4 ms·
Wow. An enormous cost indeed. I think you made the right choice, at least for now. When climate becomes enough of a problem that governments start taxing fossi
by danuker 4y ago
Wow. An enormous cost indeed. I think you made the right choice, at least for now.
When climate becomes enough of a problem that governments start taxing fossil fuel instead of subsidizing it, the story may be different. But for now I would have made the same choice.
- sokoloff 4y agoYeah, I'm consoling myself that we're at least using 34% (Dec, 1°F colder this year) to 56% (Nov, 1°F warmer this year) less gas than same month last year, so we at least reduced our consumption significantly, even though it practically locks us into local burning fossil fuels for a couple decades. The old boiler really was a disaster from an efficiency standpoint. 1950s General Motors (not a typo) oil burner, converted to gas with a single-stage [200K or 0 BTU/hr] burner, drawing combustion air from the basement, and sending 160°F-190°F water to the building and taking up an enormous footprint in the basement. Now has a 95% Bosch combi, drawing combustion air from the outside, using outdoor reset to send 118-136°F water to the building, and hangs on the wall taking up about as much space as two milk crates stack atop each other. Our grid is ~40% natural gas anyway, so when taxes hit natural gas, they're going to hit heat pump users as well.