Welcome! Here are the website rules, as well as some tips for using this forum.
Need to contact us? Visit https://heatinghelp.com/contact-us/.
Click here to Find a Contractor in your area.

Say good bye to gas

24567

Comments

  • Sal Santamaura
    Sal Santamaura Member Posts: 460
    edited September 2022
    WMno57 said:

    ...I could care less about saving the planet or a minority viewpoint that wants to demonize fossil fuels and oil companies...

    Assuming you mean you couldn't care less, that right there is the crux of this situation. I was going to respond to some of the above specific posts, but doing so would be a waste of time in the face of this attitude.
    Those not young (I'm distinctly old and, by the way, childless) who profess little concern about anthropogenic global warming are earning the wrath of Gen X, Millennials, and Gen Z. Appropriately so. While we're experiencing depredations of the warming planet quicker than predicted, things are going to get much, much worse. It's those post-Boomer cohorts who will be the primary "beneficiaries."
    WMno57 said:

    ...If you really want heat pumps to catch on you will have to convince people like me that they make financial sense...

    This underscores the focus on financial ramifications to the exclusion of others. All the money in the world will not help when ecosystems collapse and human survival is in jeopardy.
    Recognize that, given the "my bottom line" attitude, there's another way to ensure heat pumps replace fossil fuel. Namely, effectively mandating them. California's 2030 cutoff for sale of new gas-fired space and water heating appliances will do nothing to eliminate the installed base that continues functioning (and being repairable if necessary) after that date. The current mix of generating sources feeding California's grid is not static and will evolve.
    The best those inheriting this climate mess can hope for is that the rest of the world will rapidly do what California's doing, even more aggressively. Unfortunately, they should probably embrace the bumper sticker slogan "I feel much better since I gave up hope."
    PC7060Larry Weingarten
  • ChrisJ
    ChrisJ Member Posts: 13,853
    @Hot_water_fan

    How about adding an absorption heat pump to use the flue gasses from a NG boiler?

    Single pipe quasi-vapor system. Typical operating pressure 0.14 - 0.43 oz. EcoSteam ES-20 Advanced Control for Residential Steam boilers. Rectorseal Steamaster water treatment
  • Hot_water_fan
    Hot_water_fan Member Posts: 1,000
    How about adding an absorption heat pump to use the flue gasses from a NG boiler?


    @ChrisJ This is another option - smallish scale microgeneration where you get 163kbtu heat and 24kw. Could power a heat pump, getting you upwards of 120kw of heat from 77kw of natural gas.

    https://www.lochinvar.com/products/micro-chp/xrgi/
  • ChrisJ
    ChrisJ Member Posts: 13,853

    How about adding an absorption heat pump to use the flue gasses from a NG boiler?


    @ChrisJ This is another option - smallish scale microgeneration where you get 163kbtu heat and 24kw. Could power a heat pump, getting you upwards of 120kw of heat from 77kw of natural gas.

    https://www.lochinvar.com/products/micro-chp/xrgi/

    So,
    We have two options if not more for onsite burning of natural gas that would apparently perform as efficient if not more so than an electric heat pump.

    Why isn't it being discussed?
    Single pipe quasi-vapor system. Typical operating pressure 0.14 - 0.43 oz. EcoSteam ES-20 Advanced Control for Residential Steam boilers. Rectorseal Steamaster water treatment
  • Hot_water_fan
    Hot_water_fan Member Posts: 1,000
    edited September 2022
    So,
    We have two options if not more for onsite burning of natural gas that would apparently perform as efficient if not more so than an electric heat pump.

    Why isn't it being discussed?


    I mean a combined cycle powering a heat pump is very similar to micro cogeneration powering a heat pump, just cheaper. The key is the heat pump.

    The Lochinvar takes 77kw of gas to get 120kw of heat (48kw waste heat + 24*3 = 72kw from a heat pump). A new combined cycle takes 77kw of gas, gets 77*.5 = 38.5kw of electricity, which then gets you...115.5kw of heat. Both are great options vs. modcons. I think the economies of scale favor 1GW combined cycles vs. small scale units, but both have a place.

    I wonder if combined cycles could also capture some of the waste heat for thermal after all the electricity is made.
  • Sal Santamaura
    Sal Santamaura Member Posts: 460

    ...those who advocate mandates which go against the desire of the population are doomed to fail. Perhaps not quickly, but they are doomed...

    Which population? The population of The Wall or the population of up-and-coming generations who will suffer anthropogenic global warming's ever-worsening effects?
    I reject your premise. California's no-new-gas-fired-appliances-after-2030 mandate is in line with, not against, the desire of its population. That's why it'll succeed, not fail.

    ...considered on the scale of the earth, never mind the universe, for mankind to think that it has the power to make any significant difference in the long term is perhaps the ultimate form of hubris..."

    Ignoring the subsequent religious stuff and sticking to science, considering the scale of what humans have pumped into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution, to think that "the long term" (this planet's remaining five billion years) is of importance while ignoring the next centuries is the real ultimate form of hubris. While there's no way we can reverse warming in that near- to medium-term period, slowing its rate is critical. The consequences of not doing so are huge. Descendants will not look favorably upon their ancestors if decisions against decarbonization are made solely on the basis of immediate financial cost.
    CanuckerPhil_17
  • unclejohn
    unclejohn Member Posts: 1,778
    @fentoc I got my info off the web as you did. I made no metion of the eff. of the gas generating only that aprox 50% of Cal.eletricity comes from nat.gas.
  • hot_rod
    hot_rod Member Posts: 18,157

    Well, I do have children. I have grandchildren. God willing, I will have great grandchildren -- though at my age, I'll likely not live to see them. I have hope for their world.

    As to the climate problems. First, I am sorry to say -- or proud to say, don't know which -- that I personally predicted the collapse of the Greenland Ice Sheet to within a half degree Celsius, 40 years ago. Which gives me a good deal of confidence in my predictions for the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (the bit I contributed to global climate modelling is still in use, by the way).

    Getting slightly out of my comfort zone for this forum -- and @Erin Holohan Haskell , if I have overstepped, please let me know and I will edit! -- two thoughts. First, those who advocate mandates which go against the desire of the population are doomed to fail. Perhaps not quickly, but they are doomed. It really doesn't matter what the mandate is -- Prohibition, anyone? Forced worship of god (or Emperor) X? No gasoline engines? Take your pick. Second, considered on the scale of the earth, never mind the universe, for mankind to think that it has the power to make any significant difference in the long term is perhaps the ultimate form of hubris, one of the seven -- and possibly the worst -- of the deadly sins. I will not preach a sermon here - wrong place, wrong time. But just note the text: "from dust you were formed, and to dust you shall return, and be seen no more"

    In the meantime we all live on one planet. The folks with homes or complete islands underwater will at some point want, or need, to move to where they too can survive and raise a family. Many want jobs and that opportunity, hence the border issues.

    Possibly an "ice age" arrives and swings the whole program, but in the meantime?

    How many times do our tax dollars and insurance dollars bail out New Orleans, and more and more costal cities are now in the same boat. Or outside the boat :)
    Miami ,or much of costal Florida, can't be an inexpensive insurance claim these days.

    No easy answers to these disasters or avoidance.
    Bob "hot rod" Rohr
    trainer for Caleffi NA
    Living the hydronic dream
    CanuckerPC7060Larry Weingarten
  • unclejohn
    unclejohn Member Posts: 1,778
    For the record there is no such thing as renewabl energy. Once you turn on a light or stove the energy needed for that is gone forever.
  • ChrisJ
    ChrisJ Member Posts: 13,853
    unclejohn said:

    For the record there is no such thing as renewabl energy. Once you turn on a light or stove the energy needed for that is gone forever.

    Energy cannot be created or destroyed my friend.
    Single pipe quasi-vapor system. Typical operating pressure 0.14 - 0.43 oz. EcoSteam ES-20 Advanced Control for Residential Steam boilers. Rectorseal Steamaster water treatment
  • unclejohn
    unclejohn Member Posts: 1,778
    @Hotrod Those storms have been hitting New Orleans and Florida since time began and will continue as long as there is time.
  • Jamie Hall
    Jamie Hall Member Posts: 20,401
    To get back to science and engineering here. May I humbly point out that beginning some 70 years ago we were developing the technology which would have enabled mankind to avoid most, if not all, of man-caused climate change (which, on the scale of overall geologic climate change, is minor). We refused, and many people continue to refuse, to permit or even contemplate permitting continued use and development of it. If cause must be assigned -- and folks like to point fingers, so I guess it must -- perhaps that is the place to start.

    For people who still think that if only we can stop raising the mean temperature of the earth all will be well and the potential harm to those billions of people won't happen, again, science: sorry, but we have passed one critical tipping point (Greenland) already and may have passed another (West Antartica) or are within a very small margin of doing so (I happen to think we have; some of my former associates mostly in Australia think we have another tenth of a degree to go). Neither of these tipping points is reversible without a very significant overall cooling, to the conditions existing about 800 years ago, and quite possibly not even then (that's long before man's carbon contributions became noticeable, never mind significant). Has some of the warming been caused by man? No doubt, and as I said above, that could have been prevented. Is all of it? No.

    Is it too late to keep from reaching the second, and far more important of the two tipping points? Yes, it is. Sorry about that. And, for the mandate crowd, no Gestapo immiserating countless hundreds of millions by enforcing the beliefs of a few tens of millions of privileged coastal elites is going to help. Far better to begin thinking about how to adapt and cope.
    Br. Jamie, osb
    Building superintendent/caretaker, 7200 sq. ft. historic house museum with dependencies in New England
    PC7060Phil_17Solid_Fuel_Man
  • ChrisJ
    ChrisJ Member Posts: 13,853
    edited September 2022

    To get back to science and engineering here. May I humbly point out that beginning some 70 years ago we were developing the technology which would have enabled mankind to avoid most, if not all, of man-caused climate change (which, on the scale of overall geologic climate change, is minor). We refused, and many people continue to refuse, to permit or even contemplate permitting continued use and development of it. If cause must be assigned -- and folks like to point fingers, so I guess it must -- perhaps that is the place to start.

    For people who still think that if only we can stop raising the mean temperature of the earth all will be well and the potential harm to those billions of people won't happen, again, science: sorry, but we have passed one critical tipping point (Greenland) already and may have passed another (West Antartica) or are within a very small margin of doing so (I happen to think we have; some of my former associates mostly in Australia think we have another tenth of a degree to go). Neither of these tipping points is reversible without a very significant overall cooling, to the conditions existing about 800 years ago, and quite possibly not even then (that's long before man's carbon contributions became noticeable, never mind significant). Has some of the warming been caused by man? No doubt, and as I said above, that could have been prevented. Is all of it? No.

    Is it too late to keep from reaching the second, and far more important of the two tipping points? Yes, it is. Sorry about that. And, for the mandate crowd, no Gestapo immiserating countless hundreds of millions by enforcing the beliefs of a few tens of millions of privileged coastal elites is going to help. Far better to begin thinking about how to adapt and cope.


    So,
    You're saying give up and keep helping warm it and just deal with it?
    Single pipe quasi-vapor system. Typical operating pressure 0.14 - 0.43 oz. EcoSteam ES-20 Advanced Control for Residential Steam boilers. Rectorseal Steamaster water treatment
    Sal Santamaura
  • Sal Santamaura
    Sal Santamaura Member Posts: 460

    ...For people who still think that if only we can stop raising the mean temperature of the earth all will be well and the potential harm to those billions of people won't happen, again, science: sorry, but we have passed one critical tipping point (Greenland) already and may have passed another (West Antartica) or are within a very small margin of doing so...

    Neither I nor anyone else who's posted in this thread claimed "all will be well." I've repeatedly stressed that it's the rate of warming we can influence. Minimizing that rate is critical to reducing the certain (not potential) harm billions of people are suffering and will continue to suffer. Not taking every possible measure to minimize the warming rate will ensure that harm is maximized. Inaction will eliminate time/opportunities for coping.

    ...no Gestapo immiserating countless hundreds of millions by enforcing the beliefs of a few tens of millions of privileged coastal elites is going to help...

    Legal and regulatory mandates are instituted by duly elected governments. Likening them to fascist regimes of the past does nothing to diminish the validity and/or appropriateness of those mandates. Suffering from the worst effects of anthropogenic global warming will immiserate everyone, irrespective of their proximity to a coast.

    ...Far better to begin thinking about how to adapt and cope.

    Acting, not just thinking about it. While simultaneously decarbonizing. No reason not to do "all of the above."
  • DJDrew
    DJDrew Member Posts: 69
    fentonc said:



    Now, to find a contractor willing to sell me an A2W heat pump instead of trying to sell me a 4x-oversized cast iron boiler =)

    Exactly, I don't care about the politics, but if I could eliminate a wasted "customer charge" and get rid of the gas utility, fine by me! I'm in Pittsburgh and called around several companies that do geothermal and heat pumps, all the ones I talked to said they didn't want to get involved with Air-to-Water or geo-to water... my options were to install an air ducted system.

    I think there is money to be made in becoming an expert in using heat pumps for water based systems. If someone came to me today with a reasonable proposal, I'd make the shift and boot the gas utility to the curb.
    Hot_water_fanJakeCKSal Santamaura
  • Hot_water_fan
    Hot_water_fan Member Posts: 1,000
    Why does it seem like quite a few on here hate their gas company but apparently their electric company is run by angels?


    Who says we like them? :D
  • DJDrew
    DJDrew Member Posts: 69
    ChrisJ said:

    Why does it seem like quite a few on here hate their gas company but apparently their electric company is run by angels?

    I don't like them either, but I am not giving up the electric light bulb to go back to gas lighting. So if I have to pick one to ditch, it is the gas company. Additionally, as solar gets more mass-produced, there is potential to slowly generate more of my own electricity to reduce the electric bill.
  • hot_rod
    hot_rod Member Posts: 18,157
    unclejohn said:

    @Hotrod Those storms have been hitting New Orleans and Florida since time began and will continue as long as there is time.

    Starting around 2012 Miami started pumping water out of the city to keep dry, being 2' above sea level.

    13 pumps run today, about 14,000 gpm, 60 more are budgeted and on order, 93 will be needed within the next 10 years. In addition to sea walls and canal systems.

    Hasn't been that way since beginning of time. Sea level has risen 8" since the beginning of the 20th century, more than 2" in the last 20. Somethings changing?

    Although I doubt they will ever be able to pump ahead of todays weather.
    Bob "hot rod" Rohr
    trainer for Caleffi NA
    Living the hydronic dream
  • unclejohn
    unclejohn Member Posts: 1,778
    @hotrod I thought your were talking storm intensity. Anyway there is no more water on the planet then when it was first created so I guess the levels rise and fall.
  • Jamie Hall
    Jamie Hall Member Posts: 20,401
    I respectfully beg to differ on one point (among others -- but on this one), @Sal Santamaura , The rate of warming has exactly nothing to do with having reached the two critical tipping points regarding sea level rise which I mentioned above. They are not rate dependent, but value dependent. Having reached them, as we have, means that whatever mankind does -- or does not do -- is, bluntly, totally irrelevant. Estimates of the rate of rise from Greenland vary, but the total varies less and is between 3 feet and 6 feet occurring over the no more than, and likely considerably less than, the next 5 to 10 decades. This is going to happen, as surely as the sun sets this evening, and nothing mankind can do will change it.

    The West Antarctic Ice sheet is somewhat bigger, with an estimated rise of 10 to 20 feet. The time scale is also much more in question. My model -- in use with about half of the general circulation models -- suggests a time scale of perhaps 5 decades, but my model is somewhat more sensitive to glacial bed conditions than the Australian model, which suggests more like 10 decades. Again, there isn't anything mankind can do to stop this collapse, never mind reverse it.

    This is not new science. The mechanisms were postulated in the late 1960s, and the actual models quantifying the predictions were written between 1980 and 1985 (mostly because we simply didn't have the computing power to run them until then!)(for the computer geeks out there, mine took 24 hours to run 5,000 years of simulation for just one set of input parameters on NOAAs Crays. It's much faster now).

    (Note that the conditions and mechanisms for mountain glaciers are quite different; their decline in many areas (not all) is reversible, but while their loss is environmentally unfortunate, not to mention somewhat catastrophic of areas like southern California, it is not a global problem. They aren't rate dependent either -- just global energy balance).

    Live with it.
    Br. Jamie, osb
    Building superintendent/caretaker, 7200 sq. ft. historic house museum with dependencies in New England
    Solid_Fuel_Man
  • ChrisJ
    ChrisJ Member Posts: 13,853
    edited September 2022
    unclejohn said:

    @hotrod I thought your were talking storm intensity. Anyway there is no more water on the planet then when it was first created so I guess the levels rise and fall.


    They do.
    The planet will be fine there's no doubt about that at all.

    The people probably won't but the planet doesn't care.
    Single pipe quasi-vapor system. Typical operating pressure 0.14 - 0.43 oz. EcoSteam ES-20 Advanced Control for Residential Steam boilers. Rectorseal Steamaster water treatment
    SuperTech
  • Sal Santamaura
    Sal Santamaura Member Posts: 460

    I respectfully beg to differ on one point (among others -- but on this one), @Sal Santamaura , The rate of warming has exactly nothing to do with having reached the two critical tipping points regarding sea level rise which I mentioned above...Live with it.

    Jamie, you just wasted a lot of composing/keyboarding on that post. I was referring to the rate of temperature increase integrated over the surface of the planet. Not sea level rise. Better luck next time. :)
  • Jamie Hall
    Jamie Hall Member Posts: 20,401
    edited September 2022

    I respectfully beg to differ on one point (among others -- but on this one), @Sal Santamaura , The rate of warming has exactly nothing to do with having reached the two critical tipping points regarding sea level rise which I mentioned above...Live with it.

    Jamie, you just wasted a lot of composing/keyboarding on that post. I was referring to the rate of temperature increase integrated over the surface of the planet. Not sea level rise. Better luck next time. :)
    No, actually I didn't. The problem isn't the RATE of temperature increase. It is the absolute VALUE, whatever it may be. A common -- and unfortunately widely repeated error. It doesn't matter a bit how fast or how slowly the integrated rise takes place. All that matters is what the value is at a given time.

    If the actual value, taken over a single year, is less than a critical value, no problem; the ice sheet is stable. If it's more, disintegration is certain.

    Furthermore, the positive feedbacks involved are so much more powerful and rapid than any conceivable rate of temperature increase (equivalent to roughly 3 degrees C per decade) integrated over the surface of the planet -- or just over the surface of the ice sheet -- that those rates become quite irrelevant.

    Opinions can and do differ, however, on what the most critical consequence is. Some would regard a change in the climate to which they have become accustomed very important. Others would regard a sea level rise of enough to submerge a number of the largest cities on the planet a little more consequential.
    Br. Jamie, osb
    Building superintendent/caretaker, 7200 sq. ft. historic house museum with dependencies in New England
  • Sal Santamaura
    Sal Santamaura Member Posts: 460
    edited September 2022

    ...The problem isn't the RATE of temperature increase. It is the absolute VALUE, whatever it may be. A common -- and unfortunately widely repeated error. It doesn't matter a bit how fast or how slowly the integrated rise takes place. All that matters is what the value is at a given time.
    If the actual value, taken over a single year, is less than a critical value, no problem; the ice sheet is stable. If it's more, disintegration is certain...

    Once again, the problem is that, unless the rate of temperature increase is dealt with, critical values will be attained sooner than they need be. Leaving less time to to cope.
    Rising sea levels are of course a significant effect of climate change. But they're not the only effect. Billions of people nowhere near oceans are experiencing and will increasingly experience those effects. Even if one focuses only on sea level rise, the ability to first fortify, then relocate infrastructure near coasts depends on an adequate period of planning and implementation. Shortening that available window by not aggressively decarbonizing will ensure more harm than necessary.
    When I moved from New York to southern California 44 years ago, my research included natural hazards, both existing and probable. Thus, the home I purchased was at a sufficiently high elevation to avoid damage from both tsunamis and rising sea level. When moving to a different home 15 years later (where we still live), I selected a location even further from the shore and higher yet.

    Those around the globe with less foresight will suffer greatly. And those whose food supply is disrupted by climate change, homes are destroyed by extreme weather events, and become "climate migrants" as a result, are likely to suffer even more. I cannot understand why someone who describes their mission as caring for others would object to doing everything possible to mitigate, i.e. slow the rate of, anthropogenic global warming. Fossil fuels have to go. ASAP.
  • Jamie Hall
    Jamie Hall Member Posts: 20,401
    edited September 2022
    "Once again, the problem is that, unless the rate of temperature increase is dealt with, critical values will be attained sooner than they need be. Leaving less time to to cope."

    I got bad news for you. The critical levels HAVE ALREADY BEEN attained. Past tense. Sorry about that.

    You're out of time. Now it's time to start thinking about options, and banning fossil fuels may feel good, but it's not going to do one single useful thing about the actual problems.

    I stopped worried about "doing everything possible to mitigate", as you suggest, @Sal Santamaura , when it became obvious to me -- at least 20 years ago -- that the so-called environmental movements were nothing of the sort. I could go down the list, but it's out of place for The Wall, and it would do no good anyway.
    Br. Jamie, osb
    Building superintendent/caretaker, 7200 sq. ft. historic house museum with dependencies in New England
    PC7060SuperTechSolid_Fuel_Man
  • random12345
    random12345 Member Posts: 298
    This has been an interesting discussion to follow. I want to add two things. You might already be aware of the first, but I certainly wasn't.

    1) 10 cities and towns in Massachusetts have apparently asked the state to enroll in a pilot program banning fossil fuel infrastructure from new construction. These 10 are: Acton, Arlington, Aquinnah, Brookline, Cambridge, Concord, Lexington, Lincoln, Newton, and West Tisbury. Mayor Wu wants Boston to join as well. The MA DOER is the agency in charge of overseeing this program from what I understand. I knew that Brookline wanted to ban fossil fuels a while back, but was stopped by the Attorney General. Now it seems they will get what they wanted.

    https://agencychecklists.com/2022/09/15/boston-looms-over-fossil-fuel-free-construction-pilot-61447/

    2) There is a fair amount of wood smoke in my neighborhood as soon as the temps start to drop. I have to keep my windows shut starting in the late afternoon. Don't know how many of you have had to live downwind from a wood burning fireplace or stove, but it's not pleasant or healthy. Wood smoke is much more toxic than many people realize. Thousands of times more particulate matter (PM 2.5) than gas combustion, and much higher levels of other air toxics. I am concerned that banning fossil fuels will incentivize more wood burning. If the choice is between installing an expensive heat pump running on expensive electricity or a cheap fireplace/wood stove with cheap wood, I think at least a few people may choose the latter to provide part of their heat or will retain it in new construction as a hedge. A single wood stove can seriously impact the neighbors' quality of life. No more fresh air. A house and neighborhood that smells like smoke all the time. According to the EIA, in New England, 1.2 million households used wood as either a main or secondary source of space heating in 2015, and that number dropped to 960,000 in 2020. Gas and electricity both increased, while oil, propane, and wood all decreased. Take away the gas, oil, and propane, and guess what's left? https://eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2020/

    In MA, if I assign a COP of 3 to a heat pump, where I am, annual cost is basically identical to using oil.
  • yesimon
    yesimon Member Posts: 38
    edited September 2022

    10 cities and towns in Massachusetts have apparently asked the state to enroll in a pilot program banning fossil fuel infrastructure from new construction.
    ...
    In MA, if I assign a COP of 3 to a heat pump, where I am, annual cost is basically identical to using oil.

    This is exactly why people are pushing for banning gas in new construction! It doesn't significantly harm the consumer financially, but drastically reduces the carbon emissions. 1 therm of natural gas generates 11.7 lbs of CO2, while the equivalent in heat pumps on ISO New England is 10 kWh = 6 lbs of CO2, which can improve even more in the future with cleaner generation coming online.
  • random12345
    random12345 Member Posts: 298
    I should have made it clear that oil is significantly more expensive than gas for me. I want to put a gas gun on my megasteam but my town inspector won't let me because Burnham does not allow it. It would save me up to $2500/yr. I'm all for heat pumps and renewable energy if they are competitive in a free market without government mandates or subsidies or fossil fuel bans in this case...
  • WMno57
    WMno57 Member Posts: 657
    edited September 2022
    I LOVE the smell of wood smoke. It reminds me of camp fires, cook outs, BBQ, weekends at cabins, and all sorts of great memories. Random12345, you are absolutely correct, wood smoke is a carcinogen and will eventually kill you, if something else doesn't get you first. Same for Diesel exhaust. I'm not in love with the smell of Diesel exhaust, but I do like the simplicity of Diesel engines.
    Fun Fact: The newer gasoline engines with direct injection (GDI) get better gas mileage because they are more efficient. Less carbon pumped into the atmosphere. Our friend @ChrisJ has one. He recently had some problems with it (possibly not directly related to GDI) that ate up his fuel economy savings.
    Guess what? GDI also puts more particulate matter into the air. In simple terms GDI is good for Polar Bears, and baaaad for kids with asthma, old people, and really, all humans.
    Our green friend @Sal Santamaura has an old mid 80s Honda with indirect injection. I think he should be mandated to replace it with a Chevy Bolt. It would be greener for him, and a different form of greener for me (I own stock in GM).
    Why did the auto manufactures switch from gasoline indirect fuel injection to GDI? To meet the government's CAFE mandates. Remember, citizens are dumb, and can't be trusted to make their own decisions. Unelected government bureaucrats are smart, and should make all your decisions for you. This ignores the fact that government bureaucrats are people too, and just as dumb (possibly more so) than the citizens they feel the need to regulate.
    HVAC_PSolid_Fuel_Man
  • ChrisJ
    ChrisJ Member Posts: 13,853
    edited September 2022
    @WMno57

    The high pressure fuel pump on mine failed at around 79,000 miles.

    The cost of the repair with me doing the labor was around $300 +-. I did see much cheaper pumps on Ebay but I have no idea if they were equal to an OEM one or not and I'm not sure what the OEM price direct from a dealer is.

    As far as I can tell, GDI does offer a lot of advantages but it also has a lot of downsides. Ultimately I'd call it not practical, the cons outweigh the pros. Between pump and injector failures due to limited lubrication from gasoline and the issues with intake valves getting buildup from oil vapor and no gasoline cleaning them it's just not worth it.,

    It's pretty fascinating to see how it works, but I don't think it's the best system for real world use.

    Keep in mind, today's cars are much cleaner burning and fuel efficient than the stuff we had before the EPA got involved. Any 1990s-2000's car is pretty good in that department and they make good power and are very reliable. So it's not all bad.
    Single pipe quasi-vapor system. Typical operating pressure 0.14 - 0.43 oz. EcoSteam ES-20 Advanced Control for Residential Steam boilers. Rectorseal Steamaster water treatment
    WMno57Solid_Fuel_Man
  • pecmsg
    pecmsg Member Posts: 3,526

    I should have made it clear that oil is significantly more expensive than gas for me. I want to put a gas gun on my megasteam but my town inspector won't let me because Burnham does not allow it. It would save me up to $2500/yr. I'm all for heat pumps and renewable energy if they are competitive in a free market without government mandates or subsidies or fossil fuel bans in this case...

    I highly doubt that!
  • unclejohn
    unclejohn Member Posts: 1,778
    @sal oil and gas do not come from fossils.
  • ChrisJ
    ChrisJ Member Posts: 13,853
    edited September 2022
    unclejohn said:

    @sal oil and gas do not come from fossils.

    Since animals, plants, insects or basically any living thing can be fossils by definition I would say that's a completely incorrect statement.

    Crude oil, natural gas, coal etc all come from fossils.

    Calling it dino fuel or dino oil would be inaccurate or misleading.
    Single pipe quasi-vapor system. Typical operating pressure 0.14 - 0.43 oz. EcoSteam ES-20 Advanced Control for Residential Steam boilers. Rectorseal Steamaster water treatment
    Canucker
  • WMno57
    WMno57 Member Posts: 657

    I am concerned that banning fossil fuels will incentivize more wood burning.

    "Passenger-side airbags in motorcars were intended as a safety feature, but led to an increase in child fatalities in the mid-1990s because small children were being hit by airbags that deployed automatically during collisions. The supposed solution to this problem, moving the child seat to the back of the vehicle, led to an increase in the number of children forgotten in unattended vehicles, some of whom died under extreme temperature conditions."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences#Perverse_results
    This concludes today's lesson on why Government should be limited.

  • WMno57
    WMno57 Member Posts: 657
    unclejohn said:

    @sal oil and gas do not come from fossils.

    Dinosaur Syrup -15w40
    Dinosaur Juice - Sunoco 260
    Dinosaur Flatulence - Natural Gas (It's 100 percent natural and organic!)


  • Sal Santamaura
    Sal Santamaura Member Posts: 460

    "Once again, the problem is that, unless the rate of temperature increase is dealt with, critical values will be attained sooner than they need be. Leaving less time to to cope."

    I got bad news for you. The critical levels HAVE ALREADY BEEN attained. Past tense...

    Once again, you focus entirely on sea level rise. As I previously posted:
    "Rising sea levels are of course a significant effect of climate change. But they're not the only effect. Billions of people nowhere near oceans are experiencing and will increasingly experience those effects...those whose food supply is disrupted by climate change, homes are destroyed by extreme weather events, and become "climate migrants" as a result, are likely to suffer..."


  • Sal Santamaura
    Sal Santamaura Member Posts: 460
    edited September 2022
    WMno57 said:

    ...Our green friend @Sal Santamaura has an old mid 80s Honda with indirect injection. I think he should be mandated to replace it with a Chevy Bolt...

    Incorrect. My Honda Accord is a 2003 model. Since my retirement, it accumulates around 1,500 miles each year. Purchasing a Chevy Bolt, the incorporated energy to manufacture produces far more CO2 than my Accord will emit over my actuarially probable remaining lifetime, would increase, not decrease, the level of greenhouse gas in our atmosphere. Nonetheless, aware that some catastrophic event might total the Accord, I'd already concluded a Bolt would be a good replacement. However, in a recent message to GM CEO Mary Barra, I let her know that offering it with only a black interior might force me to look elsewhere. Four-wheeled rolling greenhouses here in the southwest U.S. make absolutely no sense. :)

    It's important to note that no mandates require replacing anything that's in place and working. Well after 2030, if my natural gas fired water heater and furnace are functioning, they will happily continue as before. Well after 2035, if my Accord (and me) still function, we'll be toddling around the streets here as today. Characterizing these mandates as major impositions on those who like their current situations is untrue and misleading.
    Canucker
  • WMno57
    WMno57 Member Posts: 657
    edited September 2022
    ChrisJ said:

    Calling it dino fuel or dino oil would be inaccurate or misleading.

    True, but it was (and still is) a great marketing strategy for Sinclair. Vintage Petroliana is hot right now. Must be the young people that like it, because we all know old farts don't spend money. They keep their 80's vintage cars
    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Shitbox
    and 40's vintage boilers forever.
    @Sal Santamaura, You and your family deserve a new Chevy Bolt. Think of the pride you will feel as you glide silently up to your next Sierra Club meeting. "The Bolt is powered by the Sun!" (Jennifer Granholm quote). What will it take to get you behind the wheel of a new UNION Made, planet saving, GREEN Chevy Bolt?
    HVAC_P