Natural gas... if anyone's interested.

Sal Santamaura

Jamie Hall said:

...@Sal Santamaura asks what income level I might regard as low income. Well... first, it varies -- obviously -- by location, not just in this country but over the world. For families in the immediate area I live and work in, it would be anything less than around 70 to 80 K for a family. In the San Francisco Bay area, which I also know since I have relatives there, perhaps twice that. In eastern Kentucky (more relatives!) it would be half that -- but they'd run you out of town with a shotgun if you cane around and told them what to do!...

Sounds good. It would be relatively straightforward to structure a program with reimbursements tied to Zip Code. As for those eastern Kentuckians, they'd be free to shoot or cane the subsidy gift horse, but when fossil fuels were cut off they'd be a-cookin' and a-heatin' with wood. That would increase their local particulate pollution, but at least it's not a fossil fuel and doesn't contribute to global warming.

Jamie Hall said:

...It was suggested that it might be possible for the US to "incentivize" China -- or other nations -- to behave the way we -- the US -- want them to. I have no intention to incite a riot here, nor indeed to actually upset anyone, but... in an honest and careful examination, what gives us -- or any country -- the right to "incentivize" -- either by trade or by force -- any other country of group of people to do what we want them to?...

The rights of individuals/countries only go as far as they don't impinge on the rights of other individuals/countries.

Just as the population of the U.S. has a right to life, which is threatened by global warming, the entire population of this planet has a right to life, which is threatened by global warming. What gives the U.S. a right to incentivize any other country to reduce (with a goal of total elimination as soon as possible) greenhouse gas emissions is the fact that warming threatens life for billions of people on this planet. By the way, it's not "what we want them to." It's what's required for humanity to survive, much less thrive.

Jamie Hall said:

..."I think that we have decided that you must..." is not a good way to start a conversation...

No conversation necessary. The world has always run on and responded only to money. The trade incentives would speak for themselves. Should China wish to throw away one fifth of its market, oh well. Those U.S. incomes you mentioned would likely increase markedly as we stopped importing lots of Chinese junk and started producing goods here.

jumper

Eventually somebody somewhere will convert thorium and U238 to fissile fuels. Eventually somebody somewhere will build a nuke that produces economical energy.
So I don't worry like you guys. If we had adopted Preident Nixon's suggestion for carbon taxes and President Carter's suggestion to develop U233 we'd be there by now.

I also bet that envirowhacko s will come up with some new pending disaster for the worried to worry about.

Jamie Hall

jumper said:

Eventually somebody somewhere will convert thorium and U238 to fissile fuels. Eventually somebody somewhere will build a nuke that produces economical energy.
So I don't worry like you guys. If we had adopted Preident Nixon's suggestion for carbon taxes and President Carter's suggestion to develop U233 we'd be there by now.

I also bet that envirowhacko s will come up with some new pending disaster for the worried to worry about.

yup

Jamie Hall

One further comment -- since all this has well and truly derailed. Somewhere up there were two comments: first, that something is needed for humanity to survive, and second that we all have to do this for the common good.

May I humbly submit that with regard to the first, we all -- every single one of us -- must die; whether we survive as a race or species is quite immaterial and indeed irrelevant. Second, appealing to the common good presupposes that in some manner it is possible to determine what actually is the common good. I would contend that determining what is the common good is simply not possible for any group of people, although it may be possible to agree within a small group on a least common denominator, without resort to a source outside of an observing the group.

But remember, friends, I'm sort of an odd duck...

my signature, in full --

Brother Jamie, Order of Saint Benedict

Sal Santamaura

Jamie Hall said:

...every single one of us -- must die; whether we survive as a race or species is quite immaterial and indeed irrelevant...

Immaterial and irrelevant to you, perhaps, but not to those "ones of us" who are concerned about the suffering that global warming is inflicting and will continue to inflict on people without coping means, people who will suffer more and die sooner than they would if the issue were appropriately addressed.

Jamie Hall said:

...appealing to the common good presupposes that in some manner it is possible to determine what actually is the common good...

A habitable planet is very difficult to argue against as being a "common good."

Jamie Hall said:

...But remember, friends, I'm sort of an odd duck...

my signature, in full --

Brother Jamie, Order of Saint Benedict

Quite a signature block for someone so seemingly opposed to measures that would first and foremost benefit the least among us.

The Steam Whisperer

With nuclear there is also another fundamental problem if you are going to build them in a free market situation..... no one will insure them.
The Navy is not in nearly as precarious situation as a land based reactor if any of the typical scenarios happen....sea water is a very effective shield to nuclear accidents and disperses the radiation much more safely. Of course if this happens enough times, it probably will begin being a problem...like the low level radiation from the Japan reactors ending up on the US western seaboard already detected.

The Steam Whisperer

ChrisJ said:

The Steam Whisperer said:

Also, when figuring the EER on a central air unit, you cannot use the published data because the wattage draw on the indoor unit fan and its heat generation is not included in the numbers. If you figure 3000 watts for a 12 EER outdoor unit and then add the 600 watt draw of a 1/2 HP blower, and then subtract the heat generated by the 600 watt motor (.600kw x 3413 btu/KW) you end of we the real EER of a central air unit.
Total cooling capacity to home 36,000 btu/hr - 2047 btu/hr ( motor heat) = 33952 btu/hr
Total power draw 3000 x 600 = 3600 watts

Real EER = 33952 btu/hr /3600 watts = 9.43 EER

Published EER+ 36000btu/hr/ 3000 watts = 12 EER

Since they used the actual air handler I'm using in the test and even published the RPM the ECM blower was running at, I find it hard to believe the small amount of power the blower uses wasn't included in the overall test. They would need to intentionally measure the blower consumption and then remove it from the test results.

Would they actually do that?

I believe I measured something like 240-300 watts when I checked it.

I have never found any evidence that they include the power drawn and heat generated by the blower anywhere in the efficiency calculations for forced air systems. I believe they only measure the outdoor equipment power draw for the calcs. Leaving out the power draw and heat output of the blower applies to both cooling and heat efficiencies. This practice artificially increases the AFUE of furnaces by a much higher factor than hot water or steam, which use much smaller amounts of power. In heating mode the energy used by the blower is ignored as energy input and the extra heat it supplies is assumed to be coming from the heating fuel source, so the numbers end up being swayed in favor of an artificially high efficiency. It's been awhile, but I'm pretty sure I spent some time talking to the Gas Institute in Chicago ( the gas industry's research arm for the U.S) about this very issue and they said they had been trying for decades to get the AFUE rating system changed to account for these issues. NO LUCK! But it doesn't surprise me, since the forced air manufacturer's control the market and it would make thier equipment look less efficient when compared to the alternatives.

What I remember reading long ago is that the manufacturer would not guarantee that the SEER rating of the outdoor unit would be met unless using a particular indoor air handler. This would cover the potential mismatch that often happens in many installations.
Your 240 to 300 watt motor reading sounds like what would be expected with an ECM.... usually about 1/2 the power usage of an equivalent conventional motor.
We are now using ECM motored power burners for our larger (1 million btu's and up) steam boilers and are heating 50,000 sq ft buildings with that same amount of power usage. It was something that had bugged me for a long time.... the large power draw of the blower motors on high gas efficiency burners. The heavy power usage of the power burner ate up a piece of the savings in fuel usage over simple atmospheric boilers. Now it not nearly as much of an issue.

ChrisJ

The Steam Whisperer said:

ChrisJ said:

The Steam Whisperer said:

Also, when figuring the EER on a central air unit, you cannot use the published data because the wattage draw on the indoor unit fan and its heat generation is not included in the numbers. If you figure 3000 watts for a 12 EER outdoor unit and then add the 600 watt draw of a 1/2 HP blower, and then subtract the heat generated by the 600 watt motor (.600kw x 3413 btu/KW) you end of we the real EER of a central air unit.
Total cooling capacity to home 36,000 btu/hr - 2047 btu/hr ( motor heat) = 33952 btu/hr
Total power draw 3000 x 600 = 3600 watts

Real EER = 33952 btu/hr /3600 watts = 9.43 EER

Published EER+ 36000btu/hr/ 3000 watts = 12 EER

Since they used the actual air handler I'm using in the test and even published the RPM the ECM blower was running at, I find it hard to believe the small amount of power the blower uses wasn't included in the overall test. They would need to intentionally measure the blower consumption and then remove it from the test results.

Would they actually do that?

I believe I measured something like 240-300 watts when I checked it.

I have never found any evidence that they include the power drawn and heat generated by the blower anywhere in the efficiency calculations for forced air systems. I believe they only measure the outdoor equipment power draw for the calcs. Leaving out the power draw and heat output of the blower applies to both cooling and heat efficiencies. This practice artificially increases the AFUE of furnaces by a much higher factor than hot water or steam, which use much smaller amounts of power. In heating mode the energy used by the blower is ignored as energy input and the extra heat it supplies is assumed to be coming from the heating fuel source, so the numbers end up being swayed in favor of an artificially high efficiency. It's been awhile, but I'm pretty sure I spent some time talking to the Gas Institute in Chicago ( the gas industry's research arm for the U.S) about this very issue and they said they had been trying for decades to get the AFUE rating system changed to account for these issues. NO LUCK! But it doesn't surprise me, since the forced air manufacturer's control the market and it would make thier equipment look less efficient when compared to the alternatives.

What I remember reading long ago is that the manufacturer would not guarantee that the SEER rating of the outdoor unit would be met unless using a particular indoor air handler. This would cover the potential mismatch that often happens in many installations.
Your 240 to 300 watt motor reading sounds like what would be expected with an ECM.... usually about 1/2 the power usage of an equivalent conventional motor.
We are now using ECM motored power burners for our larger (1 million btu's and up) steam boilers and are heating 50,000 sq ft buildings with that same amount of power usage. It was something that had bugged me for a long time.... the large power draw of the blower motors on high gas efficiency burners. The heavy power usage of the power burner ate up a piece of the savings in fuel usage over simple atmospheric boilers. Now it not nearly as much of an issue.

Hmmm.

Doing some quick math, if they didn't actually include the blower motor, that would drop the 12.2EER down to 11.54. Still not a huge difference and even during a bad month the blower costs me $20 or less to run.

Being as I had an apples to apples comparison of 2 tons of window units vs 3 tons of central air over multiple years now to compare, I still feel confident the central air is significantly cheaper to run. Both were set to similar temperatures (72-ish during the day, 68-70 at night) and we've seen both mild summers and heat waves with both.

I'm not saying that's the case for everyone. I'm sure ductwork and the quality of the system has a huge factor in things.

I'd also add, if the EER of split systems is misleading I would have to assume the same for window units. Look at how small the condenser and evaporators are along with the poor insulation and the fact they use a cap tube setup. There's a reason they're so cheap.


Perhaps we need to switch to talking about absorption cooling. At least that could be related to natural gas at the end user.

The Steam Whisperer

Actually I think its 10.85 EER... I think you forgot to subtract the added heat from the motor operating in the cooling air stream.

ChrisJ

The Steam Whisperer said:

Actually I think its 10.85 EER... I think you forgot to subtract the added heat from the motor operating in the cooling air stream.

See. I still have issues with this because look at the size of a 3 ton 16 seer (12.2 EER) condenser which you're saying is really 10.85 and then look at the size of the condenser on any 10 EER window unit 

Somehow the enormous split unit is almost the same EER as a tiny (for it's output) window unit and that doesn't make sense.

I just got an 18 SEER 3 ton at the shop and it's even bigger.

Out of curiosity I'd love to know the liquid temperature on a typical window unit when it's 95F out because something tells me it's not 100F.

I'm still not convinced but at the same time I'm still not convinced I'm right either.

The Steam Whisperer

That big outdoor split unit is generating a lot more btu's, but the fan is wasting a chunk of it. On my little 1 ton window unit, they have the tiny micro-channel type coils and the fan motor is in the outside air steam, not the inside airstream. We use a floor fan to circulate the air around the house.

Talking A/C in a nat. gas thread really isn't off since a big chunk of our nat gas usage goes to powering A/C.

ChrisJ

@The Steam Whisperer I meant the size the condenser it is vs it's output.

Would 3 of your 1 ton window units add up to as much condenser as a 3 ton high efficiency split unit?  Plenty of them have microchannel we it should be possible to compare.

The Steam Whisperer

WE'd have to find a 10 EER condensor unit for a real comparison...do they even make those anymore?

ChrisJ

The Steam Whisperer said:

WE'd have to find a 10 EER condensor unit for a real comparison...do they even make those anymore?

A standard 13 or 14 SEER would probably be close.

Jamie Hall

To go baclk to natural gas for the moment... the price of the stuff has just about doubled in Europe in the last month...

The Steam Whisperer

I've seen it double here in Chicago too.... however it started at $0.20 therm.... lower than its been since the early 70's, I believe. It's run about $0.33/therm for at least the last 30 years in Chicago, except the spike about 15 years ago and then the low of $0.20 last year.

I just replaced 6 leaky, poorly fitting wood storms on the west and north sides with nice tight Low E storms today. I've got to fix a couple latches on the interior windows to make sure the weather stripping is sealed when the windows are closed. Going to plug a big air leak around a stack soon too. That should help balance out any nat gas cost increases. Here in Chicago, the problem isn't the cost of the gas, but the obscene People's Gas charges. They amounted to 59% of our yearly gas bill in 2019 ( 10% taxes and 31% nat gas cost), and they have since raised them another 20% to about 63% of our yearly gas bill. During the summer the overall cost of nat gas is $3.00/ therm used. In the winter about $1.00 per therm used.

JDHW

I am afraid the gas price increases are a bit greater than Jamie Hall indicated - have a look at https://www.catalyst-commercial.co.uk/wholesale-gas-prices/ price increase for next day delivery has gone up nearly 400% since march!

For the UK it gets much better. We have messed around over energy policy for years and now it is crunch time since we are increasingly relying on inter connectors to to the rest of europe and these are much cheaper than building infrastructure that actually generates power. Over the past few weeks there has been little wind and we are burning lots of gas and coal to compensate. Now last Thursday there was a fire at one of the converter stations and that will be out of action for a while taking 2GW of import capability away (this is about 6% of demand). Spot wholesale electricity prices peaked around £3.20 per kWH this week. When it's windy there are around £0.05.

Looking forward to our government explaining that rolling power cuts to limit demand are really good for the environment and we should be happy. We are hosting some big climate change summit in November so we obviously need to lead by example.

In a good mood this morning!

Best Wishes
John.

Jamie Hall

The tragedy -- and it is a tragedy -- is that humanity has the technology available, and has had it for decades, to avoid the whole catastrophe (well, not the whole catastrophe anymore -- about 3 metres of sea level rise is now inevitable; that train left the station about 5 years ago). Without the hair shirt. But refuses to use it...

The Steam Whisperer

It sounds a lot like the US in terms of politics. Essentially there have been those that have tried to eliminate the Department of Energy all together. It was basically gutted completely during the Reagan years (1980's) but I think began to get more funding under Bush and then Clinton, as there was research work completed in the early 1990's and auto fuel economy standards were raised. We are lucky to have broader resources available to help balance outages, but our energy grids are decrepit ( at least here in Illinois) and we are using about twice as much energy per capita and are much more spread out than the UK. Long range planning bad, "free" markets good.... has been the trumpet cry. Unfortunately "Free" markets seem to be mostly reactive ( like calling the police after a crime), so prevention of problems doesn't really occur. As Jamie said , while a 3 metre rise in sea levels appear inevitable, we will probably do nothing until most of our major coastal cities are under water based on free market response.
It seems free markets haven't even been working. It's been decades that energy efficiency measures have been cost effective for companies and individuals, yet few improvements have been made. Here in Chicago, upgrading lighting in stores to LED has had about a 2 year payback for about 8 years, yet nearly all the chain stores have not made the switch and the few that have have only been in the past year. The City of Chicago got on the ball about 2 years ago and converted the complete street lighting system to LED in about 4 months time. Now that I think about it, that may have kicked the corporations upside the head to get more efficient and more profitable. I would imagine that the reduction in energy use for both lighting and summer cooling ( since the huge lighting load makes for a a lot bigger cooling load) is easing the stress on the grids. The state forced Com Ed and the Nat Gas suppliers to create efficiency programs, so it is probably helping both the decrepit gas grid and the electric grid.
We do seem to be a head of the curve on efficiency issues in Chicago and that may also be due to my alma mater's influence on corporations. IIT in Chicago led the development of the smart grid on thier campus a number of years ago and by doing so eliminated having to build another very expensive substation for the growing campus. Last time I was there, they had not had a single outage on the campus for about 7 years, helping ensure long term research projects were provided with a stable power grid. I think payback was only 5 years or so. IIT is deeply tied into the uber wealthy families that are in Chicago ( Walgreen, Galvin...Motorola, Crown... Waste Management?, etc.) so the ideas for energy efficiency probably started spreading from there.)

The Steam Whisperer

ChrisJ said:

The Steam Whisperer said:

WE'd have to find a 10 EER condensor unit for a real comparison...do they even make those anymore?

A standard 13 or 14 SEER would probably be close.

You're probably right.... I dug through product specs a few years ago and the EER rating was usually several points ( that may be many points) below the SEER rating. That pushed me to the conclusion that under full load, most of the High SEER units are actually less efficient than older on/off units.

ChrisJ

The Steam Whisperer said:

The Steam Whisperer said:

WE'd have to find a 10 EER condensor unit for a real comparison...do they even make those anymore?

A standard 13 or 14 SEER would probably be close.

You're probably right.... I dug through product specs a few years ago and the EER rating was usually several points ( that may be many points) below the SEER rating. That pushed me to the conclusion that under full load, most of the High SEER units are actually less efficient than older on/off units.

Personally I feel the high SEER units are still better than the older ones.

 But I look at EER and even did when picking my own equipment and I feel SEER is artificially blown up.  I found 20-24 SEER units with an EER of only 13 or so.  They're still good just not as good as they claim.

JakeCK

I can't help but chuckle a little bit at the 3 meter sea level rise being baked in. Even if we managed to limit climate change to just that, it is enough to derail the entire global economy. Never mind the aridification of half the continental US. Or the temperature rise, or increasing intensity of storms such as hurricanes. Has anyone even really taken into account the affect of temperature on crop yields? Once peak photosynthesis is reached the drop is precipitous with further temperature increases. I'm sorry to say but we are beyond f***ed. Then there is the projected collapse of society due to resource exhaustion. Anyone read The Limits to Growth? That came out of MIT back in the 70's. We're still on the business as usual trajectory. Think there are supply issues now, lets see what the mid 2030's have in store.


And fyi for those of you that think you'll be dead for the worst of it, you won't be. The funny thing about tipping points is the progression towards them is gradual and slow, and then you fall off the cliff. I really do regret having kids just because of the world they are going to have to live in.

Jamie Hall

As a matter of fact, @JakeCK , Limits of Growth was written by two classmates of mine... they were much better writers than I, but I was a better geographer and computer scientist...The three metre sea level rise is from Greenland primarily, and that's now inevitable. Time scale is uncertain, but on the order of a few decades. There are two other critical tipping points and, honestly, the modelling on them is not as certain but we are close: Antarctica, particularly the West Antarctic Ice Shelf (glaciers flowing into the ocean are a b***h to model) and, more interesting, a switch in the Gulf Stream from its present course towards the British Isles and Scandinavia to a much more southerly course, towards Portugal. That will have some interesting effects in northern Europe...

The Steam Whisperer

ChrisJ said:

The Steam Whisperer said:

ChrisJ said:

The Steam Whisperer said:

WE'd have to find a 10 EER condensor unit for a real comparison...do they even make those anymore?

A standard 13 or 14 SEER would probably be close.

You're probably right.... I dug through product specs a few years ago and the EER rating was usually several points ( that may be many points) below the SEER rating. That pushed me to the conclusion that under full load, most of the High SEER units are actually less efficient than older on/off units.

Personally I feel the high SEER units are still better than the older ones.

 But I look at EER and even did when picking my own equipment and I feel SEER is artificially blown up.  I found 20-24 SEER units with an EER of only 13 or so.  They're still good just not as good as they claim.




I agree, when equipment is sized using typical methods that oversize the equipment by a wide margin ( ie 1 ton per 600sq. ft., 20 btu/ sq ft), a newer high SEER modulating model will almost definitely outperform a conventional model that is short cycling most of the time. But when sized to the load or sized properly to a situation with high mass walls acting as a buffer to peak loads, but releasing heat during nightime hours, and in a situation where the cooling is running at full load almost all the time ( think church sanctuaries, concert halls) a conventional unit is likely to be more efficient.
20btu/sq ft is even rather high for a heating load when design is 0F outdoor.

Sal Santamaura

JakeCK said:

...I really do regret having kids just because of the world they are going to have to live in.

And I really don't regret intentionally not having any for the same reason.

SlamDunk

Sal Santamaura said:

JakeCK said:

...I really do regret having kids just because of the world they are going to have to live in.

And I really don't regret intentionally not having any for the same reason.

I saw a quote on a church's marquee this weekend. It said: "A baby is God's opinion that the world should live on." Must be a lot of people thinking like you guys.

jumper

Enough pessimism. Man will reclaim land from the seas.
It is only a matter of $$$$. Just stick around.
And if we decide to cool our planet we'll do that as well.

unclejohn

Wow just Wow. First and foremost the world has been ending since I can remember. I asked my Dad what a ice age was I think around 1967 because the Washington Post or the Star had This headline " New Ice age Coming". After that I learned maybe a year or two later that all the bees were going to die and we were all going to starve. Then it was either acid rain or global warming. Then when they found out the earth was not warming it was changed to Climate Change. And we were told Climate Change can be either hot or cold so all the bases were covered. Now acording to Al Gore the Empire State Building should be under water by now. Al gave us 10 years in 2006. Now does anyone think Obama would buy ocean front property if there was any real chance of the sea level raising even a little bit? There is no utopia, there is no heaven on earth. There is no working for the common good. There is no angel who is going to be put in charge of any government program that is going to be fair and equitable. Sal listen up, maybe it's time to count your blessings. It's true the world hasen't changed much in 2 thousand years but that does not mean you can't have a wonderful life, it just means you get out of it what you put in it. Sitting around waiting for some one to make your life better won't do. Maybe I'm reading you wrong but to say the world is so bad you will not have children I can't think of a life that empty.

Sal Santamaura

unclejohn said:

...Sal listen up, maybe it's time to count your blessings...

In my first post of this thread, I apologized to Erin for edging up to the line of her site's prohibition on religion and politics discussion. I cannot fully respond to your comment with going over the line. Suffice it to say that I consider myself extremely fortunate to have been given the educational opportunities that were afforded me, benefited from a long and remunerative professional career, and embarked on an enjoyable, comfortable retirement. I want for nothing, and am better off (not financially, but in terms of human needs/desires) than probably 99.99% of the world's people.

unclejohn said:

...It's true the world hasen't changed much in 2 thousand years...

That's completely untrue. The world has changed radically since the industrial revolution. Both human population and greenhouse gasses have increased unsustainably. Exponential increases are a difficult thing for human perception to deal with. Coping strategies seem to be working until that last time when forcing functions double effects yet again. By then it's too late, and those who thought everything was hunky dory are shocked.

unclejohn said:

...Sitting around waiting for some one to make your life better won't do...

My life is fine. More than fine, in fact. And, given my actuarially probable remaining lifetime as well as my resources, it'll likely be fine to the end. Also, who's sitting around waiting? Whenever the subject comes up here, I'm posting reality that gets all the global warming deniers angry. What more could I do beyond reinforcing reality in an attempt to make the lives others' children and grandchildren better?

unclejohn said:

...Maybe I'm reading you wrong but to say the world is so bad you will not have children I can't think of a life that empty.

I have had and continue to have a full life. The world is already getting bad, but a decision to remain childless might be more difficult if current conditions were the bottom. They're not. Given worldwide (including the U.S.) unwillingness to act on global warming, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

jumper

Curious what Sal's education and career was that he is so upset about US not doing enough to cool the planet?

ChrisJ

jumper said:

Curious what Sal's education and career was that he is so upset about US not doing enough to cool the planet?

Why does it matter?

Sal Santamaura

jumper said:

Curious what Sal's education and career was that he is so upset about US not doing enough to cool the planet?

ChrisJ said:

Why does it matter?

I don't know why it matters either, but I've nothing to hide. I worked part time for four years while obtaining an electrical engineering degree, then embarked on a career doing relevant work while employed by several companies, the last 24 years at Boeing, from which I retired.

Any other questions? Will you now imply that, since aviation is responsible for 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions, I shouldn't care what not just the U.S. but the entire world isn't doing to slow, much less stop, global warming? If so, why?

JakeCK

unclejohn said:

Wow just Wow. First and foremost the world has been ending since I can remember.

I never suggested the world is coming to an end any time soon. I'm just saying this world is going to be become very uncomfortable for humans and our socioeconomic system rides on the precipice. See decomplexification.

Think of it like this. Why do the old cast iron boilers run forever? They're not too efficient, about 80% at best, but they are just simple. An old millivolt gas valve and gravity hot water system just works. Designed and installed right it could run for centuries as long as it gets basic maintenance. It doesn't need electric power, no electronics to short out, no pumps to fail. Just give it a fuel to burn and you are warm. Compare that to today's 95% efficient mod-cons. The level of complexity from the ECM pumps to the circuit boards. And every parameter needs to be kept just right. Miss a couple years of PM you will almost certainly have problems with the system. And what is the mean time to failure on one of these mod-cons?

Our society today is like that mod-con. Over the past few centuries it has become ever more complex. riding closer to sudden collapse. The bottom line is complex systems are susceptible to cascades of disruption and failure from even small perturbations. Personally I was hoping for a couple more decades to prepare. But I don't think the very smart guys who wrote The Limits to Growth took into account a global pandemic. How could they really? I fear we might be out of time now. A little novel virus might have been all the perturbation our society needed to set off a cascade failure. Been to a grocery store lately? Dealership? 21 months later and its getting hard to just find lunchables for my son. And the perturbations keep coming. The Texas freeze last winter, Ida a few weeks ago. While everyone is worried about the cost of natural gas for heating and power generation very few are thinking about where most of our industrial fertilizer comes from. This planet has almost 8 billion mouths to feed. What happens when we can't fertilize our crops?

Jamie Hall

I'm sorry I started this thread... my apologies.

In the meantime, go read Psalm 90 (you can find it on the 'net, if you don't have a Bible or prayer book), and then consider: if each and every one of us concentrated on taking care of ourselves and our neighbours literally next door, and stopped trying to solve everyone else's problems all over the world, maybe, just maybe, things might work better...