Separate names with a comma.
Posted By teddy1971,
Sep 7, 2008 at 2:31 PM
One thing for sure - the writer speaks the truth when he says:
"We make a lot of short-sighted decisions when it comes to energy policy and other policies."
This has been posted earlier in the spring/summer I think. It`s nothing more than a little whining from the oil dealer consortium.
I don`t hate oil or American capitalists who profit by it as it has been a boon to our country`s industry and economy for well over a century now and for almost all of those years it has really been a cheap, safe , readily available , and easy to use form of energy.
What gets me is that with all the talk about weaning us off oil , there has been no politician (that I know of) who has breached the subject of a program to replace oil as a heating fuel. To my knowledge it has been put at 10% of those who heat their homes in the US burn oil.
I mean if natural gas is so abundant with the infrastructure already in place why not initiate a program get us oil burners off the oil wagon? Maybe even offer assistance to those who cannot afford to convert such as the elderly and low income earners.
I called the local gas company this spring asking them to extend their line down the street (300ft) to my house so that I could convert . They replied that they were sorry but have no plans to extend the line. What gives here?
Is anyone (politicians) really serious about oil consumption in this country?
Heck, if they are helping people wean off OWBs, then perhaps they should help people move to other fuels....or at least more efficient oil burners.
I'm pretty sure they are correct about the fact that oil puts out less bad stuff than pellets, but this is probably meaningless given the small % of people using pellets.
don't forget oil is taxable pellets are not, at least where i live
and taxes collected pay salaries for politicians
There's a similar "study" floating around CT where the oil dealers are touting the benefits of oil over natural gas - attempting to forestall those conversions as well. Happens everytime prices go up & there's a cheaper alternative to oil. They highlight the safety of oil over natural gas because people die of natural gas appliance explosions, the colorless gas seeps into their rooms while they're asleep and they die....etc...etc. Of course they don't mention people die when their oil burner pumps CO into their house because it's malfunctioning or that the natural gas furnace is 98% efficient and the oil one is 85%...but they also don't point out valid issues like the cost of conversion amortized over the likelihood of remaining in the house (my conversion cost was projected to be over $15,000 due to the need for an extension of the gas line). Valid arguments I'll listen to. Self-serving one-sided fear-mongering ones I disregard and put the messenger into the "not to be believed about anything" category.
Using less heating oil will free up more diesel to deliver more pellets and stoves, sounds like a good deal to me.
Off road diesel and home heating are not taxed that's why it's dyed red to it can't be used with vehicle that drive on public roads.
I don't know about that, until more sources are opened up any price decrease will cause increase in consumption causing prices to go up. I think in a global economany oil is going to be volatile until it's gone or the whole planet switches to something else.
It's funny how Garside stated "You could end up spending more for the changeover of the systems and the cost of wood pellets than you would for heating oil,". He is using the calculation that a customer may spend $3700 for oil this season but spend $4200 installing a pellet stove with fuel for the season. This thought process helped me choose to purchase a pellet stove. I thought that I would spend more money this season but eventually that cost will be made up with the savings from using pellets instead of oil. Using this gentleman's calculations I would pay for my stove in two seasons with the price he quotes and then save @ $2500 per season after that. I don't expect oil to stay this high. It will probably go down to @ $3.00 to $3.50 per gallon by winter if oil drops to $80.00 per barrel based on historical charts. But I don't want to get caught with my pants down when the global economies bounce back and China and India's consumption goes up. I def. feel that there is a finite amount of oil on this planet and since china and india do not seem to care about conservation at this point oil will go up again but hopefully more gradually.
your right the're not taxes it's called a" fee " ground water clean-up fund insurance" fee" is levied on all distillates at $.29ber barrel
maine office of energy independence and security, there's also another"fee" of $.03 on every barrel of heating oil & kerosene but not propane
not sure what that one's for > http://www.maineenergyinfo.org/docs/HomeHeatingSectionReportToTheLegislature.pdf
I didn't read the study so they may have touched on this. Another thing to keep in mind with respect to emissions is that with oil you are releasing carbon into the atmosphere that use to be sealed deep inside the earth, therefor adding 'new' carbon to the atmosphere. Oil as we know is not a renewable resource. With pellets you are burning wood which is a renewable resource and releasing carbon in the atmosphere which was only recently capture and would be released back into the atmosphere when the tree dies and decays.
Thats a good point....
Ok.....now let me get this straight....we say that a HUGE amount of our jobs/factories went overseas right? They say China is eating up ALOT of the worlds oil because of the rise in factories that "use" to be here...? Well....if thats it then our consumption should of drastically went down...right? Also at the same time...lots of nuclear plants slowed or even shut during this time in america(one in my homestate of Maine, shut down early actually).
I say good luck in changing people over to alt. immediately....thats a massive undertaking that alot of people just cant afford. But in long term its a good goal. Until then.....lets do ALL of the above until a firm solid answer has unfolded. Europe reprocesses their waste from nuclear plants....why cant we?
All things being equal that would be the case. However, the jobs leaving here & new factories opening there did not happen in a static environment. Our total employment has gone UP and other domestic consumption drivers have also gone up. (Although that is slowing or reversing in some areas of the economy - including gasoline for driving.)
Another factor is efficiency of production - our power plants are more efficient than the Chinese ones because of our infrastructure. China does not have good electric distribution networks. So most often a new factory comes with a new power generation facility right next door as part of the factory because they can't rely on some central source for the power. As a result, these are smaller, less efficient, cheaper, and by & large dirtier than those typically found in the U.S. They burn oil & coal that are deemed too dirty to burn here which we happily export (as if the pollution, carbon, etc. won't reach all the way over here sooner or later
We are also not the only driver of the increased demand for jobs/factories in China - the rest of the world is increasing its appetite for "stuff" and that adds to the overall demand for new factories and new power. The Chinese are contributing to that demand for "stuff" as well since more of them can afford more "stuff".
As a side note, I dropped my son off at college last week and about 1 in 4 kids moving in at the same time had some sort of large flat screen TV (36"+). It's our unrelenting need for more stuff!
We have met the enemy and he is us! --- Pogo
The ones with the 36" LCD panels probably get the free tuition and financial aid provided by you the taxpayer. They will raise a toast to you during spring break and thank you for the free vacation too LOL
Per the study, what do you expect from a ex Maine state DEP hack. I wonder what he got paid to do this study. Also Maine does not have an energy policy, people installing stoves and going this route are doing so on their own dime and the state has nothing to do with it. This guy probably wants to get hired back by the state to study it further and waste more of our money.
I agree 100%.
I wonder how many people got there $600 - $1800 check and blew it, but will be crying for LIHEAP in another two months. LIHEAP in Pennsylvania is our program to pay for people's oil so they don't go cold.
I would like to see a study on how much pollution is generated for each gal of fuel or gas from the well head to the oil/gas tank versus from the stump to the pellet mill. Taking into consideration the fuel needed for harvesting equipment and transport and production of pellets. I would bet that the fuel to run one tanker load from Saudi Arabia to here would prolly be enough to harvest all the pellets and transport em to your house. Bet the study didn't want to bring that up.