THE Winter Heating Thread (merged)

[Guest]

Yes it's important to look after the enviroment, but it gets to a point when we are just being silly. If there is something we want in the enviroment, there's no reason why we can't extract it resposibly. It's abit like a child, you can over care too much for the child, and it's not healthy for the child. My point is I believe the environment is less fragile than what many enviromentalists make it out to be. The ozone layer regenerates itself, cfc's do not cause any damage, the hole is natural, it expands and contacts every year. I have also explained many times on this forum that co2 does not cause global warming, with proof and infact co2 is good for the environment and us. People say look at all the hurricans, we I say thats natural, and if infact there weren't any hurricans this year, I would have been very suprised as the scientist say that the US is an a hurrican cycle period and is not out of the ordinary.

While I agree with you that it is likely that the environment is not as fragile as some people make it out to be (I suppose that's a matter of the scale that one observes, i.e., I notice big changes in a few little things, and little change in most big things) -

Burning waste oil is just plain stupid. It is filled with heavy metals, additives like PCBs, and trace fuel that tend to be quite toxic and form various aerosols and smoke, not combusting completely. Waste oil can easily be filtered and reused, it takes much more energy to get more crude and refine it to motor oil (although it may be cheaper dollarwise at $10/barrel) than to recyle the waste oil you have. Next of course, is the issue of supply - if you run a garage that does lots of oil changes, maybe you have a constant supply, but it is not possible (thank god) for everyone to burn waste oil, or used oil which is the proper term.

Why not just burn plastic bags from wallyworld to heat? At least they have fewer metals in them.....burning waste oil is a lose-lose situation.

[basil_hayden]

My thoughts above^^^^, login failed I guess..

[untothislast]

It's a fair point . . . the planet will endure pretty much whatever we throw at it. Some other life forms will ultimately emerge and thrive despite the mess we leave behind as our legacy. But is this what you want?

Our problem, is that the conditions we need to survive here as a species, have only existed for what is an historically short time. Further, the latitude of variability allowed - the temperatures within which crops will grow (for example) or that fish can survive in the oceans - is alarmingly narrow.

We tinker with the settings at our peril.

[aahala]

Where do you think you can get vast quantities of waste oil anyway? Are
you going to tour the countryside in your SUV looking for it?

Say you find a continuing source. Every few weeks you can walk 6 miles,
strap the 50 lbs. tank on your back and walk back.

And how about the idea that for $40 bucks and ordinary skill, one can
whip up a burning unit suitable for heating a building of any sort. The damn
thing could very well malfunction and burn the building down.

I needed a good laugh, so thanks for the thread.

[Dukat_Reloaded]

There will allways be fish in the sea, GW will not effect them much, if it warms up, fish which like the warmth will move to the warmer parts, and fish which like it colder will move north or south. Regardless of that, my point is everyone now lives in cities and rarely ventures into nature. Nature is on the nature channel and it's all reruns anyway. Yes in the future the land won't look as good as it did before, but does a falling tree make a sound when no one is there to hear it? Alot of resources are spent trying to "preserve" the environment, but it's a waste of resources doing so because sooner or later the tree everyone is trying to protect will be cut down anyway. I used to care about the natural environment but it's a waste of time now bothering, does it make any difference if a forest is cut down 10 years from now because everyone didn't care, or the forest being cut down in 50 years time because enviromentalists put up so much red tape that the loggers had to fight for every tree they cut down, slowly but surely they win in the end. Say your holding onto a weight attached to a pully over a cliff. The weight is too great for you to pull it up or keep it stable, it is slowly lowering while your getting friction burns on your hands. You know sooner or later that the weight will reach the ground, so why not just let go and save the friction burns on your hands, the weight will reach the ground faster, but really does it matter?, the end result will be the same.

[dbarberic]

Northern Tool sells a waste oil heater that cranks out 120,000 BTU!



http://tinyurl.com/chrwy

Some people mentioned lead and other harmful stuff in burning waste oil, but I can't imagine that the EPA would approve this thing if it let to much harmful stuff in the air.

[Guest]

I work in the environmental business. Specifically, I'm a stack tester. 15 years.

I've done emissions testing for just about every pollutant you can think of from every combustion process known to man.

The dirtiest process by far is cement manufacure. They burn coal, tires, hazwaste, and medical waste in the kilns because it does not make any difference in pollution rates.

Probably the second nastiest is the wood waste boilers at sawmills and paper plants. The metals emissions from these places is pretty amazing. Everything in the soil ends up in the bark--the boiler--the air. Lead, zinc, copper, chromium,.

Coal burning is also nasty. Everything on the periodic table is in coal. It then goes out the stack. This includes a lot of radionuclides that result in a HUGE amount of radiation released into the environment. (not to mention all of the mercury)

I've seen a lot of oil analyses for wear metals. If there was a lot of wear metals in waste oil, the engine would not be on the road for long. There are a lot of acids, oddball hydrocarbons, and tars that form in waste oil. That is why you have to change it.

Granted, recycling it is a better idea, but in the real world: This stuff is burned in hot-mix asphalt plants (big ol' nasty unburned hydrocarbon plume), sometimes made into chainsaw bar oil, and used as a fuel in boilers. THe EPA has identified on-site disposal (waste-oil heaters) as one of the best disposal options. There is currently a very limited market for waste oil as an industrial feedstock. It is a waste disposal problem.

If burned to completion, waste oil is a pretty sound fuel source. From engines subjected to average use, the metals emissions would be very low, less than wood. If the fire is going and the bed of coals is hot, complete combustion would result in little other thaan CO2 and H2O goung up the flue.

PCB (and other mixed-waste) contaminated oil would be very illegal to do this with. Fortunately, unless you go out with your DeWalt and a bucket to your nearest substation and steal the oil out of a big transformer, you will never encounter PCB. Given desperation, however, people will burn what they can.

Burning chlorine-containing substances, such as wire is very bad for you. Dioxins are produced hence. The guy in the Ukraine can tell you about this. Polyethelene and other non-chlorinated plastics are pretty safe to burn is complete combustion is assured.

Natural gas is the best hydrocarbon in terms of pollution relases. But, if you are inclined to think that this is " green energy" I would like to invite you to a well site, a gas plant, or a scrap pile full of radioactive pipe from a gas processing plant. You might have a different opinion then.

Best (only viable) option to reduce our impact on the environment is to consume less of everything.

[aflatoxin]

The above post is my handiwork. Not sure why it came though as Guest.

If someone wants to prove me wrong on this topic, I have over a million dollars worth of ait pollution test equipment at my disposal. I like single-malt scotch, and fine bourbon.

[shakespear1]

Wow, that is amazing !!! But now that I think about it , it makes sense. The plants pull a lot of stuff out of the ground and if you burn them it goes up in the air.

Thanks for this insight.

[basil_hayden]

Thanks afla, I'm in the biz too, but as a geologist I see it after it infiltrates the ground.

Nearly every waste oil underground storage tank site I've worked on in CT has elevated heavy metals, particularly lead, chromium, cadmium, as well as a smattering of PCBs. Maybe these are not concentrated as highly in used oil as in some of the sources you presented, I've heard of cement kiln issues before. Former manufactured gas plants have some nasty stuff also, including cyanide from one of the processes used.

I guess what it comes down to is that in the end, we burn everything, that is the acceptable disposal method, out of sight - out of mind. At one time it was pour it in the ground, but that came back and bit us with groundwater contamination.

Nothing quite like the PAHs in bourbon.

[aflatoxin]

Most of the Lead in waste oil is probably from gasoline. I see this a lot working on SVE's at old gas stations.

Chromium and Cadmium are probably from antifreeze formulations of the same vintage.

These do a pretty splendid job of poisoning the catalysts on the thermal oxidizers, don't they?

Newer waste oil should be much cleaner. Few people still have waste oil from the 70's in their garages.

As an interesting aside, I've been told that zinc and cadmium are hard to seperate. As a consequence, there is a lot of cadmium in tires. (something to do with the Vulcanizing process) There is so much cadmium in the dirt on the side of the roads (from tire dust), it is hazwaste, and the dust is apparently pretty bad to breathe. Wear your respirator when on the bike.

Cars are death on wheels. For any number of reasons.

[shakespear1]

I suspected a lot of what I read here, but still it is intersting to read and learn.

Guess it is not strange why trips to the hospitals for cancers are so prevalent in the West.

[Leanan]

From Christian Science Monitor (reprinted in USA Today):

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1129/p01s02-usec.html

From Maine to Florida, from Virginia to Missouri, as much as half the United States confronts the possibility that harshly cold weather will lead to restrictions of natural-gas supplies. In some places - areas heavily dependent on natural gas to produce electricity - the prospect of "rolling blackouts," or controlled power outages, is much higher than in previous winters.

Any natural-gas cutoffs would primarily affect electric-power plants and factories fueled by gas, not homes, and be most likely in the Northeast.

If cold deepens for prolonged periods, the likelihood of interrupted natural-gas supplies rises to 30 percent in the Northeast and to 10 percent as far south as Florida and as far west as Missouri, according to a recent report by the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA), a trade association representing gas pipeline companies. In a "worst-case" scenario, chances of interrupted gas rise to 40 percent for the Northeast and 25 percent across the eastern seaboard.

They blame the hurricanes:

Winter began mildly, and natural-gas storage caverns are now almost full. Still, hurricane damage continues to block about 6 percent of the nation's gas supply flowing through pipelines north from the Gulf of Mexico. The government reported last week that 32 percent of the Gulf supply remains "shut in" - a loss of 3.2 billion cubic feet per day. That's at the high end of the range the INGAA predicts will be "missing" this winter.

This missing flow of gas could be critical in mid- to late winter, when reserves are drawn down.

"This loss of supply - even if only temporary - is cause for concern," Phillip Wright of Williams Pipeline, the nation's second largest gas transporter, told Congress this month. "It cannot be emphasized enough that storage supplements, but does not replace, natural gas flowing through the interstate pipeline network."

[aahala]

Here in Missouri, I'm experiencing my first (self-imposed) NG cutoff.
It's beginning to feel a whole lot more like Christmas

In seeing this thread, I recalled I hadn't looked at the gas meter for
three days and it's only been since then it has gotten cold. I had been
doing so well keeping useage way down but not so much a last few
days.

So I looked at my gas history online. BS! The gas service company
has raised rates by 27%. Three months ago they had raised by 21%.
So I'm now paying 55% more than 13 months ago.

I don't need a beard to play Santa in here, icecycles are forming on my
face.

[PeakOiler]

I stole the following analysis from an AOL message board AOL Message Board
and thought some readers might be interested in "MCarr's" number crunching.

Quote:
"A visit to the "Commodities Corner" column in Barron's 11/28/05 indicated that LNG imports for the 3rd quarter were 23% below the year ago number. The reasons include that LNG export facilities lack the necessary capacity and some other countries have upped their imports. There are 9 large export facilities scheduled to come on line by the end of 2006 so by this time next year there should be a lot more available.

The latest information that I could find quickly at the DOE site was updated through Aug 2005. For Jul and Aug 2004 the LNG imports were 75 and 59.5 bcfd. For Jul and Aug 2005 the LNG imports were 53.1 and 43.6 bcf so the drop has been significant. On a daily basis we can estimate that the drop was
(75 + 59.5 - 53.1 -43.6) / 62 = 37.8 / 62 = 0.61 bcfd or about 4.2 bcfw.

If we extend this into November then we would be missing another 4.2 bcf during the week ended 11/18/05 which just adds a little more to the perplexing question of where all the gas is coming from or where it is not being used. .

Why stop with LNG estimates? I looked at the same data for pipeline imports published by the DOE. For the months Jan through May of this year pipeline imports were greater than last year. but in June and August they were substantially less. For example in August they were almost 44 bcf lower (1.42 bcfd). The month with the biggest increase over last year was March when about 35 bcf more was imported. Unfortunately we don't have any data for November but we can make a worst case estimate. In November of last year we imported 327.5 bcf. Looking at the data since Jan 2002 the highest import month was about 350 bcf. Assuming that this is the maximum that can be imported then the largest amount by which imports in November could have exceeded last years imports would be about 22.5 bcf (0.75 bcfd/5.25/wk). Previous reports from Canada do not paint a picture favorable to increased exports especially when you consider that they require more gas to increase production of oil sands.

My conclusion is that it is not likely then that imports could account for a significant portion of the 80+ bcf that was identified in previous posts. In fact when the data is all in, it may turn out that imports join the GOM in providing less gas vs last year.

U.S. Natural Gas Imports by Country
Info from previous post follows:
===========================================

The MMS data for the week ended 11/19/04 indicates that shut in production in the GOM was approximately 7 X .67847 = 4.75 bcf. This compares to the approximate 26 bcf shut in for the week ended 11/18/05. You can adjust the calculations in the previous post to reflect this info.
Production in the GOM (when shut ins are restored) would be 10 bcfd(11/18/05) and 12.3 bcfd(1/18/04) according to the reports
Therefore, new production minus depletion in the GOM is a negative 2.3 bcfd or 16.1 bcf/week if the MMS reports are accurate. If there were no shut in production in either year, production contributed from the GOM would be 16.1 bcf/week less this year than last.
The difference in production from last year including the shut ins would be:
(12.3 bcfd - .67847 bcfd) * 7 = 81.35 bcf {11/19/04}
(10 bcf - 3.617 bcfd) * 7 = 44.681 bcf {11/18/05}
81.35 bcf/week - 44.681 bcfw = 36.67 bcf/week
Production from the GOM for the week ended 11/18/05 was therefore 36.67 bcf less than last year. New land based production minus depletion would have to be pretty large to compensate for this GOM decline.Also recall that the draw down for 11/19/04 was 49 bcf vs 8 bcf this year even though it was considerable colder this year than last.
Logic would dictate that the draw down this year would have been greater than last even if GOM production was equal in the two years so we are talking about (36.67 + 41 + Factor for colder weather = > 80 bcf).
If you are inclined to make calculations like I am, let me know if you agree. Links to the two reports as well as the relevant excerpt follow.
11/18/05"

<<End Quote>>

[IslandCrow]

BBC report

US consumers will pay on average 10% more to warm their homes this winter than they did last year, according to a government forecast.

I notice that the short article ranks different fuels used for heating with oil going up most (18%), natural gas next (10%), and electricity only by 4%. This fits well with a lot of the models of how close to peak we are in each area.

[Jack]

That should go well with those Christmas bills!

Seriously, I think the economy - at least, the economy from the perspective of the bottom two socioeconomic quintiles - is going to be in distress soon.

Peak cometh....

[Revi]

I saw a price of $2.69.9 a gallon today for heating oil. That's already over 10% up from last winter here. It can only go up from here, with the dollar tanking so hard. Scary.

We know a person who put her last $7 into her heating oil tank, in October! It hasn't even frosted yet here. This is going to be a nasty winter for the poor and the working poor. I am glad we have a woodstove!

[markcl]

Winter will be here soon and there is very little winter diesel fuel to be had here in east South Dakota or west Minnesota, I took the last 28 gallons in Milbank.It is needed in all trucks and tractors and outdoor stored home heating oil at temps just below freezing. Maybe the roads will be just big parking lots.

[SILENTTODD]

The Dakotas and Minnesota were all settled before the age of oil. What did people use to do then, how did they stay warm? (Of course as long as they kept their Horses or Mules alive through winter they didn’t have to worry if the machinery would work next spring).