MDM wrote:
Quote:

DtJcQdMf wrote:

Dredging up an old topic, but I've been doing some research on the PSEG Plant near the Western Slope, just west of 1/9. It seems that they have 3 generators there, 2 that are closed, and 1 that still runs solely on coal. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Unit 2 is the only one that is still in operation and it is fueled by coal. I don't think it was even running recently because there was no water plume coming out of it during the cold spell.

I wouldn't worry about the plant. It has been upgraded to the point where there is little in the way of particulate, SOx, or NOx emissions. The technology to burn coal clean really took off during the 1990s. The only reason that coal is being phased out is that natural gas for the moment is so cheap.

In fact, the biggest source of smog until relatively recently was from the natural gas turbines installed in South Kearny. When you drove on the Skyway on a hot day, you could see a column of yellow-brown smog rising from the generators.

Those generators have since been retrofitted / replaced with units equipped with SCRs. So the smog columns are no more.

EDIT: Hudson Unit 2 can also run on gas. It maybe running on gas now because gas is cheaper than coal.

DtJcQdMf wrote:

Dredging up an old topic, but I've been doing some research on the PSEG Plant near the Western Slope, just west of 1/9. It seems that they have 3 generators there, 2 that are closed, and 1 that still runs solely on coal. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

MDM wrote:
Dual fuel boilers I see a lot in commercial.. in particular hospitals. The facility gets a discount on gas if they agree to burn oil when the outdoor temperature goes below a certain set point. The goal is to shave off demand on the gas delivery system.

I don't worry about running out of gas. Right now I worry about actually delivering it. With coal and nuclear plants being phased out, the demand for natural gas has gone way up (ex. the Hudson Generating Station is now running on gas).

The New England governors had an emergency meeting last year. New England came close to rolling blackouts because they only barely could meet the demand due to an inadequate pipeline capacity.

I would prefer if the new generating plants relied less on gas and more on coal and nuclear (in particular the latter). Our current trajectory could put us in a world of hurt if something happens to the gas delivery system.

So you might be wise to keep a dual fuel boiler.

So you might be wise to keep a dual fuel boiler.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

iGreg wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:

The previous owner, according to sales documents, had been spending $12,000 a year to heat a 3.5 unit building. I thought that was ridiculous and knew I could bring it down. Going to gas and not letting the tenants set the temp brought it to $3k.

By doing what ?

installling seperate heating systems in each apartment ?

figures don't jive.

No, it's as MDM described. I thought about spending the tens of thousands splitting up the heat and ripping out the steam system till I realized my heating cost wasn't the bill, it was the "difference" between the bill and the heat cost I built into the free market rental price.

MDM, as you are apparently a student of heating, you might be amused at how I did the boiler replacement. It's a oil type boiler with a gas burner, and I kept the oil burner and brand new oil tank intact, so if oil ever becomes cheaper (algae biofuel breakthrough?) I can easily switch back. My heating guy said the water jacket type boiler was several points more efficient.

iGreg wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:

The previous owner, according to sales documents, had been spending $12,000 a year to heat a 3.5 unit building. I thought that was ridiculous and knew I could bring it down. Going to gas and not letting the tenants set the temp brought it to $3k.

By doing what ?

installling seperate heating systems in each apartment ?

figures don't jive.

MDM wrote:
Quote:

iGreg wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:

The previous owner, according to sales documents, had been spending $12,000 a year to heat a 3.5 unit building. I thought that was ridiculous and knew I could bring it down. Going to gas and not letting the tenants set the temp brought it to $3k.

By doing what ?

installling seperate heating systems in each apartment ?

figures don't jive.

Actually his figures do. Until the recent crash in oil prices the spread in the cost of heating value of natural gas vs. no. 2 heating oils was about $1.80 per 100,000 Btu.

Roughly (assuming no efficiency increase going to gas), you are talking about reducing the heating costs from $12k to $4,500.

Reducing the temperature set-point from 78 oF to 70 oF would knock about another 13% off the heating load. Adding insulation, fixing windows that don't close, etc. could easily knock another $1k off.

iGreg wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:

The previous owner, according to sales documents, had been spending $12,000 a year to heat a 3.5 unit building. I thought that was ridiculous and knew I could bring it down. Going to gas and not letting the tenants set the temp brought it to $3k.

By doing what ?

installling seperate heating systems in each apartment ?

figures don't jive.

brewster wrote:

The previous owner, according to sales documents, had been spending $12,000 a year to heat a 3.5 unit building. I thought that was ridiculous and knew I could bring it down. Going to gas and not letting the tenants set the temp brought it to $3k.

hero69 wrote:
78 degrees is hot. i remember once once gong to look at buying a building in bergen lafayette. the female tenant answered the door in february in shorts and a tank top and complained that the landlord was not keeping the place hot enough. i kid you not!

MonmouthMan wrote:
Jerseymom, I texted my landlord at 8pm on Friday about my heat not being on. Finally Saturday at 3pm my landlord texted and said the heat was broken and must be fixed, and that it would be fixed Monday Oct, 5th. My heat is still not on, so I texted my landlord this morning and asked for an update. Her response was it was fixed on Monday, and that it must drop below 55 for it to start working, WHICH IS FREAKING WRONG ACCORDING TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE I POSTED HERE BEFORE. I have texted her the entire municipal code, and will mail her a copy today.

This is the specific part of the code I mention:

"The specified temperatures are required between October 1st and April 30th REGARDLESS OF THE OUTSIDE TEMPERATURE and between May 1st and September 30th WHENEVER THE OUTSIDE TEMPERATURE FALLS BELOW 55 DEGREES."

I am very upset about this as I had so many problems with my last landlord and did noting legal about it. I just wanted to get the hell out of my last apartment. I won't repeat not taking legal action again.

MonmouthMan wrote:
USER111, CatDog, JCBiscuit:

Heat of a temperature not less than 70 degrees (F) must be supplied from 6 AM to 11 PM and 65 degrees (F) from 11 PM to 6 AM in residences and during the regular hours of employment in places of employment.

The specified temperatures are required between October 1st and April 30th REGARDLESS OF THE OUTSIDE TEMPERATURE and between May 1st and September 30th WHENEVER THE OUTSIDE TEMPERATURE FALLS BELOW 55 DEGREES.

http://mygovhelp.com/JERSEYCITYNJ/_cs ... .aspx?sSessionID=&aid=340

MDM wrote:

I think she finally just moved back to her parent's home.

bodhipooh wrote:

Funny, and somewhat interesting: I once read somewhere (pretty sure it was in a Time magazine) that UPS drivers VERY OFTEN run into situations of ringing doors to deliver packages which are answered by women barely dressed

CatDog wrote:
well?

Sutherland wrote:
On Saturday morning one of my tenants told me that she wants the heat consistently at 72, but on Sunday afternoon I walked past the front of the house and she had the windows wide open.

CatDog wrote:
Quote:

MDM wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
78 degrees is hot. i remember once once gong to look at buying a building in bergen lafayette. the female tenant answered the door in february in shorts and a tank top and complained that the landlord was not keeping the place hot enough. i kid you not!

I had one who used to answer the door in a lot less than that. I think she really didn't like being alone, her boyfriend moved out and left her, and I was still single at the time.

well?

MDM wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
78 degrees is hot. i remember once once gong to look at buying a building in bergen lafayette. the female tenant answered the door in february in shorts and a tank top and complained that the landlord was not keeping the place hot enough. i kid you not!

I had one who used to answer the door in a lot less than that. I think she really didn't like being alone, her boyfriend moved out and left her, and I was still single at the time.

hero69 wrote:
78 degrees is hot. i remember once once gong to look at buying a building in bergen lafayette. the female tenant answered the door in february in shorts and a tank top and complained that the landlord was not keeping the place hot enough. i kid you not!