Along these same lines:
"Natural gas advanced on shrinking liquefied natural gas imports and
rising crude oil prices.
Shipments of LNG to the U.S. have fallen as higher prices available in
Asia and Europe attract cargoes...."
"LNG imports are averaging about 900 million cubic feet a day this
month compared with 3.2 billion cubic feet a day in April of 2007,
said Stacy Nieuwoudt, an analyst at Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co.
"Imports of Canadian gas will probably decline by an average of 1
billion cubic feet a day this year, Dane said. The U.S. imported 3.77
trillion cubic feet, or about 16 percent of total consumption, from
Canada in 2007, according to the Energy Department."
The Nymex Henry Hub price as I type this is $10.02 per MMBtu; eight
months ago, the front-month close price was half that.
heres your link its about boilers, remember were talking hot water
The Talk of The Town Online Only Subscribe About Us Archive Store
The New Yorker
Welcome to NewYorker.com Log in | Register
In the Basement
The Boiler Man
by Robert Sullivan
March 17, 2003 Text Size:
Large Text Print E-Mail Feeds Keywords
Gifford, Henry; Boiler Rooms, Boilers; Tours; New York City; New York
City Boiler Tour; Gifford Fuel Saving, Inc.; Apartments One thing that
distinguishes Henry Gifford's New York City Boiler Tour is the fact
that there are no boiler tours quite like it in New York City, not to
mention anywhere else in the United States or, possibly, the world.
Another is the singular passion for boilers that is exhibited by Henry
Gifford, of Gifford Fuel Saving, Inc. Gifford came to boilers late in
life, when he was twenty and had already worked as a bicycle mechanic,
a window-gate welder, and a landlord. As a landlord, Gifford had
calculated that the biggest variable in terms of expenses was the
boiler. He observed that in the boiler arena there seemed to be what
he called a "knowledge vacuum," and he set out to fill it. "I miss
having buildings," Henry, who is now forty-two, said the other day, as
his tour was about to kick off. "But I would have gotten tired of it
by now, and I would have missed all the fun I've had with boilers."
Not surprisingly, some of the forty-one people who signed up for this
inaugural boiler tour did so as much to be with Henry as to see the
boilers. Tim Baker, the managing editor of a mechanical-engineering
magazine, flew in from Cleveland. "I mean, you can just sense the love
that this guy has for boilers," Baker said.
The three-day tour started early on a cold Thursday on the ground
floor of a multifamily apartment building on East Fifth Street. Over
coffee and bagels, Henry introduced people. "You know when you want to
see what kind of an airflow you've got in a room, so you measure it
with a blower door? Well, this guy makes them," he said, pointing to
Gary Nelson, who had flown in from Minnesota, and who was scanning the
room with an infrared camera, searching for heat leakage. There was
the usual run of boiler enthusiasts: architects, alternative-energy
marketers, officials from the Building Performance Institute, and a
landlord named Ralph, who looked like an old sailor.
Henry began with a lecture, accompanied by slides. In his view, the
two most prominent New York City heat-related phenomena--open windows
in overheated apartments, and clanking radiators--are prime examples of
boiler ignorance and waste. To no one's surprise, Henry's talk went
When he was done, the tour group set out to look at some boilers.
There was a quick stop at a building on Avenue C, to watch a boiler-
related film, "Carmelita Tropicana: Your Kunst is Your Waffen,"
starring Carmelita Tropicana, a superintendent/performance artist.
That was followed by a lunch break at Katz's Delicatessen, on Houston
Street, where a woman in a fur coat said to the group, "What? Are you
bird-watching?" Someone told her what they were up to. "Boilers!" she
said. "Oh, that's not very exciting." In the afternoon, Henry sneaked
his people into the basement of an old church, where they saw the
history of boilers encapsulated: turn-of-the-century coal to eighties
super-efficient natural-gas-fired pulse combustion, then back to oil.
On the way out, an engineer from Massachusetts said, "I feel
from the issuecartoon banke-mail thisThe next day, everyone met up in
Harlem, in a brownstone with hundred-year-old radiators, each with a
thermostat attached, a detail that made Henry ecstatic, even though
Con Edison hadn't hooked up the gas and everyone was shivering. In the
basement, with a single light bulb dangling above his head, he
described the Gifford formula for calculating pipe friction and flow,
a formula that, despite Henry's best efforts, has yet to be embraced
by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
All told, the boiler tour went on for seven days--four days and many
heating systems more than Henry had planned. But it was during the
lecture/slide show, on the first day, that Tim Baker, the engineering-
magazine editor, asked the question that seemed to sum it all up.
"Henry," he said, his pen in the air. "You've talked about the
ignorance, the dishonesty. Why is this?"
Henry's face broke into a grin that was bright enough to heat a loft
space. He turned to an associate, who was working the slide projector.
"Put the Madonna slide on," he said. The slide showed young people
standing in line on a Greenwich Village sidewalk. "O.K., so these
people want to be dancers with Madonna's world tour," Henry said.
"Look at this--the line stretches around the block. I asked these
people, 'How much does this job pay per hour?' And none of them knew.
This has to do with what I call the Gifford Status-Money Ratio: the
amount of money a job pays is inversely correlated to the amount of
status the job has. The dancers get paid with social status. Boiler
work has zero or negative social status. And this ratio also
influences the quality of work to be gotten from a person working in
that field. In the basement, there's money, but there's no status.
This doesn't mean you're dumb if you work in the basement. It just
means that you're not expected to be smart. The fact is, excellence is
not expected in the basement."
Actually, it doesn't say the savings are less, it says the efficiency
improvement is less. Standby losses are basically independent of
usage. The greater the usage, the smaller the fraction of total costs
attributable to standby losses.
So if you are trying to calculate a payback period, and if the
incremental efficiency of the tank and tankless are the same, then
usage doesn't matter. All you need to do is figure out how much more
expensive the tankless is, and how your savings from standby losses
Yes, I was going to point that out too. Sure, in percentage terms,
the more hot water you use, the less in percentage terms you will save
on your energy bill. That's because the big difference is the
standby loss, which is independent of the amount of water used.
However, in dollars saved in gas saved per year from standy losses,
it's still going to be the same amount of money saved, which is what
you need to look at.
Also, am I the only one that thinks it odd that if a tankless has a
pilot light it would negate the entire energy savings compared to a
regular water heater? The regular water heater has a pilot light too
and I would think the overall impact of a pilot light might be a
The pilot light on a tank, though, heats the tank water, so it isn't
waste. While on a tankless, it is pretty much a waste. Anyway, it's
pretty moot, as pilot light tankless is fairly old technology, just
like non-modulating tankless.
On Apr 9, 2:30 pm, email@example.com wrote:
My 5 yr old tankless is battery ignition- 2 d cells. A pilot light I
think is long gone. There were even 5 years ago Hydro generator
pilots, the water runs, turns a blade, it turns a generator. But even
tank that are pilotless cant get above 70 Energy Factor wheras
tankless start at 82. Energy factor is the cost. The best tank I have
seen is 70 EF so $0.30 is wasted, the cheapest Tankless is 82 EF so
only 18% is wasted, and Takagi goes to 94 EF, go figure, its all in
the math. Pilot lights are the wrong way to go.
On Apr 9, 2:30 pm, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
I am now at a tank location, my last summers gas bills are double and
more than at the tankless location, 9 vs 12$ a month. Same gas dryer,
same gas cooking. So Tankless saves me 13 or so a month at TODAYS gas
prices. Wait 5 years. my payback is 5 years and less and declining as
prices increase. Tankless-pilotless, work and outlast tank , which
looose 1-3 % efficency every year due to scale.
I think that's a false comparison. The only time the burner or heater runs,
is to replace lost heat. Heat lost from the tank. That's lost through one of
several ways. Depending if it's gas or electric or fuel oil source,
different methods of heat loss.
This is totally false. According to the U.S. DOE, the standby losses
of a conventional electric water heater with an EF rating of 0.93 are
331 kWh a year. At $0.10 per kWh, these losses amount to less than
$3.00 per month. And if you live in an area where heating demands
dominate and the tank is located inside a conditioned space, your
actual out-of-pocket expense would be even less.
In addition, if you install a tankless water heater and it results in
excessive strain on the utility's distribution system or adversely
impacts power quality (e.g., flickering lights due to high transient
load), you could be held personally liable for the full cost of any
necessary transformer and line upgrades; a next door neighbour
complaining to the power company about "bad power" could very well
cost you several thousands of dollars.
Depending on your local rate it could be easily 80% more efficent,
mine was about 75% cheaper converting from electric tank to Ng
tankless. Then again some have cheap hydro and expensive fossile fuel,
and savings could be Zero. Each person has their own unique set of
costs, for some tankless is best, for some that would need large
tankless and major gas work tankless are not worth it.
We're really speaking of two separate things: efficiency and
cost-effectiveness based upon fuel choice and my comments pertain to
the former. The poster claimed a "tankless is 80% more efficient than
an electric tank" and this statement is categorically false.
As noted above, the standby losses of an electric water heater with an
EF of 0.93 or better are less than 1 kWh/day; at $0.10 per kWh, less
than $3.00 per month and during the winter months the net
out-of-pocket expense would be lower if the tank is located inside a
conditioned space (effectively nil if the home is electrically heated
and potentially net positive if heated with oil now that fuel oil in
many parts of North America is more expensive than electric
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.