Ned said at July 8, 2008 06:33 AM:

Once again, government subsidies distort the market. The government takes funds that are badly needed elsewhere (for education, infrastructure repair, health care, law enforcement, etc.) and spends them to help people persist in making poor economic choices. If you live in a cold climate and have trouble affording the cost of heating oil, you can make a rational decision to:

1. relocate to a warmer climate
2. use a different form of heating (wood pellets, etc.)
3. move into a more heat-efficient dwelling.

But no, the government prefers to hand out subsidies. Then, when the cost of oil hits $6 or $8 or whatever, the recipients will whine for more money. You can count on plenty of tear-jerker hardship stories in the media, too ("Elderly Homeowner, Living on Social Security, Forced to Choose Between Buying Food and Heat!") I am aware that real hardship cases exist and that temporary aid might be appropriate in selected cases, but wholesale programs of this type reinforce a climate of passive dependency, destroy individual initiative and lead people to make bad economic choices.

aa2 said at July 8, 2008 06:40 AM:

America uses about 900,000 barrels a day of oil on average for heating homes and offices. The country uses another 950,000 barrels a day for industrial heat. Seems an area very easy to use substitution and conservation. I like your point about apartment buildings sharing the heating. I live in an apartment building and effectively have no heating costs. What little I do use is electric.

Although I'd caution people on the plan to switch to wood heat. I live in a province that is heavy in the forest industry. And the main cost right now for logging is oil. It is higher then wages, and that was at 70 dollar a barrel oil. Then there is transporting the wood around. Luckily milling the wood is powered electricity, in this case hydroelectric. The question I have is what if you just burned the oil for heat that otherwise would be used in logging the wood, transporting the wood, constructing and maintaining the logging roads etc.. I guess the market price for wood pellets is the way to determine that.

Still I am very optimistic on the ability of people to reduce the oil heating use. Another way is natural gas instead of oil. Natural gas is about 3 times cheaper per btu.

auntulna said at July 8, 2008 06:55 AM:

I don't know the answer, but want to ask, How will they do it in Canada? I don't think they can all move down here. Any Canucks who know?

Jake said at July 8, 2008 09:16 AM:

Now that the sun is in hibernation, the next 20 winters will be colder than the one we just had. This will accelerate the movement of jobs and people to the South.

The solution to the problem is to increase the supply of oil and natural gas by allowing offshore drilling. It is ironic that the politicians from the northeast are blocking those supplies thereby insuring the suffering of their constituents and the death of their states.

Nick G said at July 8, 2008 09:43 AM:

Randall,

Moving is very, very expensive (unless you're already renting an apartment, in which case none of this discussion applies). I'm sure that a few people should downsize, but most people would find it much more cost-effective to, in order of ease and cheapness:

1) plug leaks (windows, doors, attics, electrical outlets), as you noted.
2) install programmable thermostats, to reduce heat to the times needed.
3) use electric space heaters only where heat is needed: under your desk is a good spot
4) insulate
5) replace appliances, including refrigerator, furnace and A/C, with higher efficiency models.
6) improve windows (we added two more layers to our thermopane windows, and now don't need the furnace until outside temperatures are below freezing), and finally:

7) get rid of oil!

7.1) If you heat with fuel oil, electricity may be cheaper for whole-house heating. For instance, $4.50 #1 fuel oil is more expensive than 13 cent electricity (the national average is about 10 cents). There are about 35 KWHs per gallon (at 90% combustion efficiency): divide your cost per gallon by the $/KWH - if it's higher than 35, you'll save.
7.2) Natural gas is almost always cheaper than simple resistance electricity (the necessary price ratio is 264, and we're only at about 130, on average).
7.3) Consider a heat-pump - new air-based heat pumps work very well, and are very cost effective, compared to any other form of heat.

Paul F, Dietz said at July 8, 2008 11:31 AM:

Another advantage of electricity is that it's easy to focus the heating on the part of the building you're actually using. So you end up using less thermal energy. Radiant heat directed at the occupant can be even more efficient, since it allows one to feel warm even if the air is cool. Ditto for electric blankets.

averros said at July 8, 2008 11:54 AM:

Swithcing to wood for heating? Oh, well. Environmental socialists (which did contribute to a lot to the growth of the all-regulatory State, which is the *sole* reason for current high prices, or, rather, falling real wages) must be happy with the resulting pollution.

Unintended consequences strike again.

James Bowery said at July 8, 2008 12:19 PM:

One of the (lesser) reasons I'm abandoning the Pacific Northwest is the environmental regulations on use of forest biomass has made it impossible to convert to fuel use even debris normally cleared from managed timber areas for forest fire prevention. The environmental regulations are _that_ insane. This could change, of course, but it will take overcoming Obama's relationship with the midwestern land barons who right now thrive on inflated land values resulting from ethanol subsidies.

TTT said at July 8, 2008 12:56 PM:

Wait, I thought global warming was going to make New England warmer.

Doomster's refuse to see which fashionable memes are mutually exclusive to one another.

aa2 said at July 8, 2008 01:14 PM:

I agree with averos out of control and unfair/nonsensical regulations seem to be the biggest reason America finds itself in the problems it does. I think the country needs some philosophers in charge who understand human nature. It is in human nature to always empire build and expand the scale and scope of the organization the person is in. So a prison system will always be looking to put more people in prison, and a business will always be looking to increase sales. And a regulatory agency will always be looking to add to the number of regulations it has, and most important of all the staffing of the agency. Some of these American regulatory agencies now employ vast numbers of employees.

And most scary of all bureaucracy rises in an exponential fashion. Take the American tax code, every year it grows by about 10% I think it is. (And the costs associated with simply complying with it probably rise about 10% a year as well). Of course if it was just the tax code growing America could deal with it and just pay more to get the taxes done, but this rising bureaucracy getting to insane levels is happening over hundreds of agencies and parts of life.

It reminds me a lot of reading about the Soviet Union in the later days. It got to the point where they simply couldn't get anything done. Like starting to build power generation projects in the late 70's then just abandoning them after 10 years of work. The only way Russia got out from its bureaucracy was the total financial collapse of the country, to the point they couldn't even pay the civil servants anymore. They had to just close down entire agencies, not by choice, but because there simply was 0 money available. Then when Putin got in charge he tore up the old byzantine laws and started anew. Like they had an endless tax code, that he replaced with a simple flat tax.

Brock said at July 8, 2008 03:09 PM:

"I'm concerned about people dying," she said. "I'm concerned about them turning down the heat so low that things are going to freeze. I'm afraid they're going to light candles. I'm afraid that they're going to use inappropriately vented space heaters, propane. Those are my fears because they're just not going to have the money. Even with assistance, they're not going to have the money."

So her solution is to take money from people who have made better choices? Great incentive structure, that.

Although some posters are jumping on Randall for suggesting that people move, I'll take it a step back and a step up and say "Structural changes to how we house people are necessary." Whether that means apartments or outer walls that are 1' thick, whatever. New Hampshire just shouldn't have any homes that require 800 gallons of oil to heat. If the government feels it must subsidize something to look like they're "doing something", they should offer tax credits for fixing this problem rather than patching it.

Moving south isn't really an option for the whole population - does anything think we're going to wholesale abandon Russia, Canada or Sweden?

Lorne M said at July 8, 2008 04:46 PM:

New Hampshire dosn't get that cold. It is snowy but only gets the odd day where the temperatures drop as low as 0 degrees F (-18C). In most Canadian cities, if there isn't a wind chill, that's a nice winter's day. Minnesota, the Dakotas and Montana have far colder weather then New England. (but as the joke goes its a dry cold).

One advantage Canadians, and those who live in the colder states in the US have are homes that are actually insulated. During the last oil shock there were all kinds of home improvement subsidies used to improve home R factors. This time there are subsidized home energy audits. My roof has R60 insulation the walls have R12. I have triple glazed windows and double insulated doors.I'm planning on switching to a tankless water heater in the near future too. I heat with a forced air electric furnace and when it dies I'll switch to a ground source heat pump.

I would expect hauling a few bales of insulation up into the attic and replacing old doors would be a lot cheaper for most then selling a home in today's real estate market and moving south. If you have a bit of cash you could retrofit a house with a ground source heat pump for under $20,000. If you are paying $4000 plus for heating you would drop your heat/air conditioning bill by about 75%. The savings would pay for the system in under 5 years at current rates and even faster if prices continue to rise. Plus you wouldn't have to pollute the air with wood smoke.

I have a 5 year old high efficiency wood stove. I only use it for atmospheric reasons, emergency heat if the power goes out, and sometimes if it drops down to the -30C -40C range. Chopping wood and hauling out ashes is a pain in the butt. There is a reason our ancestors burnt coal. It's messy to handle but the logistics are better. If you are using a solid fuel stove for primary heating your home insurance goes through the roof. If you want to relive the 19th century life just walk down the street of Montreal or any other large Canadian city where a lot of people have wood stoves. If there is a temperature inversion the smoke is so thick you might as well be smoking a couple packs of cigarettes a day. God help you if you have asthma.

People spoke of moving to apartments or moving south. If you are living in an apartment you still pay for heat, you pay for it in your rent. I expect renters can expect to see heating surcharges next winter. Moving south isn't a panacea for saving energy. It should also be pointed out that while northern states use more heating oil in the winter southern states burn as much if not more energy on air conditioning year round. In fact in Quebec the provincial hydro utility hardly runs its hydro electric generators in the winter. It is far more profitable to buy cheap electricity from the US in the winter when electrical rates are lower and save the water in the dams to generate high priced electricity to sell to the US in the summers when everyone is running their air conditioning to cool those same uninsulated houses.

One option even the poorest have is to turn down the thermostat to save money. It is much easier to to dress for cold then heat. You could turn your thermostat down to 50 and wear a light jacket and a few more blankets. As long as the house doesn't drop cold enough to freeze pipes it really wouldn't be a big deal, not comfortable but certainly livable. Parts of England have crappy winters and many homes still don't have central heating. They dress warmer.

In Canada most people have year round fixed price natural gas or energy bills. The maritime provinces use a lot of heating oil but most of the rest of the country burns mainly natural gas. Heating oil, and gasoline prices are still 25% higher in Canada then the US due to our tax regimes but prices haven't skyrocketed by the same percentage as they have in the US due to the inflation cushion of our appreciating dollar. (The Canadian dollar after all is a petro currency.)

Prices here as I said are higher but they've risen more gradually so we've had more time to get used to it. In Canada most people have year round fixed price natural gas or energy bills. The price is divided into 12 payments. A $4000 dollar heating bill works out to just a little more then $300 a month. I would expect this is about a $150 a month difference from last year. That cost difference is less then the monthly cost of taking a family of 4 out for breakfast one day a week. Higher home heating bills are really tough if you are in dire poverty but at these prices its not a big deal for most.

cancer_man said at July 8, 2008 06:32 PM:

Or you might want to consider that a year or even two of higher oil prices isn't going to bring down society.

When oil prices come down and the economy keeps moving forward in 2009, 2010 and 2011, I thinkRandall will then us 2015 to 2020 is where it comes crashing down. The two-step, shift-out shuffle that the Peak Oilers have been doing for decades.

Fat Man said at July 8, 2008 06:59 PM:

This cannot be a real problem because we are having Global Warming.

averros said at July 8, 2008 11:07 PM:

aa2> I think the country needs some philosophers in charge who understand human nature.

Well, we have people who understand human nature all too well in charge of this country - and shamelessly use this knowledge for personal gain.

The problem with political power (aka institutionalized violence) is not that bad people have it, but that it is allowed to exist in the first place. If there's a way to obtain it without much personal risk, bad people will get it, simply because they have less scurples.

aa2 said at July 9, 2008 02:38 AM:

averros, I know what you are saying, I'm a libertarian personally, although I believe in a small state as a placeholder(like a South Korea).

I don't honestly see how America deals with the regulatory problems which are extreme and actually still growing rapidly, without placing total power in one individual, ala Putin in Russia.

Nick G said at July 9, 2008 09:17 AM:

aa2,

Democracy is a bad system, but all the rest are worse.

Democracy may be slow, but autocrats are unintelligent - it's the nature of the beast: concentrated power always means badly, badly sub-optimized decision making. Look at the recent Bush admin - it's many, many mistakes came from autocratic, insular decision making. They tend to make self-interested decisions (though they usually sincerely believe otherwise, due to self-deception), and operate on very, very limited information and echo-chamber thinking.

Have you ever looked at conservative junk email? It's astonishingly out of touch with reality.

Nick G said at July 9, 2008 09:22 AM:

aa2,

A further thought: the USSR's problem was not too much democracy! AFAIK the bureaucracies were extensions of central power.

Randall Parker said at July 10, 2008 05:33 PM:

Nick G,

The people in Russia are not all that interested in democracy. They just want a wise ruler.

Nick G said at July 10, 2008 05:57 PM:

"The people in Russia are not all that interested in democracy. They just want a wise ruler."

I agree. Sadly, that kind of wishful thinking for a paternal ruler very rarely works well. The occasional rare wise & benign autocrat is rarely succeeded by another.

Few things demonstrate the failings of autocracy better than the history of the tsars.

Allan said at July 12, 2008 02:41 PM:

I´ve already been scouting areas south of the border to move to when I retire ... heck, I may not wait until I retire. Life is good and cheap south of the United States.

Jerry Martinson said at July 13, 2008 09:03 AM:

It is not difficult or unreasonably expensive to drastically reduce the required amount of energy required to condition a given amount of living space. So mass migration to moderate climates is not necessary.

Unfortunately, once you have constructed a house using the normal US/Canadian western platform housing, there is little opportunity to insulate the walls properly. All that you can do is stuff the cavities between the framing members with some insulation and then perhaps "wrap" the house. It is unfortunate that building and energy codes have focused on defining the appropriate amount of wall insulation as a prescriptive recommendation that worked around a particular framing style. The very terminology that people use when discussing the amount of insulation, i.e. "R" value, is often mis-applied inappropriately to composite structures, even though the insulation is effectively shunted by the studs. In essence, the building and energy codes have been written with energy efficiency as an afterthought to the dominate framing system used in the US and Canada.

I think new building codes should outlaw poor thermal resistance of the assembled structure. Effectively, this would ban traditional framing systems in favor of structural insulated panels. The kinks in SIPs were worked out long ago, and it is was a very poor decision to have almost all the houses in the US constructed during the last housing boom to be built using a framing system that cannot get good thermal resistance.

Randall Parker said at July 13, 2008 09:53 AM:

Jerry,

Given that large numbers of houses exist that have poorly insulated walls are you saying these houses can be fixed for reasonable costs or not?

If stuffing the cavities is not sufficient then doesn't it get really expensive? A friend got a quote in the tens of thousands of dollars to put a new outer layer on his house.

Jerry Martinson said at July 13, 2008 12:10 PM:

Randall,

There are limited things that can be done at a reasonable cost on existing homes, but to get a 50%+ reduction in the number of BTUs needed per heating degree day in these regions, large portions of the existing housing stock would have to be razed and replaced with super-insulated SIP framed houses. Hopefully archaic interpretation of building codes, zoning, tree, and "heritage" ordinances won't get in the way of market forces razing inferior old housing stock in cities and inner-suburbs. To make a tear-down economical, you usually have to add usable square footage, which often means increasing the allowable floor area to lot size ratio, and increasing building height. These changes would take decades to have any effect.

What irritates me is that more efficient construction techniques are often in effect made illegal if they aren't already trendy in a particular region or threatened an entrenched building trade. SIPs have been once example. Another example is the irrational requirement, enforced at a local level, to have "vented" crawlspaces. In most of California, you can get a 20% energy efficiency on an existing house if you seal your crawlspace but your local building department usually won't allow it because it isn't traditional.

-Jerry

Jerry Martinson said at July 13, 2008 12:40 PM:

I'm also a little skeptical about wood-based heating - at least on the scale of residential heating. First, the cost of the both harvesting and distributing the source fuel is heavily determined by the price of diesel. Secondly, it is difficult to get wood to burn clean enough. Most of the areas in New England are in non-attainment of the Clean Air Act, and if the new regulations become law, nearly all of the area will in non-attainment for PMs, which are credibly linked to very costly human health problems. Getting wood to burn clean requires extreme heat, and I think it would be difficult to get a small system to reach this kind of heat or to have a catalytic converter stage to burn the exhaust that wouldn't plug up in a short period of time. In short, switching to wood might mean dirtier air that will cause human health problems. Fortunately, they are downwind of me.

Randall Parker said at July 13, 2008 02:25 PM:

Jerry,

I'm thinking more of suburban and especially rural housing stock in New England. Old folks living in big old farm houses in Maine have high heating costs and have to drive considerable distances. So move them into an apartment building or move them down to Tennessee or Georgia?

Also, since Structural Insulated Panels are made with cores derived from petroleum I wonder whether the cost of SIP construction has gone up faster than the cost of conventional construction.

SIPs consist of two outer skins and an inner core of insulating material to form a monolithic unit. Most structural panels use Oriented Strand Board (OSB) for their facings. OSB is the principle facing material primarily because it is available in large sizes (up to 12’ x 36’ sheets). Manufacturers use OSB facings on structural panels due in part to the rigorous testing needed for code approvals. The core of a SIP is made from Expanded Polystyrene (EPS), Extruded Polystyrene (XPS), and Urethane Foam.

On the other hand, since the cost of heating has gone up as well the payback from SIPs has risen as well.

Burning wood and pollution: Ditto for coal. I expect to see more people using coal and wood to heat with. I'd rather they switch to ground sink heat pumps.

Down wind: But aren't the Canadians going to do the same things to cut their heating costs?

Nick G said at July 13, 2008 05:37 PM:

"Old folks living in big old farm houses in Maine have high heating costs and have to drive considerable distances. So move them into an apartment building or move them down to Tennessee or Georgia?"

Surely some insulation, storm windows, and a modern air-sink heat pump would be a more reasonable solution?

Randall Parker said at July 13, 2008 06:09 PM:

Air Sink Heat pumps: In colder places like Maine I do not expect air sink to work. The average temperature in Portland Maine on January 1 is 23F/-5C. That's near the coast. It'll be colder inland.

Below 40F most air source heat pumps need to switch over into simple heaters. Granted, that is still cheaper than heating oil in many areas.

When outdoor temperatures fall below 40°F, a less-efficient panel of electric resistance coils, similar to those in your toaster, kicks in to provide indoor heating. This is why air-source heat pumps aren't always very efficient for heating in areas with cold winters. Some units now have gas-fired backup furnaces instead of electric resistance coils, allowing them to operate more efficiently

That link discusses more advanced designs under development for colder climates. But what will be their efficiency?

Nick G said at July 14, 2008 03:02 PM:

Randall,

there are several air-based heat pumps designed for colder climates, including the Hallowell and several Japanese models - I'll try to research them. Keep in mind that there really no reason for efficiency to drop precipitously the way it traditionally has air-based designs.

I heard lately about externally-vented, single-room programmable gas heaters. Have you seen anything about them?

Randall Parker said at July 14, 2008 06:09 PM:

Nick G,

Today I coincidentally came across the Hallowell Acadia heat pump in an article about people in Maine switching from oil to wood and heat pumps. One article claims it averages 250% efficiency. But I want to see a chart showing its efficiency over a temperature range. Great that it works down to a lower temperature. But at what cost to efficiency?

Look at how Hallowell at 250% efficiency might compare:

Wood pellets in 80 percent efficient stoves and delivered for $250 per ton yield $19.05 per million Btu.

Electric resistance at 100 percent efficiency and $0.16 per kwh yields $46.89 per million Btu.

Electric thermal storage at 100 percent efficiency and off-peak at $.011 per kwh $32.24 per million Btu.

Hallowell air source heat pump with 250 percent efficiency and $0.16 per kwh yields $18.76 per million Btu.

Ground source heat pumps with 300 percent efficiency and $0.16 per kwh yields $15.63 per million Btu.

Once the heat pump stops working and it reverts to being a regular heater it is more expensive than heating oil (or close to it depending on oil burner efficiency).

That ground source heat pump is going to be the better bet at some temperature point. But where is that temperature point? Also, the Hallowell isn't cheap at $15k installed.

BTW, most of the good newspaper coverage on heating choices is coming from Maine and I come across little from Wisconsin and Minnesota. Why is that?

Nick G said at July 15, 2008 08:56 AM:

"most of the good newspaper coverage on heating choices is coming from Maine and I come across little from Wisconsin and Minnesota. "

Because residents of WI and MN usually use Natural Gas, which is cheaper than any other alternative listed above (at $.16/KWH). The heat pumps are only slightly cheaper to operate at midwestern electricity prices and current gas prices.

"the Hallowell isn't cheap at $15k installed."

That price seems way too high. A scarcity premium, perhaps?

"Once the heat pump stops working "

If the curve is pretty good (and there's nothing in physics to prevent it) that point would be pretty low, and account for a small % of heating degree days.

Nick G said at July 15, 2008 11:05 AM:

Ah. According to the article, the Hallowell is efficient down to -20F (air temp, not windchill). That will cover 98% of degree days.

Randall Parker said at July 15, 2008 05:19 PM:

Using this neat fuel cost calculator from BuildingGreen.com I see electric at 16 cents/kwh with air source heat pump at 225% efficiency beating out natural gas at $1.65 per therm. Well Virginia Natural Gas just started charging customers $1.65 per therm:

For customers, the cost of 100 cubic feet of gas, a unit known as a therm, will have increased from $1.01 in January to $1.65 starting July 1. The average use for a customer is 11 therms in July but more than 100 in February.

That's close to $16.50 per million BTU. 10 therms is 1 million BTU but 1000 cubic feet is 1031000 BTU. Some utilities haven't adjusted upward yet and are still below $15 per million BTU.

Since I expect natural gas prices to rise faster than electric prices I do not think natural gas heating makes sense - unless the price difference between an air heat pump and a natural gas heater is large enough in a warmer climate to make the heat pump a bad deal. Or maybe in extremely cold climates the air heat pump's efficiency will be too low.

Again, the average efficiency of the heat pump is crucial in doing these sorts of calculations.

Yes, I saw Hallowell mentioning operation done to -20F. But what is the efficiency that low? The efficiency is not constant across the entire temperature range.

Nick G said at July 16, 2008 01:49 PM:

"Virginia Natural Gas just started charging customers $1.65 per therm"

I'm puzzled. NG at Nymex is less than $12. They seem to be adding a lot of overhead - I think most utilities add separate fixed charges for most overhead.

" I expect natural gas prices to rise faster than electric prices "

Could be. I expect oil prices to fall a little and stabilize at $100-130, but the NG discount could disappear with proposals like Pickens' to go to CNG cars.

Historically NG was much better than anything else, but now electricity is the way to go, if only for price security.

"Hallowell mentioning operation done to -20F. But what is the efficiency that low?"

Good question. There's nothing in the law of physics that requires a steep drop, but it could happen. I'd like to see that efficiency curve.

Randall Parker said at July 16, 2008 07:23 PM:

Nick G,

Suppose we continue to do a big wind tower build (which seems likely). Will that cut into natural gas or coal more? It is my impression that some natural gas is used for base demand. But I am unclear what percentage of natural gas is used for base versus for peaks.

The NG discount: I would really like to know why compressed natural gas prices vary by more than a factor of 5 within the United States. The value proposition for CNG cars depends heavily on where you live. The people in Utah ought to switch en masse to CNG cars, such is the deal they have on natural gas prices.

Air source heat pumps, efficiency, and temperature range: I'd really like to see a good economic analysis of ground source and air source heat pumps and where does one or the other deliver the bigger net savings. Note that as electric prices rise the added efficiency of ground source heat pumps works in their favor. So if you live where they are about tied in benefit my guess is ground source is the better choice.

Nick G said at July 17, 2008 10:45 AM:

"big wind tower build...Will that cut into natural gas or coal more?"

It's likely to come almost entirely from NG. The marginal cost of NG KWH's is much greater than for coal, plus it's much easier to finetune NG production around wind's variations. Even at night, long-distance transmission will allow heavy NG users to preferentially buy wind-power (whose marginal cost will always be lower). IOW, areas with excess wind production which has zeroed out it's NG will sell the excess before turning down coal production.

"I would really like to know why compressed natural gas prices vary by more than a factor of 5"

I called a couple of the stations in Utah - they said they get their CNG from Questar, and they don't know how it's priced. It's certainly below market - some kind of stranded gas situation, I think. I'd want to research it to make sure that Questar isn't building a pipeline that will eliminate the free ride, before converting to CNG.

"I'd really like to see a good economic analysis of ground source and air source heat pumps "

I agree - perhaps I'll get time in the next few months. If so, I'll post it on your blog in a relevant topic, and/or put it on my blog .

Nick G said at July 17, 2008 12:44 PM:

oops. That link should be http://energyfaq.blogspot.com/ .

Erik said at July 20, 2008 06:40 AM:

"the Hallowell isn't cheap at $15k installed."

"That price seems way too high. A scarcity premium, perhaps?"

I just got a $15k estimate to install the Acadia but that included installing all the duct work. (I currently have an oil-fueled furnace and radiators.)

If you currently have forced hot air than the price of installing the Acadia should be significantly lower.

Comments:
Name: Email Address: URL:

Remember info?