Paying for heating the house or keeping the house?

[question everything]

These were the dire predictions by a guest - did not get his name - on CNN "in the money."

Oil price could go to $100 a barrel and people in the northeast who normally spend $1,000 a season to heat their houses could see their expenses rise to $3,000.

And we have to wonder, again, about the oil embargo in 1973, when about 35% of our oil consumption were imported and when we vowed to work on alternative energy. Now, I think, it is 65%. But when we have oil men in control of the government..

And I have to wonder how many people who would suffer through these high gasoline and heating costs were fighting any investment in public transportation. How many made conscientious decision to put 60 or 70 miles - each way - between their homes and their place of work. How many purchased huge homes where heating (and cooling) will now equal their mortgages.

[XemaSab]

1. Where do you live?

And how much are housing prices there?

'Cause here we've got to go an hour outside of town before we see anything under 400K.

[question everything]

3. Has anyone pressured local government

for public transportation?

I know that even in SoCal they have built several lines in LA and some of them will now be extended to Ontario.

Yes, we were lucky. Even when we lived in SoCal we bought during the last downtrun - in 1993 - and never lived more than 15 miles from any job. And one of my employers would send vans or cars to pick employees from the train station at certain times.

I know live in a suburb of Minneapolis and we drive 10 and 4 miles, respectively. And there are buses that go to downtown during rush hour. As a matter of fact, there were several "park and ride" ramps that were built just in the psst year.

[grasswire]

2. there's an alternative

Sharing the house. I believe many people are going to have to double up to keep a roof over their heads.

[Warpy]

4. Electric blanket

That's what I did when it was too cold to cope without heat but too warm or too polluted to use my wood stove. I'd roll up in that electric blanket and do whatever I could while I was sitting down.

It sucked but it was cheaper than the gas floor furnace.

[skids]

5. on the other hand the winters are getting milder...

...the people who really get socked are the air conditioning users in the south/southwest.

[Bluerthanblue]

6. is your point that those who will suffer 'deserve it"?

I may just be feeling very snarky here-

The reagan admin did a number on all the pro-active steps we took during the fuel crisis- and no president since has encouraged us to work towards a better way-

Including Clinton, who I voted for, and admired.

[question everything]

12. No one "deserve" it

but perhaps they can be in the front demanding at least public transportation and supporting the use of public funds, or even taxation, to invest in one. Instead, we know that most of the long distance commuters just wanted more and more "lanes" which, in turn, promoted additional development, etc.

[CANDO]

32. People living beyond their means don't "deserve" my pity over their own stupidity.

I am amazed how people who I know don't make the kind of money I do, can afford these Mc Mansions in a former corn field. I am certainly not wealthy. My wife works in a cancer practice as an office secretary and I am a union truck driver. We live in a 52 year old home which is now a fixer-upper. But we can afford to live here and also afford to repair and update those things in need of it. Could I afford to live in a $250,000 to $350,000 McMansion? Hell no! But I could get a mortgage for it! And most people don't realize just how much home they may be able to afford verses how much is reasonable considering all the other costs of living.

[wuushew]

7. Why is heating oil still so prevalent?

if natural gas costs $7 per gigajoule vs. 138,500 btu per gallon of heating oil why haven't more furnances been replaced in the normal course of housing construction and renovation?

Even adjusting for the fact that oil has increased dramatically in recent years it still would have been a easy tie breaker decision since oil will factually peak(ed) before gas in terms of supply.


I know very little about oil furnances but pulse jet natural gas furnaces are pretty damn simple in design.

[Bluerthanblue]

8. nat. gas isn't available everywhere- Propane is, but not Nat. Gas-

and here where i live (rural NH) Propane went off the charts last winter.

[wuushew]

9. I understand why rural people have oil....

my Grandmother who lived on a country farm for decades and decades did well with oil.

But the news stories always mention the Northeast in heating oil stories. On average shouldn't that region of the country have higher than normal population density making natural gas more attractive?

[B Calm]

16. It's not cost effective to run gas lines into rural areas. We have the

same problem with getting high speed Internet too.

[kineneb]

28. also in the west

look at the map of Pacific Gas & Electric's nat-gas coverage in CA and notice there is a hole in NorCal: Lake Co. Our choices are electricity, wood, propane or oil. Too difficult to get gas pipelines in here.

[Mugu]

10. This is exactly what is needed to deal with climate change.

People have no incentive to conserve when prices are low. The only way to prevent people from using more than is absolutely necessary to survive is to make it very painful. And the only way that the Kyoto levels will ever be met is to raise the price another 300 to 500% at least.

Then we need laws that only government approved fuels can be used for heat (under threat of imprisonment) and nothing but methane and propane (no oil or wood) will be approved. As VP Gore asked "are you ready for change?" If we are really serious about climate change it's time to make some drastic changes in our lifestyles.

[LWolf]

11. I heat with wood.

It costs about $450 a month to heat with propane.

My wood stove uses catalytic combustion, which reduces smoke output. The local national forest service sells a permit to cut our own wood at $10 a cord; trees that they've already taken down due to beetle kill, and will be burning to control the beetle infestation. When we show up with a chainsaw and haul it off, it's less for them to burn.

It would be burning anyway, though.

<snip>

How catalytic combustion works:

1) Primary air enters the stove through a thermostatically
controlled flap in the back and is preheated as it is
drawn through the interior walls of the stove and finally
to the air wash.
2) Thermostatically controlled secondary air mixes with
the smoke (which is unburned wood gases) beginning
the secondary combustion process and providing an
optional mixutre for greater efficiency.
3) The mixture passes through a catalytic combustor
which lowers the smoke’s burning temperature from
1,200 ºF to 600 ºF and causes it to ignite. This catalytic
combustion turns the smoke and other pollutants into
usable heat.

http://www.vermontcastings.com/catalog/elements/files/2007/GH024_1000_9957_VC_WoodStoves_C_NC-5604.pdf

I'd love to have a masonry heater, which also burns wood but more efficiently and cleaner than my top-of-the-line wood stove.

[Mugu]

13. I can just imagine a city where every home is heated with wood.

The idea of clean wood heating is akin to clean coal electricity. Don't get me wrong, I've burned some wood in my time, but there is no way that wood is as clean as methane or propane. And in this day of climate change even burning methane and propane is hurting our planet/children's future.

One of the things that irritates me no end is that it has been reported that VP Gore uses more energy in two months operating a swimming pool at one of his houses than I do heating and air conditioning my only home for an entire year. A swimming pool is just wrong on so many levels. Either there is a fresh water/climate problem or there isn't.

Regards, Mugu

[LWolf]

14. I don't think wood is appropriate for cities.

Way too many people concentrated into a small area, too many fires would be necessary. Perhaps some use of masonry stoves might work to heat multiple unit buildings; those are quick, very hot fires that use little fuel but give off heat for many hours afterwards.

There's probably something more efficient for heating many dwellings crowded close together, though.

I don't live in the city, and I burn wood that would have been burned by the forest service anyway; burned in the open.

[Mugu]

15. My point being that if heating by wood is not appropriate in a urban setting,

it's not appropriate otherwise.

Regards, Mugu

[Rosemary2205]

17. Oh I totally disagree.

He lives near a forest and the wood would be burnt either way. Using it for heat first is a smart move. Period. I give kudos to folks who can do so.

[Mugu]

20. I agree if the wood is to be burned anyway

you might as well capture the heat from it. But, if it were not burned at all there would be even less pollution and that is an better solution. Most cities will not allow burning within the city limits for environment reasons. There is no reason to believe that smoke from a fire outside the city limits is any less harmful to the environment.

Regards, Mugu

[LWolf]

23. Prescribed burning is a tool that helps maintain healthy forests.

Granted that many of our forests are really more like tree plantations for the logging industry; monoculture trees planted too closely together and all the same size and age. That leads to unhealthy forests.

Prescribed burning reduces the fuel load on the forest floor, greatly reducing the risk of wildfires, which will release much more carbon, obviously.

It helps control tree disease, improves wildlife habitat, and, in some cases, is necessary for the germination of some trees. Most notably the Sequoia, the largest living thing on land.

The wood that I'm burning comes from whole pine trees that have been cut down to control beetle infestation; they will be burned whether or not anyone takes them home for the woodstove. Using the heat they give off in my wood stove means that I'm not using a fossil fuel to heat the place, but using heat that would have been wasted, otherwise.

If we could perfect geothermal heat pumps, an even better way to dispose of dead trees and forest slash, as well as other organic wastes, might be biochar, if it is developed sufficiently:

http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/biochar/Biochar_home.htm

[Mugu]

26. There is no doubt that you are correct about the need to care for the forest.

And again, I agree that if the lumber is to be burned it makes complete sense to get some use of the heat. I'm just not convinced that the lumber must be burned, but there is no doubt that burning is the easiest/quickest method to dispose of it. However, you must agree that the smoke is hard on the air quality downwind.

Regards, Mugu

[LWolf]

27. Check out the biochar option.

It's a controlled burn that uses the gases released as fuel, but doesn't completely burn the mass; it turns it into charcoal, which is returned to the soil. Not only improving soil conditions, but "re-storing" carbon in the earth.

Of course, no one is doing that now. Like many alternatives, there is no infrastructure, or motivation from those profiting from our current system, to do so.

Here's a small <snip>

Persistence
It is undisputed that biochar is much more persistent in soil than any other form of organic matter that is commonly applied to soil. Therefore, all associated benefits with respect to nutrient retention and soil fertility are longer lasting than with alternative management. The long persistence of biochar in soil also make it a prime candidate for the mitigation of climate change as a potential sink for atmospheric carbon dioxide. The success of effective reduction of greenhouse gases depends on the associated net emission reductions through biochar sequestration. A net emission reduction can only be achieved in conjunction with sustainable management of biomass production. During the conversion of biomass to biochar about 50% of the original carbon is retained in the biochar, which offers a significant opportunity for creating such a carbon sink (Lehmann, 2007).

http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/biochar/Biochar_home.htm

I have masses of organic matter on my place that I need to get rid of. My place was a goat ranch before I got here, and they left behind tons and tons of old goat manure and bedding. Sitting on top of a bed of volcanic rock covered by a thin layer of soil, it takes heavy equipment to dig stuff into the soil, so I haven't done that. Simple rototilling breaks the tiller, as there are always large rocks just beneath the soil surface.

I'd love to figure out how to turn this stuff to charcoal. It's on my list of things to do to learn more about the process.

[Mugu]

31. That (biochar) sounds like something that we all could get behind.

As for your problem, I don't know of a good answer. The organic stuff will take care of itself over time, but those darn rocks are real nuisance. I lived in Kansas as a kid and remember all the rock, it was everywhere. Many of the barns and out-building were constructed from the rock and there was plenty left over. Rock doesn't compost well and there's just not much that can be done except pick them up. That's not much of an alternative over an area much larger than a small city lot. Good luck.

Best Regards, Mugu

[LWolf]

22. That point doesn't hold water.

There are many differences between rural and urban settings, and it makes sense that what works in one won't always work in another.

I can give you many examples; I'll start with public transportation, which doesn't work well when there are miles between stops and only a few people getting on or off at any of those stops.

Gas and water lines, dug over many, many miles for a very few customers. Paved roads; that's a lot of paving for few drivers. Those are just a few of more examples.

One-size-fits-all solutions don't work any better in this instance than they do anywhere else.

If you were really looking for one single thing that would have the greatest impact on our carbon footprint, it wouldn't be what fuel we are using, although I agree that we ought to be responsible about that as well. In my environment, I'd like a masonry heater and a ground source heat pump. Those are hard to add to existing buildings, though. If I ever get to replace the ancient, decrepit mobile home I'm living in, I'll probably do that. Meanwhile, for the long-term, large-scale solution:

Try reducing human population. I think that's the most efficient means to achieve environmental responsibility.

Since I don't hold with mass murder, and since (reluctantly, I admit) I can't support mandated birth rates, I suggest this:

Do away with tax deductions for children. Give big deductions to the childless, smaller deductions to those with one child, no deduction to those with two, and begin taxing people with more than two - per head. To be sunsetted when the population drops to an environmentally sustainable number that leaves most of the planet to all those other species that need her, as well.

That's a start, anyway.

[Mugu]

24. I don't think that we are that far apart in philosophy

with the minor exception of burning wood.

From what I can determine the easiest way to limit birth rates without brutal government coercion is affluence . Many countries in Europe have birth rates below replacement. However, this causes other problems such as insufficient numbers of people of working age to support an aging population. I don't pretend to know the answer to that problem.

I do know that the answer is not to do as Ted Turner did. Have seven kids and then tell everybody else to have only one or two.

Regards, Mugu

[B Calm]

18. I think you are wrong about Gore. He is paying more for green energy

is the way I understand it. I also heat mostly with wood too, but then I live out in the country. When I grew up in the 1950s, I remember almost every house in town belching black smoke from burning coal. I would hate to see that again.

[Mugu]

19. So burning tons of methane and using huge amounts of electricity

doesn't harm the environment if you pay extra? Only the energy used by poor people harms the environment? The simple fact is, there is no such thing as green energy. Greener maybe, but never completely green. Any energy use of any kind leaves a scar on the planet and using any of it (no matter how much you pay for it) for a swimming pool is criminal.

[B Calm]

29. Do you use green energy?

[Mugu]

33. No, I just use very little energy.

I don't have to pay more to feel good. I use very little electricity (less than $600 per year) and propane (less than $800 per year in northern Illinois,) drive less than 3K miles a year, and have several hundred trees. Just try to have a smaller footprint than I do.

I was green long before it was popular.

Regards, Mugu

Edit: Damn typos.

[meow2u3]

21. $100 a barrel of oil--just what Osama bin Laden wants!

EXTRA, EXTRA, READ ALL ABOUT IT! TERRORISTS ARE NOW SETTING OIL PRICES!!! (shouting intentional)

[rucky]

25. Check into financing for energy upgrades:

I know it would mean more debt, but it would be manageable and pay off for the years to come:

http://www.greenhomeguide.com/index.php/knowhow/entry/812/C236

[TimBean]

30. People have been making stupid decisions lately

Where they work, how big their houses are. Now higher energy cost will guide people into making more sustainable decisions.