Alternatives to Oil Heating that aren't Natural Gas.

  • Guest, it's time once again for the hotly contested and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and fill out your bracket!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Once again, only you can decide!

Gorillaz_sl

shitlord
203
0
So I've been in my house a year, and I'm already annoyed by oil heating.

Natural Gas isn't in our neighborhood (hope that changes, a company is looking at it).

I am trying to figure out a cheaper alternative. I'm open to any ideas. Trying to avoid MAJOR upfront costs, but it really depends on what it is and how much it will save me in the long term.

I'm in Delaware if that helps.

Just made a basic layout of my house.

Been looking at Wood Stoves, Pellets, Solar, Geo-thermal....I just don't quite know where to go that makes sense.

Thanks if anyone has any ideas. I appreciate it.

rrr_img_47853.png
 

Joeboo

Molten Core Raider
8,157
140
You can get an electric furnace for your home, they're pretty common anymore, even sold in places like Lowes and Home Depot. I have no idea how the cost of operation compares to oil/natural gas, but a lot of new homes anymore are going all electric. I had a townhome that was 100% electric for a while(electric furnace, electric stove) and it was kind of nice just having 1 utility bill per month, if nothing else.
 

Gorillaz_sl

shitlord
203
0
You can get an electric furnace for your home, they're pretty common anymore, even sold in places like Lowes and Home Depot. I have no idea how the cost of operation compares to oil/natural gas, but a lot of new homes anymore are going all electric. I had a townhome that was 100% electric for a while(electric furnace, electric stove) and it was kind of nice just having 1 utility bill per month, if nothing else.
Most things I read say electric is the most expensive.

I'm really interested in maybe doing a pellet burning furnace, but I have no concept of how complicated it would be.
 

Erronius

Macho Ma'am
<Gold Donor>
16,456
42,340
So I've been in my house a year, and I'm already annoyed by oil heating.
What, specifically, annoys you about it? I'm assuming the cost of oil alone?

Looking at your floor plan, it strikes me as possibly an older home? Do you even have a basement or is it built on a slab or over a crawlspace? The reason I ask is that if you do have an older home then your insulation is probably terrible, decayed, settled or nonexistent and properly insulating and sealing your home is IMHO the #1 best investment you can make and should be done before you do anything else. This would include the easy & cheap caulking, expanding foam and new door/window seals as well as scoping out what your insulation is like and deciding what you want to do about it (you can do all the insulation yourself as well, including finished exterior walls).

The reason I ask about insulation/sealing is that you could potentially invest in some unusual alternatives only to end up realizing the hard way that your new "cheaper" alternative is only marginally cheaper because your house leaks air as if the windows were open and you only have insulation in the bottom 1/3rd of your wall cavities.
 

Pancreas

Vyemm Raider
1,121
3,808
Most things I read say electric is the most expensive.

I'm really interested in maybe doing a pellet burning furnace, but I have no concept of how complicated it would be.
Pellet stoves are pretty simple to operate (provided everything is working properly). The stove will have a hopper that feeds it, all you have to do is make sure the hopper stays full. Then you set your thermostat just like a normal furnace. I know lots of people that love their pellet stoves. As for delivering the pellets, some people pick up their own and take them home. I forget the average bag weight, 50lbs 100lbs?. I am not sure if you can get them delivered and what, if any, additional cost that might incur.

Another oil alternative is an outdoor furnace. It's essentially a large wood fired boiler that is about the size of a tool shed. Lots of regions don't allow them because of the smoke they can produce. These are nice as you can burn essentially any type of wood you can throw in them. I work with a guy who owns one. The major drawbacks for these would be the handling of the wood/ splitting it, if you don't buy it split already, or you are using wood growing on your own property. Also the burn time for most of the boilers is around 12 hours or less unless you get a really big one. This means you are feeding the furnace at least twice a day.

I think the average amount of wood these consume year round if you use them for hot water as well is like 10-12 chord of wood. Potentially more if you are heating a big house. The outside furnace operates very similar to a traditional wood stove in terms of what it burns, but it is usually hooked up to baseboard registers or radiant flooring so it gives you a nice even heat.

Geo Thermal really doesn't work as a stand alone heating system last I knew. It can bring the ambient temperature of the home to whatever the ground is at the time, usually like 53 degrees F or something like that. Then you must use some other heat source to finish the job. Nice thing about it, is it does double duty in the summer for cooling.

Solar hot water can be pretty cool. I have known people that simply looped big coils of black tubing on their roof and ran their hot water lines through that. More professional looking systems are essentially the same thing, just contained in a box or something.

Wood stoves can be tough to use as a primary heat source. Not simply because you usually end up with a nuclear hot zone right around the stove and freezing cold areas elsewhere, especially if you close a door. But also because home insurance agencies hate them with a passion. You would probably have to renegotiate your policy if you had one installed. Nice thing about them... they don't require power to operate provided you have a proper chimney and not a power vent. This can be a real plus in remote areas that are prone to power outages.

That's all I know on the subject.
 

Gorillaz_sl

shitlord
203
0
What, specifically, annoys you about it? I'm assuming the cost of oil alone?

Looking at your floor plan, it strikes me as possibly an older home? Do you even have a basement or is it built on a slab or over a crawlspace? The reason I ask is that if you do have an older home then your insulation is probably terrible, decayed, settled or nonexistent and properly insulating and sealing your home is IMHO the #1 best investment you can make and should be done before you do anything else. This would include the easy & cheap caulking, expanding foam and new door/window seals as well as scoping out what your insulation is like and deciding what you want to do about it (you can do all the insulation yourself as well, including finished exterior walls).

The reason I ask about insulation/sealing is that you could potentially invest in some unusual alternatives only to end up realizing the hard way that your new "cheaper" alternative is only marginally cheaper because your house leaks air as if the windows were open and you only have insulation in the bottom 1/3rd of your wall cavities.
It's an older home, it's an unfinished basement. But it has all new windows and siding, we had someone from the Mark Group in our area come out and do an energy assessment. They basically wanted to do some sealing in some areas of the basement and attic, and upgrade the insulation in the attic. Was going to be something like 3 grand all total.

But they said my windows/siding/insulation looked good.

Main thing is the cost/rising cost of oil.
 

Gorillaz_sl

shitlord
203
0
Pellet stoves are pretty simple to operate (provided everything is working properly). The stove will have a hopper that feeds it, all you have to do is make sure the hopper stays full. Then you set your thermostat just like a normal furnace. I know lots of people that love their pellet stoves. As for delivering the pellets, some people pick up their own and take them home. I forget the average bag weight, 50lbs 100lbs?. I am not sure if you can get them delivered and what, if any, additional cost that might incur.

Another oil alternative is an outdoor furnace. It's essentially a large wood fired boiler that is about the size of a tool shed. Lots of regions don't allow them because of the smoke they can produce. These are nice as you can burn essentially any type of wood you can throw in them. I work with a guy who owns one. The major drawbacks for these would be the handling of the wood/ splitting it, if you don't buy it split already, or you are using wood growing on your own property. Also the burn time for most of the boilers is around 12 hours or less unless you get a really big one. This means you are feeding the furnace at least twice a day.

I think the average amount of wood these consume year round if you use them for hot water as well is like 10-12 chord of wood. Potentially more if you are heating a big house. The outside furnace operates very similar to a traditional wood stove in terms of what it burns, but it is usually hooked up to baseboard registers or radiant flooring so it gives you a nice even heat.
I've thought about the outdoor wood furnace. But yeah I'd have to research what's allowed in my area.

I'm trying to figure out where I'd stick the pellet stove in my house...my wife might not like the idea. The other thing I've seen are pellet furnaces which are interesting since it would be in my basement and replace my regular furnace.

But I'd need someone who supplies pellets.
 

Erronius

Macho Ma'am
<Gold Donor>
16,456
42,340
It's an older home, it's an unfinished basement. But it has all new windows and siding, we had someone from the Mark Group in our area come out and do an energy assessment. They basically wanted to do some sealing in some areas of the basement and attic, and upgrade the insulation in the attic. Was going to be something like 3 grand all total.

But they said my windows/siding/insulation looked good.
Did they use a blower door in the assessment? Just curious. Judging from their site it looks like it's a visual assessment and things like blower doors and thermal imaging are separate or not guaranteed.

You can get a broad range of results in energy assessments depending on who does them, as a lot of companies or individuals just want to impress upon homeowners how much energy they lose and where so that they can follow it up with"...and we can fix that for you for just $X,XXX.XX".

Main thing is the cost/rising cost of oil.
On one hand I would think that this would all revolve around the possibility of natural gas installation. Investing in another fuel type (pellet, etc) might leave you stuck with an extraneous furnace if/when you get natural gas and upgrade to a natural gas furnace. And then you'd have to consider how long it might be until they get around to installing gas, if ever, so that's an intangible that might really hamstring you. I'm extremely hesitant to make any furnace/heatsource recommendation if you might then go out and sink money into something then have them install the gas lines in the spring for example.

Just a cheap ordinary wood stove might be ok to stick in your basement if you can use existing exhaust from your furnace (I'm not an HVAC guy so I can't really tell you), especially if you have a source of cheap wood. You can find cheap wood stoves.

Stuff like solar and geothermal...that might really depend on your finances and how much you can get from your state in incentives and rebates. On the upside a lot of alternative energy/heat sources aren't necessarily mutually exclusive with natural gas for example, so if you can afford it, are so inclined and the state makes it affordable for you...you can invest in something like solar and with a good installation see a reward regardless of what happens down the line. The downside though is that for the most part the entire systems can get pricy, so many people balk at the initial upfront costs. There's actually some concern that if (when) fuel prices skyrocket that there might end up being a huge divide between those that can afford alternative energy installs like solar and those that will not be able to and that the environmental benefits may end up being negated by people that can't afford it and say "fuck it" and start burning whatever they can get their hands on. But anyways, I digress...


http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/i...srp=1&state=DE
 

Dyvim

Bronze Knight of the Realm
1,420
195
If you have a source of wood go out and chuck some to heat your home, nothing will beat that cost wise.
 

Eomer

Trakanon Raider
5,472
272
Pancreas_sl said:
Geo Thermal really doesn't work as a stand alone heating system last I knew. It can bring the ambient temperature of the home to whatever the ground is at the time, usually like 53 degrees F or something like that. Then you must use some other heat source to finish the job. Nice thing about it, is it does double duty in the summer for cooling.
Yeah, it does work as a standalone heating or cooling system with heat pumps. It's just a question of how efficient it is, or rather the return on the electricity it consumes. Basically heat pumps can remove or add heat to the geothermal loop, depending on whether it's heating or cooling. So the geothermal field, wells, or pond acts as a big heat sink that you pull heat from, or reject heat to.

The upfront cost would be much more than going with an electric furnace, but over the long run it would be way the fuck cheaper since you'd be using a fraction of the electricity to run the pumps and the compressor in the heat pump as compared to just using an electric element. I think that good geothermal heat pumps these days have coefficients of performance of something like 6-8, meaning that the net energy gain is 6-8 times the electricity consumed.

The other advantage is that you'd get cooling to go with your heating, as the system works both ways. You can also get them with a domestic water connection, so coupled with a storage tank they can provide your domestic hot water (but the COP will drop when trying to heat water up to 120-130F as opposed to just heating air to 90F or whatever for forced air heating).

Heat pumps sound fancy and/or newfangled, but they've been used in commercial applications for decades. In those applications the heat and cooling source is generally a boiler and/or cooling tower/chiller. The only difference with a geothermal system is that the ground or lake act as your buffer, instead.

Your local climate as well as the soil conditions will determine how big of a field you need if you go horizontal, or how many and how deep of bore holes you'll need if you go vertical. Basically the system has to be designed by a professional to ensure that you don't either freeze up or overheat your system if it's undersized.

No idea how a geothermal system would compare cost-wise over the long run, whether or not you include the initial investment. It would certainly be much, much cheaper than straight electrical heat in terms of operating costs. Pay-off wise, that would depend on how expensive or cheap electricity is in your area. Compared to a natural gas furnace, the initial capital investment would be much higher, and the system would need a lot more maintenance as there's pumps involved. Natural gas is pretty fucking cheap right now and not likely to go up much in the next 5-10 years with the glut of supply coming to market, so I would imagine that it would be tough to beat if you include capital costs for the comparison. However if you have reasonably cheap electricity, then a geothermal system might beat it over the long run.
 

Joeboo

Molten Core Raider
8,157
140
say what?
Maybe it just depends on what part of the country you live in, but a lot of newer homes around here(built in last 10 years) are going with electric furnaces. It's not more common than natural gas by any means, but it's a noticeable amount, it's not super rare. Maybe it's not economical in colder climates or something though. We only really use the furnace around this part of the country from like October to March. I just turned mine on for the first time about a week ago.
 

Gravy

Bronze Squire
4,918
454
Our house is all electric and the heater is quite a few years old (15+?). We heat about 2000 sq ft. and our winter bills run about 250-300/month.

I actually hate the all electric thing, but mainly because I want a gas stove.
 

Erronius

Macho Ma'am
<Gold Donor>
16,456
42,340
Yeah, it does work as a standalone heating or cooling systemwith heat pumps. It's just a question of how efficient it is, or rather the return on the electricity it consumes. Basically heat pumps can remove or add heat to the geothermal loop, depending on whether it's heating or cooling. So the geothermal field, wells, or pond acts as a big heat sink that you pull heat from, or reject heat to.
I think he was considering actual heat pumps to be separate and that a loop + heat pump wouldn't be a "standalone" system. I don't have a horse in this race but /shrug.

I think that good geothermal heat pumps these days have coefficients of performance of something like 6-8, meaning that the net energy gain is 6-8 times the electricity consumed.
Yeah I dunno about 6-8, maybe 3-4. Looking at this site they're starting to edge into 4.5-4.9 on closed loop with open loop ratings in the 5s, but I'm honestly not sure how many people would consider using an open-loop system.

ENERGY STAR Most Efficient 2013: Geothermal Heat Pumps : ENERGY STAR

I pulled out a textbook and the highest COP it mentions is 4; it's been in print maybe for 4 years or so, so it's interesting to see how COP has gone up some in those few years.

Your local climate as well as the soil conditions will determine how big of a field you need if you go horizontal, or how many and how deep of bore holes you'll need if you go vertical. Basically the system has to be designed by a professional to ensure that you don't either freeze up or overheat your system if it's undersized.
Another thing is that his ductwork probably isn't sized for any sort of centralized heat pump system, assuming that he were to have an air handler installed instead of piping and radiant heat. Not a dealbreaker but homeowners do get used to turning on the furnace full-blast when they're cold and getting some of that sweet, sweet combustion heat and they can think something is wrong when they change to a heat pump and they can't necessarily put their hand in front of a register and feel the heat blasting out.

If we're eschewing air-source then I guess the climate region isn't as big an issue, and I'm not sure how the winters in Delaware are and if aux heaters would come in to play.
 

Eomer

Trakanon Raider
5,472
272
Erronius_sl said:
I think he was considering actual heat pumps to be separate and that a loop + heat pump wouldn't be a "standalone" system. I don't have a horse in this race but /shrug.
Eh? No one even mentioned heat pumps until I did, I don't think. Pancreas specifically said that he didn't think geothermal can warm your house up past the ambient temperature of the geothermal well. That's false. Yes, you can also do an air to air heat pump, but generally the COP's of those is lower than water (geothermal) to air. In moderate climates they're okay, but if it's in a colder climate it basically boils down to being hardly any better than electric heat since the COP will drop down to 1 or 2 if it's cold enough.

Erronius_sl said:
I pulled out a textbook and the highest COP it mentions is 4; it's been in print maybe for 4 years or so, so it's interesting to see how COP has gone up some in those few years.
Whoops. I must have confused that with condensing units or something. I just pulled the number off the top of my head.

Erronius_sl said:
Another thing is that his ductwork probably isn't sized for any sort of centralized heat pump system, assuming that he were to have an air handler installed instead of piping and radiant heat.
If he had a forced air furnace before, then it should be fine. I don't recall if he did or not. The heat pump just might run more often and for longer than his furnace did previously. Not necessarily even a bad thing.
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
45,320
73,376
I don't know if it'd work for you but geothermal is such a cool technology you should do it regardless of whether it makes sense! I'd also look into how much installing a geothermal system increases your home's value if you care about that. Being able to promise that heating/cooling/waterheating is 3-6x less costly in your house is a big deal.

But the first thing to look at regarding lowering heating/cooling costs is insulation. Biggest problem is drafts. Next cold day inspect every crevice in your home for drafts. In the attic, basement etc. Those guys that said that they'd seal everything and put insulation in the attic? That's the way to go. But if you want to you can probably do it all or most yourself. Sealing cracks and moving insulation around is some of the easiest home improvement stuff out there.

You can also finish parts of your basement to make it more efficient. Carpet on the ground and installing 2x4s + insulation + gypsum on the walls will help the efficiency. That's harder, requires more effort and costs more but it not only improves your efficiency but increases your living space dramatically. And winter is a good time to finish your basement!
 

Falstaff

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
8,311
3,165
Drafts are the biggest issue we are dealing with in our house right now. All the upstairs windows are new(er) but the rest of the house has the original windows from when the house was built in 1966. I bought one of those kits for 10 bucks that's basically double sided tape and saran wrap to seal the windows with... hopefully it works.
 

Eomer

Trakanon Raider
5,472
272
Yeah, agreed on insulation and sealing. New houses today have a fraction of the heat loss that houses built in the 70's or even 80's do because they are so much tighter. However, sealing your house up tight can lead to other problems if not done properly, mainly with mold and moisture. Mold becomes a problem with a "tighter" house because there's less air movement through the building envelope, and moisture problems can develop if the vapor and air barrier are not properly designed. Basically, you want the vapor barrier outside of the air barrier in all parts of your home, as far as I understand it.
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
45,320
73,376
Yeah, agreed on insulation and sealing. New houses today have a fraction of the heat loss that houses built in the 70's or even 80's do because they are so much tighter. However, sealing your house up tight can lead to other problems if not done properly, mainly with mold and moisture. Mold becomes a problem with a "tighter" house because there's less air movement through the building envelope, and moisture problems can develop if the vapor and air barrier are not properly designed. Basically, you want the vapor barrier outside of the air barrier in all parts of your home, as far as I understand it.
Yeah I forgot to warn about that. We accidentally sealed up one of our pipes and had to rip off parts of the ceiling when it got cold enough to freeze the pipes. If we didn't notice it right away it might have burst.
 

Erronius

Macho Ma'am
<Gold Donor>
16,456
42,340
Eh? No one even mentioned heat pumps until I did, I don't think.
Err...that's part of the point? It's like you had the presupposition that heat pumps are integral to any geothermal system (weren't always), then added that in your post (standalone + 'with heat pumps') then seemingly still don't understand that maybe the reason he didn't mention heat pumps (and you did) is that he was thinking of geothermal sans heat pumps? Which is exactly why I said what I did.

Pancreas specifically said that he didn't think geothermal can warm your house up past the ambient temperature of the geothermal well. That's false.
Though there IS a range past which heat pumps generally shit the bed in regards to delta T IIRC (I wanted to say 30 degrees or so) after which their efficiency plummets. There are drawbacks, but that's addressable. But if you're having to tack on additional equipment (such as supplementary heaters) then you start undercutting much of the vaunted efficiency and suddenly they aren't always the "best" option. Of course then you need to start debating what type of loops you have and how they're installed (shallow vs deep), what climate zone you're in (in the case of loops close to the surface), etc etc etc.

If he had a forced air furnace before, then it should be fine. I don't recall if he did or not. The heat pump just might run more often and for longer than his furnace did previously. Not necessarily even a bad thing.
Well, let's not even make assumptions that his current ductwork is correct, for all we know it's 50 years old and undersized. And the reason that having properly sized ductwork - and avoiding the heat pump needing to run 'longer' - is that again you're pushing it away from running as efficient as it can. Not to mention the issue with the maintenance on the pumps being one of the cons of that type of an installation...now you'd potentially be forcing those pumps to cycle longer and sustain more wear because it has to sit there and run longer.

It's not so much an issue of "will/won't work" but an issue of "how well it will work", and if your big selling point is efficiency then you should probably avoid anything that's going to shoot that efficiency in the foot.

I mean, you do plumbing right? Surely this must be somewhat analogous to what you have to deal with on some level.