"Pete C." wrote:
John wrote:
"Pete C." wrote:
John wrote:
"Pete C." wrote:
John wrote:
"Pete C." wrote:
" wrote:
Gas being lighter than air normally dissapates if it leaks.
That only works to a limited extent and less and less as homes get
"tighter". If windows and doors are closed well nat. gas will just
accumulate from the ceiling down. LP gas is heavier and will accumulate
from the floor up. In either case unless the home is quite drafty /
leaky it will continue to accumulate until it finds an ignition source.
There shouldn't be any gas at all outside the furnace or plumbing.
There shouldn't, if pipes, regulators, valves and controls were all 100%
reliable. As can plainly be seen from all the gas explosions that occur,
that is not the case.
How many explosions is "all the gas explosions?" Or people that awake to find
their home and its contents are destroyed by oil or that their basement is now an
oil spill site?
Relative to the total number of units? Very few. Relative to each other
there is a significant difference.
In numbers, what is the "significant difference" that you claim?
I don't feel like digging up numbers at the moment.
Of course not. We'll just take your word for it, since you appear to be so knowedgeable.
Oil pools and settles , causing a possible safety clean up issue with
guys in moon suits hauling away contaminated soil
This is *not* a safety issue, it is an over hyped environmental issue.
When your house is not inhabitable due to heavy oil contamination and fumes,
it *is* a safety issue. "Over hyped" environmental issue? Yeah right, unless
you consider oil contaminated earth and pollution as part of your
environment.
First off, uninhabitable meaning you have to leave during cleanup, and
uninhabitable because it collapsed after the gas explosion are vastly
different things. If you are home when the oil leaks you simply leave,
safe and sound. If you are home when the gas leaks you can easily end up
dead.
As for the environmental part, yes, it is over hyped. Cleanup of even
300 gal of fuel oil that leaks in a concrete basement is pretty minor if
it's done reasonably soon.
Cite? I know it is a lot more than that because a house near me had exactly that
happen to it, and the house was condemned during the cleanup last year.
Yes, well it can be overblown if you let yourself be taken in by the
hype. Even then it still pales in comparison to rebuilding from the
crater the gas explosion left, or paying for the funeral.
Yeah an oil spill into the ground causing environmental damage to the ground, not to
mention the damage to the house and its contents and/or making the house uninhabitable is
just "hype." I don't think there is a difference in funeral costs from people dying in
burning houses caused by oil, gas, or whatever. If oil is so much safer, which
insurance companies give the oil heat discount or gas heat surcharge?
The idea that an oil spill on the ground automatically is some
environmental disaster is exactly the hype I'm talking about. Unless
that oil is getting into ground water or heading for a stream there is
no environmental damage. Oil getting into ground water takes a good
amount of time, after all the ground water isn't 3" under your house or
your house would be floating. Have a spill and clean it up promptly and
the oil has not had an opportunity to go anywhere and there is no damage
despite what some dropout eco-nut might claim. Killing some soil
bacteria 3" below my basement slab is not environmental damage.
If you think that an oil spill and petroleum contaminated soil is merely "killing some bacteria" than you don't have
even a remote clue at what you are talking about. Soil removal and remediation is mandatory by law. Just because you
don't mind living atop a toxic site doesn't mean that it is safe for everyone else or legal.
Cleanup of oil leaked from an underground
tank is a different matter since until the advent of the double wall
tanks with monitoring you aren't likely to detect the leak for months or
years. That is why we replace 50 yr old underground tanks with indoor
tanks or new double wall underground tanks.
I'm suspicious of underground tanks for residential use. And who is doing all of
the required monitoring? If the inner tank breaks, why can't the outer tank break
too? If the outer tank is already corroded when the inner tank breaks, what good
is it (or the monitoring system?)
The outer tanks are poly or fiberglass and they have leak detectors
between the inner and outer walls that will trigger an alarm mounted in
the house. Basically just a smaller version of the tanks they now use at
gas stations.
Great. So this residential detector needs to be working properly in a decade or two or
three when the tank starts leaking. How common is this?
More like five or six or more decades. I don't know how common it is,
probably fairly common with some XL houses in the northeast where a
couple 300 gal indoor tanks won't really do.
"Probably."
Not particularly cheap, but if you need the capacity and don't have the
room for several conventional 300 gal indoor tanks they are a good
option.
Gas station tanks have caused enough horrors (at least 7 spill sites from leaking
tanks in my town alone), and they supposedly are tightly regulated and inspected
regularly. Recall that the MTBE fiasco is caused primarily from gasoline leaking
from underground tanks!
Old tanks certainly caused problems, new tanks generally do not.
The MTBE fiasco was caused primarily by eco-nuts pressing for something
to be done without adequate research. The problem was not just from
leaking tanks and those tanks were likely old tanks, not new.
What are they putting in your Texas water? The problem with MTBE is that it gets into
the water and travels. It travels much farther than the leaking gasoline/petroleum mess
in service station leaking tanks disasters.
Nothing in my water, I've got rather good water here. Nice and soft too,
I don't miss the hard water in the northeast at all.
Huh?
What do the characteristics of the MTBE problem have to do with why we
have the MTBE problem? The fact is that loud moth eco-nuts badgered the
government into requiring MTBE without adequate research and the MTBE
problems are the result of that knee jerk reaction.
Yeah the "eco-nuts," like the oil industry that came up with MTBE.
The
problem that the MTBE lowered mileage enough to cause more gas to be
consumed to offset any pollution reduction was an even bigger problem
resulting from the knee jerk nonsense. So not only was no pollution
reduced from the tailpipe,
That's false. MTBE actually did help meet clean air goals, which is the reason it was
used. The oil companies weren't buying it for nothing. In the cylinder, this ether is
an oxygenate.
Oil companies bought it because it was required by the feds, not because
it did anything productive. MTBE looked like it helped meet clean air
goals based on the emissions from combustion of a gal of gas with MTBE
vs. without MTBE. The reality that was discovered later was that the
MTBE reduced the mileage of vehicles using the gas with it so they used
more gas with the MTBE in order to travel the necessary distances
thereby producing pretty much the same emissions as they did burning
less gas without MTBE.
Cite for your 'same emissions' theory? Come on, don't be shy. I"m sure you have it "bookmarked!"
There are other technologies available to get extra oxygen into the
engine without resorting to chemical additives in the gas by the way.
These of course require changes to the engine so if they were introduced
in new cars they it would take some time to achieve any significant
vehicle turnover.
Which technologies are you discussing? Cite?
additional pollution from the additive was
generated, all of which could have been avoided with a year of research
and testing.
Yeah, it's all the "eco-nuts" fault. Like President Bush, who just eliminated federal
protections for oil companies for MTBE lawsuits. Funny how all of the oil companies
phased out their MBTE faster than they could lift up a price changing pole. The fed
government didn't ban MTBE by the way; several states have.
Why should the oil companies by liable for problems from an additive
that the federal government required them to put in their product? Want
to blame someone for the MTBE problem blame those who pushed for it and
those that pushed it on the refiners.
The federal government never mandated the product, they mandated the outcomes. In fact some companies (e.g. Getty)
chose to meet their goals without using MTBE. MTBE was one way to meet these outcomes. I don't really have a
problem with MTBE per se by the way. I *DO* have a problem with leaking tanks.
Fuel oil has a strong smell and is very likely to be noticed before much
leaks. Even when a lot leaks, most undamaged concrete floors contain it
pretty well if it's discovered and cleaned in a day or two.
I guess if your concrete floors are watertight and sealed (so the oil doesn't
soak into them) and you don't have any drains or perimeter drains. Oh and if
you don't mind everything saturated in #2 oil.
Concrete floors are fairly water tight if they are in good condition.
Oil will eventually soak through, but at a pretty slow rate. Not that
many basements actually have drains either.
Well just about every house around me has a perimeter drain. Prevents any concerns
of water in the basement. I didn't realize that basement floors and walls were
supposed to be petroleum spill containment systems.
Actually, per building codes, they are. There is supposed to be a
concrete or block containment wall around tanks of sufficient height to
contain the contents of the largest single tank in the space. I don't
have the codes handy, but I think it should have a sealer applied to the
wall and floor as well. Fairly recent code.
I have never seen that, even in brand spanking new houses finished two months ago.
Which building code are you talking about?
Last reference to it was in CT, but I believe it is in the IRC codes. I
was researching when looking at building a house in CT and the oil tank
room required a short concrete containment wall around it. There was
also a limit of I believe 600 gal in a single fire rated space.
"At any rate, there is no requirement under Use Group R-3 to provide secondary containment for fuel oil storage in the
basement, regardless of the amount of fuel oil stored inside the building.
For Use Group R-4, Section 2701.2 of the CABO code states that the maximum
amount of fuel oil stored inside of a building shall be 660 gallons with no mention of any
requirement for secondary containment."
http://www.ct.gov/dps/lib/dps/office...00/i-11-00.pdf
As for saturated in #2, I'd vastly prefer that over a smoldering crater
where my house used to be. The oil can be readily pumped and vacuumed up
from the surface and the concrete if it's saturated can be removed and
replaced with far less expense than rebuilding the whole house after the
gas explosion (if I survived the explosion).
Gas just doesn't blow up a house unless something goes really wrong, like a backhoe
out front hitting a pipe. Even then the smell of the gas is pretty obvious before
it reaches an explosive ratio with oxygen. In that case it doesn't matter if your
particular house has gas service if the gas follows a water or sewer or electrical
conduit into your basment instead of following the outside of a gas line.
Well, I keep hearing of people killed in gas explosions in their houses.
Many are elderly which may be a result of reduced ability to smell the
leaking gas, not remembering warnings to not turn on lights and get out
if they smell gas, forgetfulness in having the equipment serviced
regularly, very old equipment, or a combination of all of those.
Yeah, it's so common now, the news doesn't even bother covering it anymore.
There was someone killed in a gas explosion at a motel somewhere within
the past month. Collapsed the whole corner of the two story building. It
was on the news and I think CNN. Certainly a search on CNN.com for "gas
explosion" produces quite a few valid results including some doosies
like one that ripped up a mall parking lot.
Yep. Well you are right about one thing. Gas explosions only happen with gas. Good thing houses with oil never
burn down.
Thats why homeownerts insurance is requiring oil tank replacement based
on age of tank.
And that is why new underground oil tanks are double wall construction,
just like new tanks at gas stations. Some new indoor tanks are double
wall as well though most are still single wall since there is minimal
risk. Just because a 50 year old single wall underground tank is no
longer viable in no way means that oil heat is no longer viable.
Technology changes and advances and the current high velocity flame
retention burners and controls with pre and post purge cycles are a far
cry from the old burners as well.
Yeah, technology changes, like inducer motors that shut everything down if
there is an exhaust blockage in gas furnaces (very very rare).
Current oil furnaces have the same feature available.
But as you pointed out, CO for oil furnaces isn't a concern for you since you can
just smell the dirtier oil furnace fumes.
When they are out of adjustment and producing a lot of CO, yes. When
they are operating properly they produce little CO and little fumes.
You keep changing your topics. My comment was directed at your complaints that natural
gas burns too cleanly for someone to smell the fumes if somehow they come into the house,
unlike oil, thus CO would be more likely to kill. Even if that was true, it's moot with
CO detectors, which everyone should have anyway.
You're the one who keeps claiming that nat. gas burns cleanly and oil is
dirty which is false. Both are pretty clean with proper combustion
adjustments. Improperly adjusted, oil is more detectable than improperly
adjusted gas. It's not a function of cleanliness, its a function of
different detection thresholds for different chemicals.
Yeah, it's just my claim that natural gas burns more cleaner than oil.
"Natural gas burns cleaner than other fossil fuels, such as oil and coal, and produces less greenhouse gas per unit
energy released. For an equivalent amount of heat, burning natural gas produces about 30% less carbon dioxide than
burning petroleum and about 45% less than burning coal"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas
So, what oil company do you work for? Typical new high efficency gas
furnaces get about 94-96% efficiency (AFUE) My neighbor has the exact same
house as I do and he has oil heat. I keep my house a little warmer and last
winter's bill was less than 2/3 of his. After comparing numbers, he's very
interested in switching too. What is the AFUE of your oil furnace?
I work for a bank.
How old are each of your furnaces? Where in the model range is each one?
Both make a big difference. New vs. 30yr old isn't a fair comparison and
neither is new high end vs. new low end.
About five years old. Fine, let's compare it with a four or even a brand new oil
furnace. What AFUE rating
Also since both nat. gas costs and oil costs fluctuate it's difficult to
make a really valid comparison based on cost, particularly when someone
buying their oil off season can get lower prices than someone buying
just month to month. Rate lock-ins are also more frequently available
for oil service.
The last furnace I just had installed at my mothers house this spring
(Weil-McLain WTGO4 with a Becket burner) is 85% AFUE, but it is not a
high end unit. If I was going for high end it would be a Buderus boiler
with a Riello burner. The house needs a lot more insulation so the
burner efficiency is a small factor at present.
What oil furnaces can do 92%-96% AFUE?
Ones that presently cost too much for residential use.
And which ones are those ? With that huge residential oil market, why would it cost so
much to make a high efficient furnace from a such a superior product like oil, when
they've been around for years with natural gas? Maybe the natural gas market is just so
much larger due to the need to keep replacing the furnaces when the house keeps blowing
up.
I've already noted why the nat. gas market is larger.
A few gas explosions:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/08/1...ion/index.html
http://cbs4boston.com/local/local_story_313162110.html
http://cbs4denver.com/local/local_story_089161935.html
http://wcbstv.com/topstories/topstor...347103431.html
http://www.boston.com/news/local/art...gas_explosion/
http://wboy.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=10207
http://news.minnesota.publicradio.or.../04/27_ap_gas/
http://ksdk.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=89827
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/a...WS05/603070325
http://www.11alive.com/news/usnews_a...?storyid=74159
http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/lo...087114934.html
http://www.wutc.wa.gov/webimage.nsf/...7!OpenDocument
http://cbs4.com/topstories/local_story_105231940.html
http://www.texnews.com/1998/2003/tex...ural_g220.html
Just a sample, plenty more to be found. Some doosies too.
You can "prove" anything with anecdotal evidence. From your cited articles:
"Now, bomb and arson investigators are calling the blast suspicious and have declared the fire a possible arson."
"Authorities blamed the blast on a gas leak that opened when a line was hit during an excavation. "
"A natural gas explosion that killed three people last December was due to a metal pipe connector that failed because
it was not designed for use on plastic pipe, state officials said Wednesday."
"Officials said preliminary investigations showed that a pit dug by construction workers who were trying to remove an
underground oil tank collapsed and pinched a gas line just before 9 a.m."