Home heating facts put out by environment northeast

  • Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.

    We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.

    We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
Status
Not open for further replies.
mepellet

mepellet

Minister of Fire
Aug 10, 2011
2,139
Central ME
Some interesting (but invalid?) information.......

http://www.env-ne.org/resources/detail/state-heating-facts-reports-2012

Thing I don't understand is that for Maine they say on the second page that it costs about $2500 to heat your home a year with wood pellets. I know that isn't the case. On the second to last page you can see where they come up with the annual cost. They say that an average house type would consume 9.27 tons of pellets or $2466 ($266/ton).

Why do they publish such wrong information? My home is what I would consider to be in their "average" category with some air infiltration and inadequate infiltration. They estimate 850 gallons of HHO (I have only used 500 at most for heat and hot water) and 9.27 tons of pellets. Now I know that this winter has been very warm but still..... I haven't even hit the two ton mark yet.
 
Firewood is assumed to be only 50% efficient. That's what's wrong.
 
I just looked for NH, same thing. They have it as cheap to use oil and to use pellets. Terrible job.

Tom C.
 
And the moral of the story is: "Don't beleive everything you read online". I will have used about 2.5 tons of pellets this winter at an average cost of $250, plus about 100 gallons of HHO#2 at a cost of $375 for a total cost of just about $1,000. A far cry from their estimates.
 
Bank said:
And the moral of the story is: "Don't beleive everything you read online". I will have used about 2.5 tons of pellets this winter at an average cost of $250, plus about 100 gallons of HHO#2 at a cost of $375 for a total cost of just about $1,000. A far cry from their estimates.
Click to expand...

x2

My costs so far
just under 2 tons of pellets - $177.50/ton - $355
estimate of 50 gallons of HHO @ 3.45/gal - $172.50 (used 150 total for hot water and a tiny amount of heat when away for a couple days here and there)

TOTAL so far $527.50

I realize this is not the typical winter but certainly not even close to $2500...
 
Just read the report for RI. They don't like burning wood, CO2 emissions and all that. No way they're gonna give pellets a fair shake. Their info pushes towards heat pumps or natural gas. Pellets is a fringe thing, lets keep it that way, more for us. RT
 
rwthomas1 said:
Just read the report for RI. They don't like burning wood, CO2 emissions and all that. No way they're gonna give pellets a fair shake. Their info pushes towards heat pumps or natural gas. Pellets is a fringe thing, lets keep it that way, more for us. RT
Click to expand...

They best abandon NG as well.
 
SmokeyTheBear said:
rwthomas1 said:
Just read the report for RI. They don't like burning wood, CO2 emissions and all that. No way they're gonna give pellets a fair shake. Their info pushes towards heat pumps or natural gas. Pellets is a fringe thing, lets keep it that way, more for us. RT
Click to expand...

They best abandon NG as well.
Click to expand...

Yup, fracking seems to be a bit of a problem for NG. So we can't built nukes, the waste is too toxic. Can't burn oil, thats a fossil fuel. Can't burn coal, pollutes way too much. Can't burn wood/pellets, pollutes way too much. Can't build more dams for hydro as it messes with the fishes and the delicate ecosystem. Can't do wind turbines, they're ugly and a threat to migratory birds. Geothermal is a promising idea but I'm guessing it won't be long until someone has a gripe with that, too much cooling or heating of the Earths crust, etc. Solar is the only thing that seems to have no real opposition other than some communities banning panels for aesthetic reasons. Too bad its so inefficient in the PV form to do any good heating. There are some solar heating systems, I've seen one that worked quite well, even here in New England. No matter what you do, someone will take issue with it. I plan on burning pellets or wood as long as I can. Thankfully heating with wood is such a small percentage that largely its off the radar of most serious legislation. The more popular it gets you can guarantee the more controlled it will become.

RT
 
rwthomas1 said:
SmokeyTheBear said:
rwthomas1 said:
Just read the report for RI. They don't like burning wood, CO2 emissions and all that. No way they're gonna give pellets a fair shake. Their info pushes towards heat pumps or natural gas. Pellets is a fringe thing, lets keep it that way, more for us. RT
Click to expand...

They best abandon NG as well.
Click to expand...

Yup, fracking seems to be a bit of a problem for NG. So we can't built nukes, the waste is too toxic. Can't burn oil, thats a fossil fuel. Can't burn coal, pollutes way too much. Can't burn wood/pellets, pollutes way too much. Can't build more dams for hydro as it messes with the fishes and the delicate ecosystem. Can't do wind turbines, they're ugly and a threat to migratory birds. Geothermal is a promising idea but I'm guessing it won't be long until someone has a gripe with that, too much cooling or heating of the Earths crust, etc. Solar is the only thing that seems to have no real opposition other than some communities banning panels for aesthetic reasons. Too bad its so inefficient in the PV form to do any good heating. There are some solar heating systems, I've seen one that worked quite well, even here in New England. No matter what you do, someone will take issue with it. I plan on burning pellets or wood as long as I can. Thankfully heating with wood is such a small percentage that largely its off the radar of most serious legislation. The more popular it gets you can guarantee the more controlled it will become.

RT
Click to expand...

Or we could just vote them out of office. :bug:
 
1Dtml said:
rwthomas1 said:
SmokeyTheBear said:
rwthomas1 said:
Just read the report for RI. They don't like burning wood, CO2 emissions and all that. No way they're gonna give pellets a fair shake. Their info pushes towards heat pumps or natural gas. Pellets is a fringe thing, lets keep it that way, more for us. RT
Click to expand...

They best abandon NG as well.
Click to expand...

Yup, fracking seems to be a bit of a problem for NG. So we can't built nukes, the waste is too toxic. Can't burn oil, thats a fossil fuel. Can't burn coal, pollutes way too much. Can't burn wood/pellets, pollutes way too much. Can't build more dams for hydro as it messes with the fishes and the delicate ecosystem. Can't do wind turbines, they're ugly and a threat to migratory birds. Geothermal is a promising idea but I'm guessing it won't be long until someone has a gripe with that, too much cooling or heating of the Earths crust, etc. Solar is the only thing that seems to have no real opposition other than some communities banning panels for aesthetic reasons. Too bad its so inefficient in the PV form to do any good heating. There are some solar heating systems, I've seen one that worked quite well, even here in New England. No matter what you do, someone will take issue with it. I plan on burning pellets or wood as long as I can. Thankfully heating with wood is such a small percentage that largely its off the radar of most serious legislation. The more popular it gets you can guarantee the more controlled it will become.

RT
Click to expand...

Or we could just vote them out of office. :bug:
Click to expand...

Or we could just burn the wack-o, liberal-tree huggin-enviro nut jobs. I wonder how many BTUs that would produce?
 
Bank said:
1Dtml said:
rwthomas1 said:
SmokeyTheBear said:
rwthomas1 said:
Just read the report for RI. They don't like burning wood, CO2 emissions and all that. No way they're gonna give pellets a fair shake. Their info pushes towards heat pumps or natural gas. Pellets is a fringe thing, lets keep it that way, more for us. RT
Click to expand...

They best abandon NG as well.
Click to expand...

Yup, fracking seems to be a bit of a problem for NG. So we can't built nukes, the waste is too toxic. Can't burn oil, thats a fossil fuel. Can't burn coal, pollutes way too much. Can't burn wood/pellets, pollutes way too much. Can't build more dams for hydro as it messes with the fishes and the delicate ecosystem. Can't do wind turbines, they're ugly and a threat to migratory birds. Geothermal is a promising idea but I'm guessing it won't be long until someone has a gripe with that, too much cooling or heating of the Earths crust, etc. Solar is the only thing that seems to have no real opposition other than some communities banning panels for aesthetic reasons. Too bad its so inefficient in the PV form to do any good heating. There are some solar heating systems, I've seen one that worked quite well, even here in New England. No matter what you do, someone will take issue with it. I plan on burning pellets or wood as long as I can. Thankfully heating with wood is such a small percentage that largely its off the radar of most serious legislation. The more popular it gets you can guarantee the more controlled it will become.

RT
Click to expand...

Or we could just vote them out of office. :bug:
Click to expand...

Or we could just burn the wack-o, liberal-tree huggin-enviro nut jobs. I wonder how many BTUs that would produce?
Click to expand...

But pellets smell better. ;-)
 
rwthomas1 said:
SmokeyTheBear said:
rwthomas1 said:
Just read the report for RI. They don't like burning wood, CO2 emissions and all that. No way they're gonna give pellets a fair shake. Their info pushes towards heat pumps or natural gas. Pellets is a fringe thing, lets keep it that way, more for us. RT
Click to expand...

They best abandon NG as well.
Click to expand...

Yup, fracking seems to be a bit of a problem for NG. So we can't built nukes, the waste is too toxic. Can't burn oil, thats a fossil fuel. Can't burn coal, pollutes way too much. Can't burn wood/pellets, pollutes way too much. Can't build more dams for hydro as it messes with the fishes and the delicate ecosystem. Can't do wind turbines, they're ugly and a threat to migratory birds. Geothermal is a promising idea but I'm guessing it won't be long until someone has a gripe with that, too much cooling or heating of the Earths crust, etc. Solar is the only thing that seems to have no real opposition other than some communities banning panels for aesthetic reasons. Too bad its so inefficient in the PV form to do any good heating. There are some solar heating systems, I've seen one that worked quite well, even here in New England. No matter what you do, someone will take issue with it. I plan on burning pellets or wood as long as I can. Thankfully heating with wood is such a small percentage that largely its off the radar of most serious legislation. The more popular it gets you can guarantee the more controlled it will become.

RT
Click to expand...

There's opposition to solar, both at the home and utility level. The panels are "ugly" and you need a huge amount of them to generate anything substantial. Utility level solar is so land consuming it's barely worth considering the NIMBY opposition.

Geothermal will have to be place around around volcanoes, mountains, and natural springs... yeah that'll go over well. :roll:

Good article

To quote:

n order to supply a house with electricity, photovoltaic cells would have to cover the entire roof. A supermarket would require a photovoltaic field roughly ten times larger than its own roof, or 1,000 times larger in the case of a high-rise building.
Click to expand...
 
Weird tolkienish figure said:
rwthomas1 said:
SmokeyTheBear said:
rwthomas1 said:
Just read the report for RI. They don't like burning wood, CO2 emissions and all that. No way they're gonna give pellets a fair shake. Their info pushes towards heat pumps or natural gas. Pellets is a fringe thing, lets keep it that way, more for us. RT
Click to expand...

They best abandon NG as well.
Click to expand...

Yup, fracking seems to be a bit of a problem for NG. So we can't built nukes, the waste is too toxic. Can't burn oil, thats a fossil fuel. Can't burn coal, pollutes way too much. Can't burn wood/pellets, pollutes way too much. Can't build more dams for hydro as it messes with the fishes and the delicate ecosystem. Can't do wind turbines, they're ugly and a threat to migratory birds. Geothermal is a promising idea but I'm guessing it won't be long until someone has a gripe with that, too much cooling or heating of the Earths crust, etc. Solar is the only thing that seems to have no real opposition other than some communities banning panels for aesthetic reasons. Too bad its so inefficient in the PV form to do any good heating. There are some solar heating systems, I've seen one that worked quite well, even here in New England. No matter what you do, someone will take issue with it. I plan on burning pellets or wood as long as I can. Thankfully heating with wood is such a small percentage that largely its off the radar of most serious legislation. The more popular it gets you can guarantee the more controlled it will become.

RT
Click to expand...

There's opposition to solar, both at the home and utility level. The panels are "ugly" and you need a huge amount of them to generate anything substantial. Utility level solar is so land consuming it's barely worth considering the NIMBY opposition.

Geothermal will have to be place around around volcanoes, mountains, and natural springs... yeah that'll go over well. :roll:

Good article

To quote:

n order to supply a house with electricity, photovoltaic cells would have to cover the entire roof. A supermarket would require a photovoltaic field roughly ten times larger than its own roof, or 1,000 times larger in the case of a high-rise building.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Deleted...
 
Weird tolkienish figure said:
There's opposition to solar, both at the home and utility level. The panels are "ugly" and you need a huge amount of them to generate anything substantial. Utility level solar is so land consuming it's barely worth considering the NIMBY opposition.

Geothermal will have to be place around around volcanoes, mountains, and natural springs... yeah that'll go over well. :roll:

Good article

To quote:

n order to supply a house with electricity, photovoltaic cells would have to cover the entire roof. A supermarket would require a photovoltaic field roughly ten times larger than its own roof, or 1,000 times larger in the case of a high-rise building.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


There are different types of geothermal. There's the kind that they use up in Iceland, relying on the very high temperatures that come from the earth's core in various ways. The other doesn't need deep drilling - not anywhere near as deep. It also doesn't need to be in places close to volcanoes, natural springs, or even places where magma is close to the surface. The second kind just uses the relative consistency of the ground, sometimes with horizontal loops placed 6 to 12 feet down, or, vertical loops typically running up to 300 to 400 feet down. It's not cheap to install, but it is cheap to run - especially when compared to HHO or propane.
 
Hitch said:
Weird tolkienish figure said:
There's opposition to solar, both at the home and utility level. The panels are "ugly" and you need a huge amount of them to generate anything substantial. Utility level solar is so land consuming it's barely worth considering the NIMBY opposition.

Geothermal will have to be place around around volcanoes, mountains, and natural springs... yeah that'll go over well. :roll:

Good article

To quote:

n order to supply a house with electricity, photovoltaic cells would have to cover the entire roof. A supermarket would require a photovoltaic field roughly ten times larger than its own roof, or 1,000 times larger in the case of a high-rise building.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


There are different types of geothermal. There's the kind that they use up in Iceland, relying on the very high temperatures that come from the earth's core in various ways. The other doesn't need deep drilling - not anywhere near as deep. It also doesn't need to be in places close to volcanoes, natural springs, or even places where magma is close to the surface. The second kind just uses the relative consistency of the ground, sometimes with horizontal loops placed 6 to 12 feet down, or, vertical loops typically running up to 300 to 400 feet down. It's not cheap to install, but it is cheap to run - especially when compared to HHO or propane.
Click to expand...


Oh don't get me wrong... I was talking about utility level. I have nothing against an individual installing geothermal heat.

I was researching it, it turns out that it still uses a compressor... it's still a heat pump (reverse air conditioner) but it just uses some of the relative heat of the ground.

I'm talking about geothermal as a utility, to generate electricity. To move off fossil fuels, generating electricity with AE isn't enough, you still have the fleet of vehicles, transportation etc. to add to the power grid.

To use wind and solar you'd have to blanket the landscape with them... something green NIMBY's would never accept.
 
Weird tolkienish figure said:
Oh don't get me wrong... I was talking about utility level. I have nothing against an individual installing geothermal heat.

I was researching it, it turns out that it still uses a compressor... it's still a heat pump (reverse air conditioner) but it just uses some of the relative heat of the ground.

I'm talking about geothermal as a utility, to generate electricity. To move off fossil fuels, generating electricity with AE isn't enough, you still have the fleet of vehicles, transportation etc. to add to the power grid.

To use wind and solar you'd have to blanket the landscape with them... something green NIMBY's would never accept.
Click to expand...

Yeppers, I now see where you were going with it.

(Wish I knew how to insert a smiley face that doesn't look like it is rolling its eyes at everyone....)
 
Can we keep polititics out of this forum guys . There is a forum for that crap
 
muss said:
Can we keep polititics out of this forum guys . There is a forum for that crap
Click to expand...

Deleted... :)
 
1Dtml said:
...Or we could just vote them out of office. :bug:
Click to expand...

Winner winner chicken dinner.
 
Politically, it would seem that no side really wants "energy independence". Everyone talks a great deal about it but essentially does little. There are too many dissenting voices for each option and no one will back down. Eventually costs will rise to the point where just a few options will remain and, consequences be damned, thats what will become the solution. Remember, for a short period of time most lighting was from whale oil.....

That said, solar on a massive scale would work. 500sqft of PV on every house would produce about 70% of what we need. There are whole sections of Nevada desert where they used to test nuclear weapons. Massive PV arrays could be built there, no one goes there for any length of time for obvious reasons. PV can work, it will be expensive, but its doable.

I have a friend with a 7kw PV array on his roof. Its quite amazing to be there and watch the output on the inverter. Spins his meter backwards and he gets a credit from the power company.

RT
 
it is 300 times harder to try and repeal a law once it has been instated against our pellet stoves that smoke like a old sea vessle thats uses thousands of gallons of stinky bunker oil. as far as wind turbines they require rebuilds all the time, and the costs never pay off... but we here in Washington state are installing thousands of the bird killers that are offline because of too much hydropower on the grid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
Looking for feedback on this year's Pro Pellet, Easy Heat and Michigan Wood Fuels pellets?
Replies
9
Views
2K
2023-2024 Pellet FUEL reviews-opinions-questions
skibumm100
S
Hexa Fox
Pellet Stove vs Wood Stove?
Replies
30
Views
4K
The Pellet Mill - Pellet and Multifuel Stoves
skibumm100
S
notch
2022-2023 Northeast, Vermont and Green Supreme
Replies
2
Views
4K
2023-2024 Pellet FUEL reviews-opinions-questions
lowb35
L
Max W
Minisplits and wood
Replies
4
Views
871
The Inglenook
EbS-P
EbS-P
S
Thoughts about heating fuel for my home.
Replies
27
Views
4K
The Hearth Room - Wood Stoves and Fireplaces
Isaac Carlson
Isaac Carlson
Top Bottom
Back