# Home Heating Oil: the bell tolls for thee...



## woodgeek (Jun 6, 2013)

Some interesting data re new houses built in the US:
http://www.census.gov/construction/chars/completed.html

I thought the heating system info was particularly interesting:
http://www.census.gov/construction/chars/pdf/heatingfuel.pdf

<1% of new houses built in the US in 2012 have heating oil as their primary fuel source.
Even in the Northeast, the percentage is ~5% of new houses, versus >30% pre-2002.
In fact, according to the census the number of new oil-heated houses built in 2012 is ~2000 or so in the whole US, and all of those are in the Northeast.

We can also look at Air Source Heat Pumps:
http://www.census.gov/construction/chars/pdf/heatsystem.pdf
Nationwide, ASHPs get 38% of 'share' as the primary heaters in new residential construction. Of course, most of those are in the South....
In the 'Northeast', ASHPs were installed in 4000, or ~8% of new houses.

Conclusion: even in the Northeast, there are 2x as many ASHPs being installed in new houses as oil heaters. in the US overall, it is 90x! (183,000 versus 2,000 houses)

Other random fact: nationwide, less than 2% of new houses built use hydronic or steam distribution, and in the Northeast, the share is <10%.

For a guy who grew up in MA where every single house I ever saw was oil-fired hydronic baseboards, who then bought the same thing in PA, this is slightly mind-blowing.

But since I am now ripping out the old baseboard in my retrofit ASHP-heated 1960s house, I guess I won't worry about hurting the resale value 15 years from now.


----------



## maple1 (Jun 6, 2013)

I am surprised at the hydronic aspect of that - IMO it is the most comfortable & efficient means of heating a home, hands down. I'm thinking there may be a combo of factors driving that - a warming climate, increased desire for some A/C in the other times of the year, increasing efficiencies/decreasing heat losses in building technologies, and improving heat pumping technologies. So on further thought, I guess I shouldn't be so surprised.

There are a ton of mini-splits being sold & installed up here - new & retrofit.


----------



## Circus (Jun 6, 2013)

woodgeek said:


> <1% of new houses built in the US in 2012 have heating oil as their primary fuel source​


 

Not surprising. Fuel oil cost $28 per million btu while gas is about $8.


----------



## begreen (Jun 6, 2013)

In one way it is surprising because natural gas is only piped in to denser population areas.


----------



## BrotherBart (Jun 6, 2013)

Heating oil is headed the way of the dodo bird.  It has been for a long time. 

http://blogs.platts.com/2013/03/27/heating-oil/


----------



## woodgeek (Jun 6, 2013)

BrotherBart said:


> Heating oil is headed the way of the dodo bird. It has been for a long time.
> 
> http://blogs.platts.com/2013/03/27/heating-oil/


 
The article is distinguishing current, high sulfur grades of diesel, heating oil, versus ultralow sulfur diesel (ULSD). Looks like the old stuff will be banned outright in 2018 (already banned in NY) and I guess stragglers will still be able to run their burners on ULSD?


----------



## Grisu (Jun 6, 2013)

BrotherBart said:


> Heating oil is headed the way of the dodo bird. It has been for a long time.
> 
> http://blogs.platts.com/2013/03/27/heating-oil/


 
I am just wondering what will happen when the shale gas bubble bursts and people won't know how to heat their homes. Let's just hope now build homes are so energy efficient that general usage will drop over time.


----------



## TradEddie (Jun 6, 2013)

Grisu said:


> I am just wondering what will happen when the shale gas bubble bursts and people won't know how to heat their homes. Let's just hope now build homes are so energy efficient that general usage will drop over time.


 
I doubt many people on this forum would be overly affected by this, I have enough wood growing on my property to heat my home for twenty years, and I'm on the less prepared end of the users here...
Fuel costs rise and fall, and new houses and retrofits will generally choose the lowest at the time, but over time market fluctuations spread the source of home heating over many fuels.

TE


----------



## woodgeek (Jun 7, 2013)

Personally, I think that the shale gas 'business' pays depending on, no surprise, the price of gas.  Can they make a profit at $4/MMBTU ($0.40/therm), the wholesale price last year?  I'm no expert, but it seems hard/unlikely.   When the wholesale prices are more like the historical average 2-3X higher than that?  I'm no expert, but seem plausible.  Are they still 'learning', so their operating cost will continue to fall, sure.

IOW, the biggest boosters that say we will have $4/MMBTU wholesale gas for the next 50 years....probably BS.  But, is there enough shale gas to keep the price moderate in the US (and other countries that develop it) for a generation or more.....almost certainly.

And remember that residential gas never sold close to $0.40/therm delivered.  Even if wholesale prices doubled from here going forward, I suspect the residential customers wouldn't even notice, due to the smaller % increase in retail price, and the frackers would have plenty of profit to keep drilling.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jun 7, 2013)

Im surprised ANYONE is installing new oil burning equipment these days. The economics of oil heat left the barn years ago.


----------



## velvetfoot (Jun 7, 2013)

Where I live, propane is more expensive than oil, and there are no natural gas mains.  I've been thinking about mini split heat pumps, but I'm not sure how that would work where I live.  So, there's not much choice.


----------



## begreen (Jun 7, 2013)

Same here. We are fortunate, with a lot of hydropower and milder climate the mini-splits are a great fit.


----------



## BoilerMan (Jun 8, 2013)

It's also interesting that hydronic heat was is almost completly oil heat. I see very little new construction as forced hot air here in the NE. I think it's due to the fact that I have only seen a small handfull of homes with centeral A/C (window shakers are king up here). I'd say the share of FHA vs FHW heat is close to 50/50 here in the far northeast. Propane is taking over all of the oil in commercial buildings, but the VAST majority of people have oil burners in residential, and about 40% of those have pellet stoves, and less than 20% burn wood all winter. Most who have wood stoves or boilers ~40% burn occatioanlly. Pellets are taking the market for retrofit, and ASHPs are closing in in the retro market as well.

TS


----------



## jharkin (Jun 11, 2013)

woodgeek said:


> Other random fact: nationwide, less than 2% of new houses built use hydronic *or steam* distribution, and in the Northeast, the share is <10%.


 
Its interesting that they even leave the word steam in there. I guess new installs are not absolutely zero, there is one steam heat tech on the heatinghelp boards who is such an enthusiast he actually designed and installed from scratch a brand new steam system in his custom house...

Living in old houses I actually like the charm of whistling steam radiators in a big old Victorian, but we have long since decided that if we ever manage to do our big addition here, high velocity air goes in for AC and most likely heat as well, and bye-bye iron radiators and exposed steam pipes in the living room.


----------



## velvetfoot (Jun 11, 2013)

Why high velocity air?  Retrofit?  Is that still used?


----------



## woodgeek (Jun 11, 2013)

Indeed, I was always skeptical of hi velocity....sounds like higher operating cost and noise.

Our neighbors with the copy of our house spent a bundle in 2006 to put in hi velocity AC in their oil-heated house.  A couple years later they wished they had put in a ASHP, but the hi velocity ducts can't be used with HPs, it seems.  Who installed the AC system?  Their friendly oil company.


----------



## jharkin (Jun 11, 2013)

Why high velocity?   A 200 year old house with wall cavities that are less than 3in deep and almost no closets to hide ductwork in either 

Maybe there is some way to put in conventional ducting using 2 air exchangers with one in the crawlspace attic feeding the upstairs ... I havent researched that far as this is a project we wont be able to afford even planning out for 3-5 years..


----------



## Dave A. (Jun 11, 2013)

woodgeek said:


> they wished they had put in a ASHP, but the hi velocity ducts can't be used with HPs, it seems.


 
I don't think that's (absolutely) correct. Before I went wood stove insert, I was researching heat pumps and considering high velocity systems. The main difference was the higher cost of the air handler for high velocity. But the same heat pump could be used.

http://spacepak.com/small-duct-high-velocity-questions-answers.asp
*Does SpacePak work with Heat Pumps?*

Yes… all SpacePak DX fan coils are manufactured so that they can operate hand-in-hand with a Heat Pump outdoor unit.

(There may have been more to it than that with your neighbors situation.)


----------



## woodgeek (Jun 11, 2013)

Thanks for the info....I might pass it 'over the fence'


----------



## Grisu (Jun 11, 2013)

jharkin said:


> Its interesting that they even leave the word steam in there. I guess new installs are not absolutely zero, there is one steam heat tech on the heatinghelp boards who is such an enthusiast he actually designed and installed from scratch a brand new steam system in his custom house...
> 
> Living in old houses I actually like the charm of whistling steam radiators in a big old Victorian, but we have long since decided that if we ever manage to do our big addition here, high velocity air goes in for AC and most likely heat as well, and bye-bye iron radiators and exposed steam pipes in the living room.


 
jharkin,

I know we think similar about the future availability of fossil fuels. I am curious, what are your plans when NG and oil are getting scarce? Do you think you can rely on woodheat exclusively? I still have not quite figured out what we will do when the time comes.


----------



## jharkin (Jun 11, 2013)

I suspect that day is actually further away than I feared a few years ago. We seem to be getting by better than expected at $100 oil / $4 gasoline and supply is still growing if very very slowly... Of course that means even worse news for the climate but that is another subject. I'm no expert on fracking but it feels like gas will hold out for a while even if that bubble bursts.

The explosive growth in renewables the optimists hope for may yet materialize also giving us breathing room to convert... I had my doubts there too but it seems in the last couple years I see a new rooftop PV install on my drive to work every month or so. Our local dunkins is now on solar power, they just built a big solar farm on 495 north and a permit was approved to build a solar farm in town.

My thinking is eventually convert from the gas/steam to force air, and use heat pumps instead of straight AC units, with high efficiency gas furnace backup. That way I could have a choice of 3 fuels based on prevailing prices (knowing that when oil and gas both get very expensive everyone and their uncle will be looking to cut wood).


----------



## woodgeek (Jun 15, 2013)

Grisu said:


> I am just wondering what will happen when the shale gas bubble bursts and people won't know how to heat their homes. Let's just hope now build homes are so energy efficient that general usage will drop over time.


 
Indeed.  Over the last 20 years, total energy use for space heating homes in the US has dropped by ~25%:
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=10271

This is despite there being more homes total (population increase and smaller households) AND new homes getting significantly larger (~30%).

Building codes work I guess.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Nov 21, 2013)

Grisu said:


> I am just wondering what will happen when the shale gas bubble bursts and people won't know how to heat their homes. Let's just hope now build homes are so energy efficient that general usage will drop over time.


Answer: Mini-splits


----------



## Grisu (Nov 21, 2013)

Seasoned Oak said:


> Answer: Mini-splits



Probably right but a tough proposition in places like Vermont. Electricity rates will also have to go up with NG being responsible for a quarter of our power production.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Nov 23, 2013)

I was just out to Bratt and heard your nuke plant was being phased out too.  That won't help your electricity rates any. 

Matt


----------



## Grisu (Nov 23, 2013)

Vermont Yankee was in limbo for a while so I think most utilities here were prepared for that eventuality and procured their supply elsewhere. However, that is another whammy that will be coming over the next 20 years. Many nuclear plants had been built in the seventies and are at the end of their engineered lifespan. There will not be enough new nukes coming online to replace those making our reliance on NG even greater. Let's just hope the projections are right and we will be able to get at least as much NG out of those fracked wells as we produce from conventional wells whether that makes sense or not.


----------



## peakbagger (Nov 24, 2013)

VT sold out to Hydro Quebec before Yankee is shut down. HQ power is expensive but noting compared to renewables They do have overly generous renewable incentives that the folks without solar have to subsidize. There is a very vocal bunch in VT that are opposed to natural gas line extensions and natural gas in general as they feel it is encouraging fracking elsewhere.

VT has a somewhat notorious reputation int he region  for very poor electrical infrastructure and very sparsely settled tree lined rural roads. Definitely a good state to own a generator and a wood stove as if nasty weather blows in the power can go off for a while.


----------



## CenterTree (Dec 9, 2013)

woodgeek said:


> We can also look at Air Source Heat Pumps:
> http://www.census.gov/construction/chars/pdf/heatsystem.pdf
> Nationwide, ASHPs get 38% of 'share' as the primary heaters in new residential construction. Of course, most of those are in the South....
> In the 'Northeast', ASHPs were installed in 4000, or ~8% of new houses.
> ...



No doubt ASHP's have become increasingly efficient and more adaptable.  Along with way less maintenance than oil burners. 

Newer heat pumps run quiet, clean and efficient. They are able to be used in much colder climates than ever B4.       Add the AC side and BINGO, you have a new winner.

I know I certainly DON'T miss the oil truck in my driveway!


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Dec 9, 2013)

maple1 said:


> I am surprised at the hydronic aspect of that - IMO it is the most comfortable & efficient means of heating a home, hands down. I'm thinking there may be a combo of factors driving that - a warming climate, increased desire for some A/C in the other times of the year, increasing efficiencies/decreasing heat losses in building technologies, and improving heat pumping technologies. So on further thought, I guess I shouldn't be so surprised.
> There are a ton of mini-splits being sold & installed up here - new & retrofit.


I agree about the comfort. I used to have hot air gas years ago and then went to hot water oil and then to coal boiler. I dont miss that air blower cycling on and off.A hot water radiator stays hot for awhile ,while an air duct gets cold pretty fast. Not as noticeable if insulation levels are high. One downside HW baseboard is the danger of freezing up if the heat goes out. I had a tenant freeze and bust a whole house full of Cast Iron Baseboard cuz he ran out of oil  and didnt call me until the next day. Damage was in the Thousands.


----------



## Pruning@trunk (Dec 11, 2013)

This is an example on how markets work. Things that are to expensive will not last. That is why a lot of this green energy will not last b/c the market will not support it. It cost to much. It's on life support now with the gov't subsides it receives. If it has a place then it can function by itself.


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 11, 2013)

Pruning@trunk said:


> This is an example on how markets work. Things that are to expensive will not last. That is why a lot of this green energy will not last b/c the market will not support it. It cost to much. It's on life support now with the gov't subsides it receives. If it has a place then it can function by itself.



I buy local wind power on the market at $0.134/kWh.  My local conventional power is $0.148, or 1.4 cents/kWh *more*.  The fed subsidy of windpower is 2.2 cents/kWh, for the first 10 years of operation, then nada.   Adding the 2.2 cents back in hardly seems likely to cripple the industry, as it will put wind smack in the middle of the pack, costwise.

Notably, a lot of big oil and other energy companies are now assuming a Carbon tax cost in their long-term financial forecasts.  The price they have settled on is $60/ton CO2.  This would add about $0.75/gallon to HHO, or 3 cents/kWh to conventional power on the East Coast.  With that in place, offsetting a fraction of the externalized costs of FF energy, the cost of conventional power would be 2 cents/kWh *higher* than **unsubsidized** onshore Wind Power in PA.


----------



## Pruning@trunk (Dec 11, 2013)

The gov't subsides way more than just that 2.2 cent. That may be the price that you get from the gov't, but the wind companies themselves are getting a ton of taxpayers money for this pipe dream of an idea.

If wind and solar can stand on its own then great. But the problem is the sun doesn't always shine nor does the wind always blow. Also this kind of energy will never be mainstream across the nation, just in certain parts of the nation where there is more sun then not and more wind then most. 

It just amazes me how people can be duked by these environmentalists. We are tying both hands behind our backs because of these people. It is a religion for them and it will take us down economically.  If you ever talk to these people that is all they want anyways---that is for people to digress and reduce the population as a whole.

We should be drilling for more oil, more coal, more natural gas and build nuclear power plants, oh way, that makes to much sense----better not do that.


----------



## mass_burner (Dec 11, 2013)

Grisu said:


> I am just wondering what will happen when the shale gas bubble bursts and people won't know how to heat their homes. Let's just hope now build homes are so energy efficient that general usage will drop over time.



Yes, but today's efficient home is tomorrow's sieve due to poor maintenance.


----------



## TradEddie (Dec 11, 2013)

Pruning@trunk said:


> The gov't subsides way more than just that 2.2 cent. That may be the price that you get from the gov't, but the wind companies themselves are getting a ton of taxpayers money for this pipe dream of an idea.
> 
> If wind and solar can stand on its own then great. But the problem is the sun doesn't always shine nor does the wind always blow. Also this kind of energy will never be mainstream across the nation, just in certain parts of the nation where there is more sun then not and more wind then most.
> 
> ...



You'd be surprised at how many here are proud to call ourselves environmentalists, so please don't claim to speak for us saying we want the world to depopulate. Your arguments against subsidies are equally valid against the fossil fuel or nuclear industries, let them pay the true cost too. The cost of pollution and its health effects, the cost of multiple wars and decades of oil-centric foreign policy, the cost of carrier groups permanently ready to protect oil tankers and middle east refineries or the cost of storing radioactive waste for thousands of years. I don't remember the government asking the nuclear industry to repay the research costs of the Manhattan project, isn't that a subsidy too?

TE


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 12, 2013)

Pruning@trunk said:


> The gov't subsides way more than just that 2.2 cent. That may be the price that you get from the gov't, but the wind companies themselves are getting a ton of taxpayers money for this pipe dream of an idea.



Evidence?  Way more?  Both the wind turbine owner and the utility that buys their power to sell to me are private companies.  As well as the many companies that built the hardware.  Of all those companies and me, only the turbine owner gets a govt check.  For 2.2cent/kWh sold.

In Philly, folks they have a 10 year property tax abatement on new residential construction.  You buy an old house, you pay property tax.  You buy a brand new house, you pay no property tax for 10 years.  Rather than reducing the amount of tax collected, this policy has led to a surge of new construction, because it makes the business proposition of building new property a lot better for the builder and the homeowner.  In 10 years, you have a revitalized neighborhood where previously there had been vacant lots for many years. Seems like good public policy incentivising private enterprise.

Similarly, a very modest tax subsidy for wind power developers has led to the creation of an entire (largely domestic) industry that now provides more than half as much electricity as all the hydropower dams in the US.  And is still growing.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Dec 12, 2013)

TradEddie said:


> You'd be surprised at how many here are proud to call ourselves environmentalists, so please don't claim to speak for us saying we want the world to depopulate. Your arguments against subsidies are equally valid against the fossil fuel or nuclear industries, let them pay the true cost too. The cost of pollution and its health effects, the cost of multiple wars and decades of oil-centric foreign policy, the cost of carrier groups permanently ready to protect oil tankers and middle east refineries or the cost of storing radioactive waste for thousands of years. I don't remember the government asking the nuclear industry to repay the research costs of the Manhattan project, isn't that a subsidy too?
> 
> TE



Let the anger go.  It's not going to do you any good.

Let everybody pay the true cost.  It works for me.  We'll be back on fossil fuels in no time!  That is the lowest cost source of energy.  *fist pump for global warming!*


----------



## Pruning@trunk (Dec 12, 2013)

TradEddie said:


> You'd be surprised at how many here are proud to call ourselves environmentalists, so please don't claim to speak for us saying we want the world to depopulate. Your arguments against subsidies are equally valid against the fossil fuel or nuclear industries, let them pay the true cost too.TE




Never meet one environmentalist that wouldn't love to have the world get depopulated since mankind is the root of all problems. Like I've said before, environmentalism is a religion for them.

I'm against all gov't subsides. Don't  confuse  a normal business depreciation with a subside.


----------



## DBNH22 (Dec 12, 2013)

Pruning@trunk said:


> This is an example on how markets work. Things that are to expensive will not last. That is why a lot of this green energy will not last b/c the market will not support it. It cost to much. It's on life support now with the gov't subsides it receives. If it has a place then it can function by itself.




Yes the upfront costs of many of the renewable solutions can be cost prohibitive and the solutions themselves are sometimes not very practical either.  I don't know if I'd go as far as to say the renewable energy market is on life support but it does appear to be a tough sell.  It seems like the technology that uses fossil fuels is much cheaper than the green energy technology yet green energy fuel is much cheaper than fossil fuel.  There is a lot of interest in renewable energy and it's not all your "save the earth" types either.  If renewable energy technologies can be delivered to the consumer at nearly the same price as fossil fuel technolgies are then we'd most likely see more and more taking advantage of renewable energy technology.  I suspect there are powerful forces in the fossil fuel industry that don't want this to happen though.  I guess time will tell.


----------



## Pruning@trunk (Dec 12, 2013)

^^^^^ not everything is a conspiracy theory, that is big bad oil isn't trying to take out "green energy".  

But I will say this is why environmentalist like to see high pries for oil,gas,lp,coal and the like. This is the only way "green energy " looks good and comparable. This is also way the environmentalists block building new coal power plants and block things like the keystone pipe line and hide behind honorable excuses like they are doing it to save the plant, health reasons and the other blah blah blah reasons they have. They know this would lower the cost of traditional and feasible forms of energy and make their green energy die on the vine.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Dec 12, 2013)

Pruning@trunk said:


> Never meet one environmentalist that wouldn't love to have the world get depopulated since mankind is the root of all problems. Like I've said before, environmentalism is a religion for them.
> I'm against all gov't subsides. Don't  confuse  a normal business depreciation with a subside.


I dont consider myself and enviromentalist but i do think the population as it stands and is rising is quite unsustainable. Of course if your not concerned with standard of living then yes we could all conceivably live elbow to elbow, many in squalor. What to do about this? I dont have that answer.
The available resources will peak at some point and then it will be survival of the fittest or the richest. As population rises some get richer but many more in number get poorer as resources,energy,farmland ,fresh water ect. deplete. So average standard of living goes down.


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 12, 2013)

Pruning@trunk said:


> Never meet one environmentalist that wouldn't love to have the world get depopulated since mankind is the root of all problems. Like I've said before, environmentalism is a religion for them.



Well there is the problem right there....I've never met a single environmentalist that wanted to depopulate the world.  In fact, the ones I know (including me) are trying to get a world where more people get to live happy, healthy and safe lives.

My problem with FF energy is that FF pollution is killing plenty of people right now, and through global warming promises to kill a lot more in the future.  IOW, phasing out FF is a 'pro-people' agenda.


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 12, 2013)

The *original topic *of this thread was HHO, its high cost, and the fact that people are (sensibly) phasing it out in droves.

Does anyone think the high price of HHO is because of environmentalists?  Not me.

Does anyone think that 'drill baby drill' (i.e. fracking) will bring back $1/gal HHO?  I actually think it might...I would put the odds of <$2/gal HHO 5 years from now at ~30%.


----------



## TradEddie (Dec 12, 2013)

Few businesses sell their products at a price below what the market will sustain. Whether recent oil price increases are due to speculation or actual supply/demand issues, it allows oil companies to gauge the critical point where demand drops significantly, and they will regulate their production and prices accordingly.

TE


----------



## Pruning@trunk (Dec 12, 2013)

Woodgeek meet Seasoned Oak.  Maybe he is not a self proclaimed environmentalist, but he is for sure a liberal and there is a good chance for him to become an environmentalist because it is only one very small step away. He might be the first person that you know that thinks we are over populated but I promise there are many more.  

Seasoned Oak---if you are concerned with the standard of living----don't keep liberals get in power. 

Woodgeek--they way we got to this point is because we talked about free markets and how HHO won't last because the cost is so much. Green energy is in the same boat--soon to die.  It is only keeping its head above water because of all the subsides it is receiving and the incentives which are out there.


----------



## Pruning@trunk (Dec 12, 2013)

TradEddie said:


> Few businesses sell their products at a price below what the market will sustain. Whether recent oil price increases are due to speculation or actual supply/demand issues, it allows oil companies to gauge the critical point where demand drops significantly, and they will regulate their production and prices accordingly.
> 
> TE




The market dictates the price at which the product will sold at not the other way around. If this wasn't the case, then why did big bad oil let oil/gas prices go down to a $1 a gallon?  Why don't they just cut production and get it up to $5, $8 or even $10 a gallon--then they could really gouge us then. 

Maybe we should try to get more oil on the open market so the prices would go down--oh wait the environmentalist wouldn't let us b/c they will only be happy when people live in a 3rd world banana republic. That way no one will be rich and everyone will be 'equally' unhappy and poor.


----------



## Ashful (Dec 12, 2013)

Seasoned Oak said:


> Im surprised ANYONE is installing new oil burning equipment these days. The economics of oil heat left the barn years ago.


I just installed a new oil burner on my boiler early this year.



Seasoned Oak said:


> Answer: Mini-splits


I have owned four.  While okay for heating an auxiliary office, or the room over the garage, I would NOT want to live in a house heated by mini-splits.  They're extremely annoying, blowing warm air into the room at face level, ugly to look at... they're a retrofit when no other option is available.



woodgeek said:


> For a guy who grew up in MA where every single house I ever saw was oil-fired hydronic baseboards, who then bought the same thing in PA, this is slightly mind-blowing.


Ditto.  My family has owned or lived in more than a dozen houses since I was a kid, and all but one were heated with oil.  In fact, all but one were heated with oil boilers and hydronic baseboards or radiators.  These numbers are a huge surprise to me.



maple1 said:


> I am surprised at the hydronic aspect of that - IMO it is the most comfortable & efficient means of heating a home, hands down.


Agreed.  I lived in a few apartments with heat pumps in my college years, as well as my wife's apartment before we were married, and always found them much less comfortable than any house with hydronic baseboards or radiators.  It's interesting to watch people spend what I consider wasted money on some luxuries, but aren't willing to spend money to be more comfortable in their own home.  I still notice this when visiting houses with heat pumps, the air they blow into the room feels too cool, when the blower is running.



TradEddie said:


> I doubt many people on this forum would be overly affected by this, I have enough wood growing on my property to heat my home for twenty years, and I'm on the less prepared end of the users here...


Not me.  I continue to use oil, in addition to wood.  When I get older, I anticipate I won't have the ability to process and handle quite this much wood, and so there will be some increased reliance on some "traditional" form of heating.  I'd prefer that to still be some sort of boiler, driving the miles of baseboard we have already installed.  Retrofitting ductwork into 18th century housing is never pretty.


----------



## jharkin (Dec 12, 2013)

Pruning@trunk said:


> The market dictates the price at which the product will sold at not the other way around. If this wasn't the case, then why did big bad oil let oil/gas prices go down to a $1 a gallon?  Why don't they just cut production and get it up to $5, $8 or even $10 a gallon--then they could really gouge us then.
> 
> Maybe we should try to get more oil on the open market so the prices would go down--oh wait the environmentalist wouldn't let us b/c they will only be happy when people live in a 3rd world banana republic. That way no one will be rich and everyone will be 'equally' unhappy and poor.



Prices crashed because of demand destruction from the financial crisis meant a lot of people couldnt afford to but fuel.  Consumption plummets resulting in oversupply, driving down prices then producers cut production.   Economy recovers, demand exceeds supply then prices go up as producers race to bring hte nonconventional sources (deepwater, tar sands, frac oil etc)  that provide most marginal extra production beyond the 80 mbpd or so that is the max conventional sources have hit.

There is an easy path to endless cheap prices you want... keep the economy in the tank   Our obstructioninst friends in congress are hard at work at that.....

Back to reality... No matter how hard you wish for it oil is always going to be a finite energy source that mathematically has to get scarcer and thus more expensive in the future.  Its emissions are also poisoning the environment we depend on to live whether you want to beleive it or not.

. . . . . . 

Its sad really, that Fox News and the like have built this image of environmentalism as some liberal world domination conspiracy theory... because at its root true environmentalism is actually a very classicaly _conservative_ idea - trying to preserve the natural world in its original state.

Since the 'can is closed my jedi powers sense a thread lock coming.....


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 12, 2013)

Pruning@trunk said:


> Woodgeek--they way we got to this point is because we talked about free markets and how HHO won't last because the cost is so much. Green energy is in the same boat--soon to die.  It is only keeping its head above water because of all the subsides it is receiving and the incentives which are out there.



Thanks for bringing it home.  We agree that expensive tech gets retired, eventually.  I am not convinced that the price of oil will be up up up.  If it were, it's done for heating. If HHO price is flat here....it will trade back and forth with propane on a regional basis.  If the price falls, it will be around for a while longer, and maybe start getting installed in new construction again.  Hard to predict.  The oil cos are assuming that a price for Carbon will eventually be applied.  In that case, the probability that oil gets more expensive, period, and more expensive relative to propane (its main competitor) goes up a bit.  Only time will tell. The good news is that sulfur in diesel and HHO is way down and will keep falling.

On the renewables, we disagree.  The cost trend line is falling rapidly for solar, and and has a little way to go for (unsubsidized) parity.  There are different projections out there, but in niche locations like Hawaii it is a no brainer now w/o subsidies.  Are you gonna tell the folks there that solar is a pipe dream?  Onshore wind is more mature, costs are pretty flat, but basically at parity depending on variable fuel costs.  Offshore wind, well, we don't have any of that yet.


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 12, 2013)

jharkin said:


> Since the 'can is closed my jedi powers sense a thread lock coming.....



Oh sure....you had to mention 'congress'....


----------



## Ashful (Dec 12, 2013)

Pruning@trunk was very entertaining at first, but this is getting stale.  All I want to know from those of who think you can predict where oil is headed (and when) is, can you tell me when to sell my Exxon stock?

While the rest of you were sitting around complaining about oil and gas prices, I was investing in oil, and made quite a bit of money.  Wish I'd have known to sell in 2008, but it looks like things are recovering nicely.  When's the next drop, and are you willing to back your guess with cash?


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 12, 2013)

Joful said:


> While the rest of you were sitting around complaining about oil and gas prices, I was investing in oil, and made quite a bit of money.



Me too!


----------



## jharkin (Dec 12, 2013)

I was making (less) money in index funds... Dont know enough to play the market.

I make a decent enough living and drive few enough miles that gasoline is not a terribly consequential part of the family budget.  Similarly the NG bill is peanuts relative to what we spend on food, insurance, etc.. 

My interest in the ups and downs of oil production is more about what kind of environment and non-renewable resource base are we leaving to our childrens generation.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Dec 12, 2013)

We can all thank FRACKING for these moderately stable  oil prices.


----------



## Frozen Canuck (Dec 12, 2013)

Keep your stock Joful…the trend is your friend. I am very pleased with number of times my Suncor stock has split. Not that Rosy at the moment but that is just a moment.

Cheap oil again..not likely at least not with current tech. Nothing grand on the horizon AFA new tech goes.

We are just finding out how quickly the bitumen can corrode pipelines. It's far faster than the old never to be seen again conventional oil that used to flow in those pipelines. The entire industry is going to have to radically adjust the lifespan of a pipeline downward & that will increase costs. To say nothing of increased spills & the cost for cleanup. Maybe saying no to a huge pipeline full of the stuff turns out to be a very good idea for America. From my shoes if we can't prove that we can keep the stuff in our own pipelines I see no logical reason for you to want it on your soil. Perhaps the best plan is to refine here limiting the need for pipelines carrying bitumen to our soil, then probably ship out diesel from here & have final upgrading done at arrival points.

For those few of you that still carry a flame for cheap oil….forget it. The next time the economy picks up globally & China & India start using huge supplies of oil…game over for anything even close to cheap oil..we will all remember those days when a gallon of gas was a mere $5. Currently costs me around $150 to fill any of the company trucks, that could easily double if Chindia takes off again. Even at that doubling we would be on par with current Euro prices.

All those considering an electric or a hybrid maybe onto something.


----------



## BrotherBart (Dec 12, 2013)

Been buying Exxon stock steadily since 1982.  Got the latest dividend check today.


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Dec 12, 2013)

until someone figures out how to make plastics out of something else oil stocks will still be money makers, I think people forget just how much petro goes into making plastics (which 90% plus products produced worldwide contain)


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Dec 12, 2013)

I used to have oil heat in about 12 properties. Now Im down to 4 and only cuz there is no NG line nearby.


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 12, 2013)

Plastics are a small part of the overall oil stream.  One easy way...ethanol to ethylene to polyethylene.  Easy Peasy.


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Dec 12, 2013)

woodgeek said:


> Plastics are a small part of the overall oil stream.  One easy way...ethanol to ethylene to polyethylene.  Easy Peasy.


 

easy, but more expensive. why did we get away from glass? cost, right? making car bumpers and water bottles outta corn or sugar cane is going to cost a heck of a lot more than using raw petro. until this is flipped to where its cheaper to make "bioplastics" petro will still be a money maker


----------



## TradEddie (Dec 12, 2013)

Joful said:


> All I want to know from those of who think you can predict where oil is headed (and when) is, can you tell me when to sell my Exxon stock?


I can't predict when to sell it, but unless you need cash right now, you'd be mad to sell virtually any large cap stock unless you had specific information about an individual company in trouble. The big oil companies will be making good profits for decades, even with a carbon tax, and some inevitable middle east crisis. Individual companies may have trouble, but demand will persist. OTOH, if you want to retire earlier than planned, looking at oil company stocks won't get you there.  Some "green" energy company with a breakthrough technology might make you rich quickly, but most won't, and if I knew one, I certainly wouldn't be telling.

TE


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 13, 2013)

stoveguy2esw said:


> easy, but more expensive. why did we get away from glass? cost, right? making car bumpers and water bottles outta corn or sugar cane is going to cost a heck of a lot more than using raw petro. until this is flipped to where its cheaper to make "bioplastics" petro will still be a money maker



As I understand it, most of the bioplastic processes that we have nowadays ARE about the same price as FF plastics at the current oil price.  No real $$ incentive to retool production facilities, though, customers down the supply chain would want expensive material validation after a change, and the bio feedstocks are not necessarily all that less carbon intensive than the FF feedstock (e.g. ethanol).  As with most things in Chem E, there are half a dozen processes (FF and bio) to make the same stuff, and they all come out within 50% of the same cost.  The one we use today is the one that was cheapest 10-20 years ago, when we built the plant we are still amortizing in our v low margin business.

Given the above, you mostly see bioplastic rolled out in new products at small scale, where 'greenwashing' is desirable.  Compostable plastic packaging is hot right now, the kinks are still being worked out.


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 13, 2013)

stoveguy2esw said:


> easy, but more expensive. why did we get away from glass? cost, right? making car bumpers and water bottles outta corn or sugar cane is going to cost a heck of a lot more than using raw petro. until this is flipped to where its cheaper to make "bioplastics" petro will still be a money maker



Do the following estimate.....How much oil did you personally buy last year? Time 7 lbs per gallon.  How much plastic did you buy?  What is the ratio?  I would say in my family we buy ~15 gallons of gasoline per week.  That's 100 lbs.  I would be surprised if the plastic we bought adds up to 3 lbs total, mostly very flimsy packaging.  Only a few % of the oil stream is plastic, and if oil 'went away' there is enough biomass to substitute, even w/o reycycling.


----------



## DBNH22 (Dec 13, 2013)

jharkin said:


> . . . . . .
> 
> Its sad really, that Fox News and the like have built this image of environmentalism as some liberal world domination conspiracy theory... because at its root true environmentalism is actually a very classicaly _conservative_ idea - trying to preserve the natural world in its original state.
> 
> Since the 'can is closed my jedi powers sense a thread lock coming.....



Maybe we should make the distinction between environmentalism and militant environmentalism.  When you're someone who considers global warming a major problem it's probably not a good idea to compare those who disagree with you to Holocaust deniers.  I've always felt that the global warming debate consists of too much politics and too little objective, hard science.  We're told by the global warming alarmist crowd that the oil companies and those that question global warming at all have ulterior motives which are usually profit related or ignorance yet we're not allowed to question people like Al Gore and others who stand to make hundreds of millions of dollars through carbon credits and other green measures.  Personally I believe that the scientific truth with regard to global warming is severely obfuscated by the politics and special interests on both sides of the debate.  In any event I've found that the "plan for the worst, hope for the best," mentality serves us all well when dealing the price of oil or anything else in life.


----------



## jharkin (Dec 13, 2013)

woodgeek said:


> Plastics are a small part of the overall oil stream.  One easy way...ethanol to ethylene to polyethylene.  Easy Peasy.



Great for polethelyne.... What about ABS, PVC, Lexan, Delrin, or any number of other very useful industrial plastics?

Im all for more bioplastics.. But Im also a big believer in moving away from oil use as a fuel as much as is reasonably possible to preserve the reserves for use as raw materials in manufacturing.


----------



## jharkin (Dec 13, 2013)

Dana B said:


> Maybe we should make the distinction between environmentalism and militant environmentalism.  When you're someone who considers global warming a major problem it's probably not a good idea to compare those who disagree with you to Holocaust deniers.  I've always felt that the global warming debate consists of too much politics and too little objective, hard science.  We're told by the global warming alarmist crowd that the oil companies and those that question global warming at all have ulterior motives which are usually profit related or ignorance yet we're not allowed to question people like Al Gore and others who stand to make hundreds of millions of dollars through carbon credits and other green measures.  Personally I believe that the scientific truth with regard to global warming is severely obfuscated by the politics and special interests on both sides of the debate.  In any event I've found that the "plan for the worst, hope for the best," mentality serves us all well when dealing the price of oil or anything else in life.




I dont see where I compared anyone to a holocaust denier  (trying to invoke Godwin's law here?   )  , but the member I was responding to was pretty clear that he considered anyone who had any environmental leaning at all a tinfoil hat crackpot, a group that he lumped in with "liberals"   This sounds a lot like the FoxNews party line to me....


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Dec 13, 2013)

Im not an enviromentalist, but i am a realist. There is no good reason to foul our own nest. The human species tends to do that a lot. Especially if someone else has to eat the dirt. This planet has survived a collision with another planet,it will survive us. Its US that may not survive ,not the planet. Im already doing my part. My passive solar is heating my house as i type this. No FF needed.


----------



## DBNH22 (Dec 13, 2013)

jharkin said:


> I dont see where I compared anyone to a holocaust denier  (trying to invoke Godwin's law here?   )  , but the member I was responding to was pretty clear that he considered anyone who had any environmental leaning at all a tinfoil hat crackpot, a group that he lumped in with "liberals"   This sounds a lot like the FoxNews party line to me....




I didn't mean to imply that you had compared anyone to Holocaust Deniers.  I recall some ardent global warming alarmist making the public claim that those who question or deny anything about global warming are akin to Holocaust Deniers.  I don't recall exactly who it was but there have been other ridiculous things said by the global warming crowd about those who question them.  The point is that there is nothing wrong with being an environmentalist but there are certainly some who call themselves environmentalists that would like to dictate every aspect of our lives based on how they see environmental issues and who do not wish to engage in any rational debate as to the reasons behind the rules, laws, regulations etc that they seek to impose on everyone.


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 13, 2013)

Oy.  I needed to digest that for a minute.  Holocaust Denier?  Oh, I see, if I call someone who disagrees with the science of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) an 'AGW denier' I am now also calling them a Nazi?  Honestly haven't thought that or heard it before.  So, I guess the words 'denial' and 'denier' are hate speech now not to be used in polite company and the 'enlightened AGW disagreers' (hows that?) are now victims?  I'll try to remember....

With all due respect, Dana, you need to get out more.  Some nice folks at Exxon were funding 'disagreer' groups several years ago, and I actually got to see the Exxon folks presentation on AGW (and its lack of reality) back then.  The disagreer groups actually made some headway with public opinion, with the number of people thinking that 'AGW is real' going from a majority in the mid 2000s to a minority.  The 'Climate-Gate' nonsense was around that time.  FYI, this whole episode was a US phenomenon, the rest of the world has been on board with AGW, and taking at least halting steps forward, for 10+ years.

That was then, this is 2013.  The AGW agreers are now a majority in the US again, Exxon renounced all ties/$$ for 'disagreer' groups years ago, and all the oil majors are redoing all their financial projections assuming a price of C added to their products.  This is good practice, if a C-tax is levied, and Exxon isn't positioned and ready to make money in the new environment, someone in accounting didn't do their job.  I think this is evidence that the oil majors either have AGW religion, or at least assume that the hoax will successfully overtake the entire global population imminently and into the foreseeable future.


----------



## DBNH22 (Dec 13, 2013)

woodgeek said:


> Oy.  I needed to digest that for a minute.  Holocaust Denier?  Oh, I see, if I call someone who disagrees with the science of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) an 'AGW denier' I am now also calling them a Nazi?  Honestly haven't thought that or heard it before.  So, I guess the words 'denial' and 'denier' are hate speech now not to be used in polite company and the 'enlightened AGW disagreers' (hows that?) are now victims?  I'll try to remember....



I think you missed my point by a mile.  I did not say nor was I implying that anyone who believes in AGW and uses the word "denier," is actually calling someone a NAZi when when referring to those that do not in believe in AGW.  The point that I was trying to make is that there are individuals who've used their "environmentalism"  to make ridiculous and totally irrelvant statements about others.  Fact:  There was a public figure who, in arguing a case for the existence of AGW, claimed that AGW deniers are the same as Holocaust deniers.  I was referring to this person (I don't recall who it was but I'm sure a quick google search would reveal their identity) to illustrate the difference as I see it between environmentalism and militant environmentalism.  I actually don't believe that most people who call themselves environmentalists and/or care about the environment would make such an inane crass correlation as this person did.

You made mention of Exxon funding disagreer groups.  I don't think I've been overly sympathetic to the oil industry in my posts.  In fact if you'd just scroll up you can re-read what  what I actually wrote about both sides of the debate clouding the truth.  Maybe you'd at least have the decency to admit that their are some prominent, public individiuals beating the AGW drum that are actually not the completely altruistic souls whose only concern is the planet that they'd have us believe they are.  The oil companies aren't the only party that stands to make a boatload of cash with regard to this issue and if you think they are then might I suggest that it's you who needs to get out more.


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 13, 2013)

jharkin said:


> Great for polethelyne.... What about ABS, PVC, Lexan, Delrin, or any number of other very useful industrial plastics?
> 
> Im all for more bioplastics.. But Im also a big believer in moving away from oil use as a fuel as much as is reasonably possible to preserve the reserves for use as raw materials in manufacturing.



In my (inexpert) opinion, I thought anything you can make from crude oil you can make from 'pyrolysis oil' formed by the partial combustion of pretty much any biomass.

My point is that IMO all this 'no plastic' stuff is a Peak Oil scaremongering story....'Imagine a world without plastic, its everywhere!'

In reality, we can make it all from biomass (after all, oil is just cooked biomass), and the numbers say that there is plenty of biomass available to make what we need (unlike the case for using biomass for fuel).


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 13, 2013)

Dana B said:


> I think you missed my point by a mile.  I did not say nor was I implying that anyone who believes in AGW and uses the word "denier," is actually calling someone a NAZi when when referring to those that do not in believe in AGW.  The point that I was trying to make is that there are individuals who've used their "environmentalism"  to make ridiculous and totally irrelvant statements about others.  Fact:  There was a public figure who, in arguing a case for the existence of AGW, claimed that AGW deniers are the same as Holocaust deniers.  I was referring to this person (I don't recall who it was but I'm sure a quick google search would reveal their identity) to illustrate the difference as I see it between environmentalism and militant environmentalism.  I actually don't believe that most people who call themselves environmentalists and/or care about the environment would make such an inane crass correlation as this person did.
> 
> You made mention of Exxon funding disagreer groups.  I don't think I've been overly sympathetic to the oil industry in my posts.  In fact if you'd just scroll up you can re-read what  what I actually said about both sides of the debate clouding the truth.  Maybe you'd at least have the decency to admit that their are some prominent, public individiuals beating the AGW drum that are actually not the completely altruistic souls whose only concern is the planet that they'd have us believe they are.  The oil companies aren't the only party that stands to make a boatload of cash with regard to this issue and if you think they are then might I suggest that it's you who needs to get out more.



Thanks for the clarification.....really.

I don't think the oil cos are evil.  I think they are capitalists, actually pretty good ones (that I invest in), and if you read upthread, you would have a hard time finding anyplace where I demonized them or put ol whippingboy Al on a pedestal.  The oil majors have seen the light on AGW, if you don't believe in AGW (??) then _you _appear to be disagreeing with _them_.

Still, I am going to nitpick your rhetorical device of citing unnamed, uncited 'militant' extremists, who I have personally never experienced or seen.  I remember hearing somebody say once (I could prob google it up) that all environmentalists were terrorists who should be rounded up into labor camps. 

See how much fun it is?


----------



## DBNH22 (Dec 13, 2013)

woodgeek said:


> Thanks for the clarification.....really.
> 
> I don't think the oil cos are evil.  I think they are capitalists, actually pretty good ones (that I invest in), and if you read upthread, you would have a hard time finding anyplace where I demonized them or put ol whippingboy Al on a pedestal.  They have seen the light on AGW, if you don't believe in AGW (??) then _you _appear to be disagreeing with _them_.
> 
> ...



Well whomever said that is just as big an idiot as the person who made the remark about holocaust deniers.


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 13, 2013)

Nice Public Opinion on AGW paper: http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/files/Six-Americas-September-2012.pdf


----------



## DBoon (Dec 14, 2013)

Hi pruning@trunk, we value all opinions in this forum, but in general first post attacks are going to be met with some suspicion.  Participate, be open-minded and contribute to a good discussion.


----------



## billb3 (Dec 17, 2013)

stoveguy2esw said:


> easy, but more expensive. why did we get away from glass? cost, right? making car bumpers and water bottles outta corn or sugar cane is going to cost a heck of a lot more than using raw petro. until this is flipped to where its cheaper to make "bioplastics" petro will still be a money maker



cost of disposal/re-use is becoming more and more of a factor - a biodegradable bioplastic can be theoretically ground up and become soil or even a marketable soil amendment 
what the market doesn't respond to by consumer desire can also be nudged by regulations and other incentives


----------



## Pruning@trunk (Dec 23, 2013)

DBoon said:


> Hi pruning@trunk, we value all opinions in this forum, but in general first post attacks are going to be met with some suspicion.  Participate, be open-minded and contribute to a good discussion.




You say one thing but mean another. Your post can be like saying, 'I like everyone but I don't like you.' 

I stated my opinion and obviously it is different than yours so you call me out and say I am 'attacking'?  I love it! 

When you say be 'open-minded' does that go both ways? Or only when my views differs from yours?


----------



## Ashful (Dec 23, 2013)

*yawn*


----------



## pen (Dec 23, 2013)

Is there something to be added to this thread?  Or have we run into bad discourse?


----------



## BrotherBart (Dec 24, 2013)

Waiter. Check please.


----------



## webbie (Dec 24, 2013)

One thing you ALL have to agree on besides the fact that it's Xmas eve. That is that both I, the moderators and the site itself can never win!

Everyone complains that they can't talk about politics. Then they complain that they CAN talk about politics. Then they complain that we abridge free speech. Then they tell us the forum is not for free speech, but for helping people.....

Can't win for losing.....


----------

