Ecological Cost of installing new Burner


Old 10-13-08, 07:29 PM
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: LI, NY
Posts: 17
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
Ecological Cost of installing new Burner


I just purchased a home that has an original oil burner from decades ago. With the recent high cost of oil my plans were to replace the burner with an extremely energy efficient Buderus tankless oil Burner with a hot water tank.

My goal was 2 fold:

1. to save money on heating oil. I was told I could expect to see a 20% fuel saving with the new unit. I am new to the home so I am not sure what my annual usage will be but I am anticipating approx. 1000 gallons per year. at $4.00 per gallon I'd save $800 per year quickly making the investment worthwhile. NOW, prices have dropped and I'll only save about $550 per year or less if prices continue to drop and my consumption might be less than I anticipate.

and 2. I am trying to reduce my carbon footprint by burning less fuel. HOWEVER, what is the environmental impact of replacing the furnace in the first place. For instance, the cost (all costs are environmentally speaking, not financially) of creating the new burner from raw materials, shipping the burner (it's made in germany), and the impact of disposing of the old unit etc....

So, is it worth it? Is it more environmentally friendly to replace the unit now or wait till it dies. The financial costs are becoming less of an influence on my decision.

Any help is greatly appreciated.

Sponsored Links
Old 10-13-08, 09:02 PM
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 6,130
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
Ecological Cost of installing new Burner

If you are worried about the ecological effects of where a burner comes from, you are falling into the meaningless pit of over-analyzing and fordetting about the big picture - The world that has gone trough many dramatic warming and cooling cycles that required more influence than man.

The ecological cost of shipping a burner from Germany to the U.S. may be minimal, especially if the German plant was more ecologically sound, which you don't know. If it was shipped by water, it was shipped using the most ecologically effecient shipping methods. If you want to not-pick, find out what the means of shipment was.

Remember, you are concerned about the future, so choose the burned that will be the most ecologically sound to operate for many year, since your decision may have an effect long after you sold the house. The efficienecy is the bottom line and not the shipment method.

You are definitely using an excessive amount of fuel, but you are still not in the category of Al Gores's use since he spend more than that on coal fueled electricity.

If you look at the hard numbers, efficiency will generally be the best long term choice unless you get side-tracked.
Old 10-23-08, 02:11 PM
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: LI, NY
Posts: 17
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
Thanks for the reply. Any other thoughts?

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes
Ask a Question
Question Title:
Your question will be posted in: