Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 42
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    32
    Does everyone agree it is never good to use Gas or Oil as the primary heat source for homes. I believe it is always better for the environment and energy to use heat transfer to heat home regardless of the upfront cost. Have you heard of the Koyto Protocal.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    483
    The Kyoto protocol has not and will not be adopted in the US. For one it would destroy the U.S. economy, basically the automobile would have to go, as well as 50% of our electricity generation. Home heating accounts for only 2% of greenhouse gas emissions. The rest comes from industry and transportation. If global warming were being caused by mankind, the Kyoto protocol doesn't go far enough anyway, we would have to stop the use of all fossil fuels for several centuries before any effect could be seen. With new heating equipment being so efficient 80% or better and heating equipment only generation 2% of our greenhouse gas emmisions, there are better areas to make the cuts. The automobile only turns about 18-20% of the energy used into moving the vehicle. Getting the automobile to be 50-60% efficient would be a good start.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    32
    Originally posted by jdenyer
    The Kyoto protocol has not and will not be adopted in the US. For one it would destroy the U.S. economy, basically the automobile would have to go, as well as 50% of our electricity generation. Home heating accounts for only 2% of greenhouse gas emissions. The rest comes from industry and transportation. If global warming were being caused by mankind, the Kyoto protocol doesn't go far enough anyway, we would have to stop the use of all fossil fuels for several centuries before any effect could be seen. With new heating equipment being so efficient 80% or better and heating equipment only generation 2% of our greenhouse gas emmisions, there are better areas to make the cuts. The automobile only turns about 18-20% of the energy used into moving the vehicle. Getting the automobile to be 50-60% efficient would be a good start.
    I think you are right. But it was signed by others on FEB 16th and according to Whithouse news we will try to reduce greenhouse gases buy 18% bellow the 1993 levels by 2010. Everyone will need to do something to reach that. HVAC can and must do what we can. Using as much transfer of heat from GEO, Air and SUN will Help.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    32
    Originally posted by geoexchangeman
    Originally posted by jdenyer
    The Kyoto protocol has not and will not be adopted in the US. For one it would destroy the U.S. economy, basically the automobile would have to go, as well as 50% of our electricity generation. Home heating accounts for only 2% of greenhouse gas emissions. The rest comes from industry and transportation. If global warming were being caused by mankind, the Kyoto protocol doesn't go far enough anyway, we would have to stop the use of all fossil fuels for several centuries before any effect could be seen. With new heating equipment being so efficient 80% or better and heating equipment only generation 2% of our greenhouse gas emmisions, there are better areas to make the cuts. The automobile only turns about 18-20% of the energy used into moving the vehicle. Getting the automobile to be 50-60% efficient would be a good start.
    I think you are right. But it was signed by others on FEB 16th and according to Whithouse news we will try to reduce greenhouse gases buy 18% bellow the 1993 levels by 2010. Everyone will need to do something to reach that. HVAC can and must do what we can. Using as much transfer of heat from GEO, Air and SUN will Help.
    PS and making changes will help the econ.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Lancaster PA
    Posts
    67,702
    So does that mean you are in favor of building more nuke plants, so we burn less coal, oil, nat gas, and lp to generate electric.

    The hybird autos are a start, for the auto industry.
    Contractor locator map

    How-to-apply-for-Professional

    How many times must one fix something before it is fixed?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    483
    What Washington says and Washington does are 2 different things If the U.S. does reduce emissions voluntarily, it won't effect the heating bussiness that much. Also it would not be cost effective to get much more efficiency out of heating equipment. That money would be better spent getting automobile efficiency up, and getting power distribution efficiencies higher. New technologies will help, but even if they could get 99% efficiency out of fossil fueled heating equipment, it wouldn't be a drop in the bucket to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Heating equipment efficiencies won't be getting that much higher. Electric heat and electric heatpumps are actually worse, since so much energy is lost during the transmission of the power. A typical power plant can get 60% efficiency or higher, by the time it reaches your house it's something like 30%, not good The U.S. is looking into carbon sequestration as an option, basically taking the CO2 from power plants, liquefying it, and injecting it back into oil wells to make them productive again. The CO2 can also be injected deep into the ocean where it would remain for long periods. The U.S. depends on energy way to much to run it's economy to make any drastic cuts in use, without affecting our economy, or even our safety, after all a strong millitary requires a strong economy.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Dothan, Al
    Posts
    3,453

    Does anyone really believe.....

    That we have a global warming problem or that the ozone is being depleted as they say.
    Or maybe, its just a way for manufacturers to sell new equipment, recovery units. gages, etc.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    32
    Originally posted by beenthere
    So does that mean you are in favor of building more nuke plants, so we burn less coal, oil, nat gas, and lp to generate electric.

    The hybird autos are a start, for the auto industry.



    We are going west and build geothermal power producing plants. Read WhiteHouse news.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Concord, CA
    Posts
    2,633
    Originally posted by geoexchangeman
    Does everyone agree it is never good to use Gas or Oil as the primary heat source for homes.
    Most definitely not. The science behind fearful predictions of what would result from rising CO2 levels is far from sound. Consider the following:

    1) Warmer oceans would indeed melt the ice caps at a quicker rate. But warmer oceans also evaporate more quickly. The ice caps are replenished by freezing rain, snow, hail, etc. Sea levels could just as easily fall if things warm up. AND warmer weather during the El Nino years has been shown to cause the oceans to give up millions of tons less per year of CO2.
    2) Plants respond most with the least amount of input to higher CO2 levels. IF CO2 levels rose as high as some predict, plant production (food) would increase substantially. AND increased plant production would mean more CO2 removed.
    3) Historically humans have thrived during warmer periods. Less time fighting snow means more time to farm, invent, etc.

    Of course, all of that assumes global warming is even happening. The idea that we can predict the interactions of various Earth systems twenty years out when we can't even predict the weather 20 days out is nuts. Non-water vapor green house gases make up 3% of the total effect. Of that, man made contributions are a minority. Man's influence on the total green house effect is estimated by some to be .28%. In other words, CO2 fear mongering is more a political football of the left than it is legitimate science.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    32
    Originally posted by jdenyer
    What Washington says and Washington does are 2 different things If the U.S. does reduce emissions voluntarily, it won't effect the heating bussiness that much. Also it would not be cost effective to get much more efficiency out of heating equipment. That money would be better spent getting automobile efficiency up, and getting power distribution efficiencies higher. New technologies will help, but even if they could get 99% efficiency out of fossil fueled heating equipment, it wouldn't be a drop in the bucket to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Heating equipment efficiencies won't be getting that much higher. Electric heat and electric heatpumps are actually worse, since so much energy is lost during the transmission of the power. A typical power plant can get 60% efficiency or higher, by the time it reaches your house it's something like 30%, not good The U.S. is looking into carbon sequestration as an option, basically taking the CO2 from power plants, liquefying it, and injecting it back into oil wells to make them productive again. The CO2 can also be injected deep into the ocean where it would remain for long periods. The U.S. depends on energy way to much to run it's economy to make any drastic cuts in use, without affecting our economy, or even our safety, after all a strong millitary requires a strong economy.
    You need to study more. Oil and gas is all ready about to pass the cost of electricity at 1 to 1 cop let alone 3 to 1 COP for ASHP and 5 to 1 COP for WSHP.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    42
    It won't happen... unless more hydro or nuke power generation is built. NG is now becoming the fuel of choice for electric generation here in the west and is one of the demand forces that is causing the cost to rise.

    As mentioned before, from a macro view, electric transmission loss is very high and doesn't make much sense to use NG to produce electricity. Direct use of NG is preferable.

    Until fuel cell technology comes of age, NG is one of the best fuels we have.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    483
    Originally posted by nwgasman
    It won't happen... unless more hydro or nuke power generation is built. NG is now becoming the fuel of choice for electric generation here in the west and is one of the demand forces that is causing the cost to rise.

    As mentioned before, from a macro view, electric transmission loss is very high and doesn't make much sense to use NG to produce electricity. Direct use of NG is preferable.

    Until fuel cell technology comes of age, NG is one of the best fuels we have.
    Well said nwgasman. Fuels cells would allow on site power and heat generation, but what would fuel the fuel cells? Direct hydrogen is to volatile and explosive. I think we will end up seeing NG, oil and coal gas being run through reformers to give up its hydrogen. Also biodiesel is one way that greenhouse gas emissions could be cut, both in transportation and heating.

    geoexchangeman, cost and efficiency are two very different things. How is generating electricity 500 miles away at 60% efficiency, tranporting it and distributing it, loosing another 30% more effiecient than burning it directly on site with an 80% or better efficiency? In the northeast we pay about 12cents a kwh, and $1.79/gallon for oil. For me to use electricity to generate 100,000 btu's it would cost me about $3.63. I could generate 112,000 btus of heat from one gallon of oil costing me $1.79, and that includes losing 20% of it's heat value up the stack. Hmmmm, which form of heat do you think I should use? Geothermal is not accesible in all areas, and on a residential scale would be very cost prohibitive. Sure geothermal would be great to produce electricity, but it alone will not solve our thirst for energy.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    in a house, Appomattox, Va.
    Posts
    3,249
    I believe this has come up over on heatinghelp.com. Nuclear vs fossil fuel, etc.
    Yesterday I heard that most of man's pollution doesn't even come from the US, but from all those home cooking fires in Eastern Asia/China.
    Direct use makes sense, no transmission losses. But 50% eff on transmission? Come on. They boost the power to 770kV to drop the amperage, Power loss is porportional to the square of amperage so 1/2ing the amperage cuts losses to a quarter, right?
    AT one time all that fossil fuel was plants and animals, which used solar energy to convert carbon dioxide in the air into carbon for living cells. Its not like the stuff was NEVER there to begin with.
    Col 3:23


    questions asked, answers received, ignorance abated

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event