unless of course the POS unit leaks condensate into
the heat exchanger and it's rusted out by the time heating season rolls
around.
Yeah it only affects that "cheap" blower, remember???
The main problem with those low end gas furnaces is not the blower, it's
the thin, non SS heat exchangers. Rather like the couple very low end
oil furnaces out there with steel heat exchangers, not cast iron.
Uh huh.
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?
I didn't because I don't use gas.
But you're making claims about gas, which is what we're discussing.
I base that on construction knowledge.
What construction knowledge? And using that construction knowledge of yours, please show the numbers.
Well? Can you show any information at all or do you just make your stuff up??
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.
This was a small storm drain on a road with a significant grade. No
issues with gravity flow, no excessively deep installation.
Uh huh. So what does that have to do with natural gas?
A lot. whether you are installing storm drains of gas mains you have to
get through the horrendous amount of rock and ledge in the northeast.
Yeah that just explains why there isn't any gas service in "the northeast." Sure. I'll bet that ledge you
complain of only affects gas lines too. Good thing there is no sewers, water service, underground utilities,
etc. "in the northeast."
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? 
No, not really. An individual town may be an anomaly, but the regions in
general have notably different underground utility construction costs.
This is changing a bit with some scary new trenchers able to cut through
granite without blasting and leave nice cuttings to back fill with.
Good thing natural gas is the only underground utility, right? And natural gas is so expensive that
nobody can afford to install it, right? Good thing sending huge heavy trucks with people driving them
around to everyone's house is so cheap and efficient.
In those areas nat. gas, city water and city sewers are very sparse due
to the huge installation costs. Oil heat, wells and septic systems are
the norm.
Oh who can afford to blast through all that ledge to build their leach field "in the northeast?"
I've also dug a 650' trench in CT for conduit and an 80' trench in TX
for conduit and I can assure you the TX trench went far faster and
easier per foot and required much smaller equipment than the CT trench.
Well there you go. Irrefutable proof that installing gas lines is always more expensive in
Connecticut than Texas.
Find me any part of CT away from the shore where you don't have
significant boulders and ledge to deal with.
If you're talking about new construction on an apples to apples comparison, it is possible you might
need to do some blasting to install some utilities. However that also includes sewer pipe (which is
generally a lot more deep than nat gas), water, maybe electric, telephone in newer subdivisions, etc.
Big deal.
Generally it is a big deal.
In new subdivisions the developers are required to do all that work and
that is one of the reasons that new housing is more expensive in the
northeast. If the developer has to shell out the money to install all
those utilities they add it to the sales prices.
In all the existing neighborhoods where it is individual houses filling
in, not large developments, those utilities are not installed by the
builder and generally remain unavailable for a long time.
So what? Doesn't make oil a better fuel than gas, which is what your only thesis is.
\
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.
You said they are a monopoly. Why would they need to market? I hear a lot of advertising
by oil dealers, or the collective oil dealers, operating as one.
They market to get you locked into their nat. gas monopoly. They market
to those that use other energy sources.
So why does that no-colluding oil heat lobby advertise about "today's oil heat" and how hot it is,
blah blah blah. Keep in mind this is not one dealer advertising against other oil dealers, but an
obligarchy of many/all oil dealers.
A cooperative advertising arrangement is not in any was a monopoly and
indeed it's the only way many of the small oil dealers could get
advertising outside local newspapers and direct mail. They little local
oil dealers don't have the deep pockets of the big state wide nat. gas
monopolies.
So to rectify that they collude together. Big deal.
Cooperative advertising is not collusion by any stretch of the
imagination. I guess you think the various commercials from the egg
board, dairy council, etc. all represent collusion between all those
little dairies and egg producers eh?
You mean like the interstate Dairly Compact, a sort of OPEC for milk? No, no collusion at all, sir. No
gambling in this casino either.
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.
What are your numbers for your cost comparison?
No handy online reference, but a low end gas furnace installation is at
least a thousand dollars less than a low end oil furnace installation.
The low end gas unit will also have a service life expectancy about half
of the oil unit. Both will be blow the service life of the average units
in each class, but the oil still last longer there as well though the
ratio is not as extreme.
If you say so.
I do.
But you don't provide any reference for you claim, so it is just rambling.
Find some online prices for furnaces. They aren't out there online
(rather anticompetative) so it's not really possible to provide
references.
How convenient for your claims.