Peak Oil!?

July 8, 2005 5:28 AM

We're considering swapping out our existing oil-burning furnace/hot water heater for a furnace that burns ... something else. I'm interested in hearing suggestions/anecdotes about what the 'something else' should be.

Natural Gas is, of course, the most common alternative, but we've also looked at propane - what other alternatives are there? (Wood fired or Electric have already been eliminated as options.) What else should I know? What questions should I ask? What common pitfalls are there in furnace replacement?

We live in a 1912 three-story Victorian with steam radiators, in Maine, if you need to know that. We have no need for or interest in a system that could provide central air or anything other than hot water on demand. Our budget is not unlimited, but we're willing to invest a bit of money now to save money later. In the past 18 months our heating oil bills have gone from $1.09 a gallon to $2.38 a gallon, and climbing. Our house will never be super-well insulated, so we do need something that runs as efficiently as possible.

posted by anastasiav to home & garden (13 comments total)

According to this government report, gas looks like it's slightly more efficient than oil, but the cost per million BTU is lower for oil (at least in their example, which may not reflect real prices). Propane is much more expensive and less efficient. Heat pumps look like the cheapest to operate, but that doesn't sound real for Maine.

FWIW, I have never had any problems or service interruptions using gas. There's the occasional sudden house deconstruction in the news, from gas leaks, but it's never happened near me.


One caution: make sure an oil-truck driver cannot pump oil into your old fill port. If he succeeds, and you've had the oil tank removed, you'll need a new house.
Have the fill port removed, or welded shut, or something. Basement oil-pools happen with about the same frequency as gas explosions.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:46 AM on July 8, 2005

We have forced hot air from natural gas (probably not an option for you) and we replaced a 30 year old similar unit. The efficiency difference was staggering--gas costs were cut in half (actually, they were the same, but we double the square footage of the house). I'm happy about the cost, not happy about the dried sinuses in the winter.
posted by plinth at 7:11 AM on July 8, 2005

Quite honestly, your best investment would be to at least try to insulate your house better. Most heat loss is through the roof, so the attic is a good place to start.

Back to the question: It sounds like you have natural gas supply where you live. Between the common choices, oil gas and propane, gas is your best bet. The dirtiest burning of the three is oil. For practical purposes, this means the oil guy needs to come out at least once a year to service your boiler. Propane burns cleaner, but tends to be more corrosive, and doesn't burn as efficiently as natural. Natural is good, but you don't (yet) have a choice of suppliers. We're starting to get more supply in to the pine tree state, but it's still a market-priced commodity. Whatever your choice, the boiler will surely be more efficient than the one it replaces.

Once your decision is made for a primary source of heat, you could look into a supplemental method that would take some of the sting out of seasonal high gas/oil prices. I've seen monitor heat in a lot of homes here. These heaters are said to be very efficient burning kerosene, but they tend to concentrate the heat in one place. The other alternative is to get an efficient wood stove, though they also put out heat in a concentrated area, and you have to plan ahead to make sure you have enough wood in the door yard for the heating season. Ayuh.
posted by SteveInMaine at 7:20 AM on July 8, 2005

Go with the gas. It's cleaner and easier to maintain. Added bonus: if you cook, a gas range is much better than electric, and depending on your electric cost, a gas dryer can save some cash as well.

If you go with gas, think about an on-demand water heater. They're a lot more efficient than keeping a big tank of water hot 24/7.
posted by Marky at 7:32 AM on July 8, 2005

your best investment would be to at least try to insulate your house better. Most heat loss is through the roof, so the attic is a good place to start.

Our attic is already insulated, and we've been working through getting some blown in throughout the rest of the house. Unfortunately, due to the size and age of the house, every estimate I've gotten on a total "sealing up" of the house is in the $10,000 range (including replacing all the original windows with vynil, which I'm not keen on) which is waayy more than I can spend on that project right now.
posted by anastasiav at 7:40 AM on July 8, 2005

wow. 'vynil' ... that's embarrassing. I mean Vinyl, of course.
posted by anastasiav at 7:49 AM on July 8, 2005

Natural gas is currently a pretty good choice. I think you will get a better return on your investment with a more efficient furnace given the cost to insulate. Efficiencies have move from around about 60% to well over 90%, or higher, in the past few decades. Hot water is more efficient than steam so you might also consider a steam to hot water conversion, but only if your contractor has specific experience with this. For a house as old as yours it may require running new piping as the old steam pipes may be too corroded to hold water. You would not want a leak. Also, please do not put vinyl windows into your vintage home. It deserves wood.
posted by caddis at 7:59 AM on July 8, 2005

If you have high ceilings in your house all of the heat will end up there. If it's practical you might want to consider installing some ceiling fans. We have a few of these and they do a great job circulating the heat in the winter, and just keeping the air moving on those rare hot days in the summer.

I agree about vinyl windows. Do you have the snap-in storm windows? Though not as efficient as new windows they'll at least help some and are cheaper.
posted by SteveInMaine at 8:20 AM on July 8, 2005

consider a steam to hot water conversion, but only if your contractor has specific experience with this. For a house as old as yours it may require running new piping

Make that will require new piping. Steam systems have no return line; hot water systems do.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:46 AM on July 8, 2005

Or maybe some do. The ones I had didn't.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:47 AM on July 8, 2005

Those pulse furnaces that are over 90% efficient heat my brother's large Colo. dome very well.I think it's made by Lennox
posted by hortense at 10:22 AM on July 8, 2005

1. Are your windows double-pane? Moving from single to double panes will make a big difference.
2. Have you considered running Biodiesel in your furnace? Do some research first, but my reading suggests that it should be possible. Biodiesel is a mild solvent, so you will get a lot of sludge out of the system (and possibly clogging it up) in the first few cycles. After that, you have a clearn energy source that will only get cheaper over time.
posted by b1tr0t at 11:18 AM on July 8, 2005

Pellet stoves might be worth a few minutes of googling. They can burn either a manufactured pellet or corn. This may be much more practical here in Iowa than it is in Maine, though. Some are even ventless, having a catylitic converter built in, but I'm not convinced that it's a good idea.
posted by kc0dxh at 4:40 AM on July 9, 2005