Hacker News Reader

Comment by bcarrell | Hacker News Reader

I own a home built in the 1960s in the northeast US. My home (like many others, I'm sure) uses an oil-fired boiler to provide heating and hot water. I don't have gas lines to my house. The gas company won't run them unless I pay ~$5,000 for them to do so. Even if my home used natural gas instead of oil, I feel like it's not really solving the problem.

What are my options here? Is solar viable? What can _I_ reasonably do to improve consumption? I use only LED lighting, eat meat rarely, use a programmable thermostat, have new windows/doors, etc. Improving the situation seems either not economically viable for most people or an incremental improvement. Just wait?

View on HN

Take a hard look at the numbers. For example, livestock are responsible for 3.1% of US co2 equivalent warming (Wikipedia citing the US EPA), so going from average meat consumption to no meat consumption isn't a huge impact, but it's something.

$5k is about a dollar a day for 13 years; switching to natural gas is about 25% more efficient than fuel oil, co2-wise. Depending on how much heating you need that 25% could be vastly more impactful than a life without meat. Also, look into electric heating, depending on your electric supply that could be vastly more carbon efficient.

Also, around the house efficiency in the form of insulation and modern appliances is something that's usually super cost effective and carbon effective on a house from the 60s. It again will require up-front capital but is almost always a super smart move to do as soon as possible.

In some ways it's easier to be super self sacrificial and not eat meat, but it's important to look at the big picture. It really is about the numbers here; personal purity does nobody any good. Except on the political side; become a vocal single issue voter and never vote for a politician that doesn't have climate change part of their platform, and the same goes for political parties. Ultimately putting in mile carbon taxes will shift the market to do the right thing, but the politics make this impossible. Yes anti-economical too, negative externalities must be addressed by societal means, just like liabilities must be addressed through societal means.

Sorry, 5k to run the lines, and I'm guessing another 5k to remove the oil tank and install new equipment. Roughly 10k for me to switch from oil to gas. Mentioned my insulation situation in other comments. Thanks!

> livestock are responsible for 3.1% of US co2 equivalent warming (Wikipedia citing the US EPA)

The same Wikipedia article also mentions FAO studies giving 14.5% and 18% globally. I wonder what explains the difference. Methodology? Ignoring the contribution of imports? Much higher emissions in the US compared to the world in other areas reducing the relative but not the absolute impact of livestock?

In any case meat and animal products seem very relevant to GHG emissions worldwide, and they might be in the US once you reduce other waste. But it's indeed a good idea to focus on the major contributors and low-hanging fruits first.

We already give pretty good indications on how much carbon something is producing based on the power/oil bill. If you act to reduce your total outgoings, you're probably heading in the right direction.

Add insulation. If your house was built in 1960, was it retrofitted with wall insulation? Put more into the ceiling.

Depending on how much space you have, you can de-carbon your heat generation. Investigate heat pumps (ground loop for up there) for both hot air and hot water.

Solar hot water might be viable. In the US, the tax breaks make solar power a gimme if you have the money.

Stop watering the lawn, and install rain water tanks for any gardens you have.

As appliances die, replace them with more energy efficient ones. A small full fridge is more efficient than a large empty one. Beer and wine fridges should be gotten rid of.

Then, try to convert peak load to base load. Shift to a demand pricing tariff at your power company (where the price changes by time of day), and then try to lower your bill by changing when you do things.

Then we get into transport reduction, which is another whole kettle of fish.

> Add insulation. If your house was built in 1960, was it retrofitted with wall insulation? Put more into the ceiling.

Walls were stripped to the studs approx. 8-10 years ago and new fiberglass insulation installed at that point. Attic has (rough) batt insulation, but I suspect it could be better there. Air handler for the air conditioning system is also in the attic due to, I suspect, no other viable option for the design. Probably some loss there.

> Investigate heat pumps (ground loop for up there) for both hot air and hot water. Solar hot water might be viable. In the US, the tax breaks make solar power a gimme if you have the money.

I'll take a look, thanks. I'll note that I have ductwork for the air conditioning system but the (separate) heating system uses baseboard. Unfortunately, the finished basement doesn't have ductwork installed.

You may find some cheap, easy gains by adding thermostatically controlled fans to your attic's soffet vents. It can get very hot in an attic on hot, sunny days, even if the floors below are held in comfort by A/C. Forcing the (hot but not nearly as hot as attic air) fresh outside air in (especially during the cool night, then idling during the day) can reduce the work your A/C has to do.

Incremental improvements are the only way. Only you can make the decision as to what's viable for you. How's your insulation? Political engagement matters too: is there anything you'd like to lobby for or against?

I declared solar PV viable for me in Scotland at 56N, due to the available feed-in tariffs, and it's working pretty well. House not so old but the gas heating bill is unpleasantly high.

Don't overlook transport in global warming, it's not just about the house.

Propane can be moderately cleaner than oil. Depending on the age of your boiler, you might get a big boost in efficiency by replacing it.

The difference can be quite substantial:

http://energy.gov/energysaver/furnaces-and-boilers

As much as 25% more energy directed into the home instead of out the chimney.

My current boiler is ~85 AFUE.

Better insulation was missing from your list (or was maybe part of "etc") but if you want a more efficient heating / cooling system ground source heat pumps are an option. They can run from the grid more efficiently than most other sources of heating or cooling or optionally be combined with solar.

Walls were stripped to studs approx. 8 years ago and new (fiberglass) insulation installed at that point. Attic has batt insulation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com