Number 6 Fuel Oil On The Way Out In New York City
Earlier this year, New York City has taken steps towards banning the use of Number 6 Fuel Oil. The Mayor's Office of Long Term Planning and Sustainability has introduced a phase-out on the burning of No. 6 plan in 2008 and later has expanded that to include No. 4 fuel oil as well. The plan is to have these fuels banned entirely by 2020. The plan is to require all new installations burn only No. 2 fuel oil, and that burners that cannot be easily repaired to convert over to No. 2 fuel oil, upon failure, between now and 2030, with a full conversion to No. 2 fuel oil by 2030, regardless of the burner condition. The law is to take effect in October, 2012, and will begin by capping the sulfur content of ANY heating oil in New York City to 1,500 parts per million, while requiring a minimum two percent biodiesel content. Buildings that now burn No. 6 would have to convert to No. 4
The reason for this is that they emit high levels of soot and sulfur and nitrogen dioxides and well as carbon dioxide when compared with No. 2 fuel oil or natural gas. These emissions, referred to as PM 2.5, are of concern as they are comprised of very small particles, which upon inhalation, penetrate deep into the lungs. It is felt strongly that this contributes to higher levels of lung cancer, heart disease and asthma. No. 6 fuel oil emits as much as 15 times more soot material than that of No. 2 oil.
In New York City, one percent of the buildings create 87 percent of the oil- heat related soot. The New York City health Department has said that it has measured considerably higher readings of particulate matter as well as sulfur dioxide in areas with high levels of No. 6 and No. 4 fuel oil use. The use of cheaper No. 6 fuel oil is NOT confined to low income areas; in fact, in Manhattan, many of the buildings that burn No. 6 oil are found the wealthiest districts. It is estimated that there about 10,000 buildings in New York City that burn No. 6 or No. 4 fuel oil.
The ban is not without controversy. The main reason is increased cost in converting over for the properties that burn them. No. 6 oil is often 40 percent cheaper than No. 2. In addition, No. 6 has far higher Btu values per gallon than that of No.2 oil. In addition, to comply with the ban, burners and entire systems would need to changed out, which can, according to a number of articles posted on this topic, can cost a property as much as $300,000. (The range has been stated as between $100,000 and $200,000 in most sources that I have read) At this time, the preferred choice would really be for all buildings to convert to natural gas or at least to the newer reformulated ultra-low sulfur No. 2 oil.
Now, a bit of background on No. 6 fuel oil and the other fuel oils. No. 6 fuel oil, often referred to as Bunker C or Bunker oil, is the heaviest and dirtiest of all the oils. It is is classified as a residual product that results from the refining of gasoline and distilled oils. Distillate products, which include No. 2 and No. 4 oils, result from the heating and condensing of the oils during the refining process. Some articles use the term sludge to describe and classify No. 6 fuel oil, as it is a dark-brown-black very thick tar-like substance at cooler temperatures. In fact, it is so viscous that it must be pre-heated by a water bath-like system in order for it to be pumped into a burner. As mentioned above, aside from its dirty and more difficult handling characteristics, it has appealed to building owners and operators due to its economical nature. No. 6 oil has a Btu of up to 155,000 per gallon. By contrast, No. 2 oil has around 139,000 Btu per gallon. No. 4 oil has about 150,000 Btu. per gallon, and is a blend of No. 6 and No. 2 oil. No. 4 oil is mainly used for industrial or larger buildings, where No. 2 oil -- the most common of all oils in use in the U. S., is mostly used by more modern commercial applications. Ultra-low sulfur No. 2 oil is really the equal of the ultra low diesel fuel now being used in greater frequency each year.
The reason why No. 6 fuel oil is so dirty is directly related to its chemical composition. As stated above, it is the residual product of distillation of oil. It contains a broad array of components, of which include 15% paraffin, 45% naphthalene, 25% aromatic, and 15% non-hydrocarbon compounds. It also contains both cracked and non-cracked distillates, which also contain amounts of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) It is these compounds that give off much of the toxic pollution in the emitted exhaust fumes. These compounds are the result of the using of both the cracked and un-cracked residuals in the manufacture of No. 6 oil. In addition, most blending stocks have been noted to include five percent or more of the four to six ringed condensed aromatic hydrocarbons. In addition, there is also the presence of benzene, toluene and ethyl benzene toluene (BTEX) are seen to lesser amounts. These compounds are known to be rather toxic, and have been the subject of intense regulation in the public water supply area since the mid 1980's.
In addition, No. 6 fuel oil also contributes to metal contamination in New York City's air. Nickel levels are said to be as much as nine times the national average. The City Herald in a March, 17, 2011 Internet post, stated this, and went on to state that these nickel levels in the air may lead to heart disease and premature death.
There are other intermediate fuel oils -- No. 3 and No. 5, which are a step between No. 2, 4, and No. 6. These oils are essentially just that -- a step higher in Btu and more polluting than the lower numbered No.2 fuel oil. They are not seen in use as often as No. 2, 4 or No. 6.
By contrast, No. 1 fuel oil is used almost exclusively in residential applications such as single family homes. It has a Btu output of around 135,000 per gallon. Natural gas has a Btu content of just over 100,000 per 100 cubic feet -- the standard measure of the fuel, which is used as the basis of comparison to that of fuel oil for efficiency purposes. In summary, as the numbers go up on the fuel oil classes, so does the Btu output and unfortunately, the emitted pollutants.
Adding to the controversy is the fact that while No. 6 oil and for that matter No. 4 often result in higher operating costs than compared with systems that burn No. 2 oil. This is largely due to the same polluting sulfur and nitrogen dioxides that are all the reason for the proposed ban. These products create very corrosive conditions in the burner as well as the stack flue. In fact, the stack temperature must be maintained at or greater than 225 degrees F. in order to avoid corrosive condensation formation. This factor creates an additional issue -- the reality of the incomplete utilization of the potential Btu content available. One might conclude that by not taking more of the heat out of the exhaust flue gasses, we loss a significant amount of Btu. This waste heat is now easily reclaimed with the common 92 percent-plus efficient natural gas burners that can produce waste flue exhaust gasses at temperatures well below 140 degrees, F., often far less. In fact, PVC plastic pipe is commonly used as the flue pipe material.
With regard to natural gas, fuel oil proponents are quick to point out that natural gas emits large amounts of methane, which is a greenhouse gas. My feeling here, is that we have some measure of control in the matter. First, we can choose to install 92 percent efficient or better natural gas burners that will use less gas, resulting in less emissions. In addition, these systems extract so much heat from the gas, that condensate is produced,which in turn, may reduce the emissions even further, as more of the exhaust is reduced to liquid condensate,which is NOT released into the atmosphere. In exchange, we gain more Btu from the gas, which means more "green" in our pockets for the effort. In short by using burners that are 92 percent or greater, will reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses for two reasons -- less gas will need to burned due to more Btu recovery and less exhaust products are released into the atmosphere.
With No. 6 fuel oil, as I said earlier, we also have the need to pre-heat the oil in order to burn it. This is often associated with mandatory additional professional staff to operate and maintain a No. 6 fuel oil system. In addition, there is also the issue of premature tank failure with the heavier fuel oils. Once again one can argue that over time, the added costs of operation may be able to par-laid into converting to cleaner burning fuel, when these added maintenance costs are done away with.
With all this said, it is time to take stock in the fuels that are used, and look at the overall picture, from both an environmental AND and economical point of view. In many cases it will be clear that when a system is in need of replacement or substantial renovations are planned, there will be significant savings to be had with converting to cleaner burning AND at the same time, MORE EFFICIENT HVAC systems. In my opinion, it makes much sense to look beyond the oil burner itself, and take into account the ENTIRE building system -- envelope, mechanical, plumbing lighting and HVAC and aim to REDUCE overall energy use from the start. This will ultimately reduce pollutants emitted as well as carbon footprint perhaps as much as much as the banning of No. 6 fuel oil . Once again, we have the chance to employ integrated building design and gain from the synergies between efforts to achieve an even more higher performing building that is more environmentally responsible. This building will also be far more cost effective in its operation, with superior return on investment.
I do NOT mean to say that No.6 fuel oil must be not phased out; it must be phased out as planned. It is just too dirty to be allowed to be used in perpetuity.
The reason for this is that they emit high levels of soot and sulfur and nitrogen dioxides and well as carbon dioxide when compared with No. 2 fuel oil or natural gas. These emissions, referred to as PM 2.5, are of concern as they are comprised of very small particles, which upon inhalation, penetrate deep into the lungs. It is felt strongly that this contributes to higher levels of lung cancer, heart disease and asthma. No. 6 fuel oil emits as much as 15 times more soot material than that of No. 2 oil.
In New York City, one percent of the buildings create 87 percent of the oil- heat related soot. The New York City health Department has said that it has measured considerably higher readings of particulate matter as well as sulfur dioxide in areas with high levels of No. 6 and No. 4 fuel oil use. The use of cheaper No. 6 fuel oil is NOT confined to low income areas; in fact, in Manhattan, many of the buildings that burn No. 6 oil are found the wealthiest districts. It is estimated that there about 10,000 buildings in New York City that burn No. 6 or No. 4 fuel oil.
The ban is not without controversy. The main reason is increased cost in converting over for the properties that burn them. No. 6 oil is often 40 percent cheaper than No. 2. In addition, No. 6 has far higher Btu values per gallon than that of No.2 oil. In addition, to comply with the ban, burners and entire systems would need to changed out, which can, according to a number of articles posted on this topic, can cost a property as much as $300,000. (The range has been stated as between $100,000 and $200,000 in most sources that I have read) At this time, the preferred choice would really be for all buildings to convert to natural gas or at least to the newer reformulated ultra-low sulfur No. 2 oil.
Now, a bit of background on No. 6 fuel oil and the other fuel oils. No. 6 fuel oil, often referred to as Bunker C or Bunker oil, is the heaviest and dirtiest of all the oils. It is is classified as a residual product that results from the refining of gasoline and distilled oils. Distillate products, which include No. 2 and No. 4 oils, result from the heating and condensing of the oils during the refining process. Some articles use the term sludge to describe and classify No. 6 fuel oil, as it is a dark-brown-black very thick tar-like substance at cooler temperatures. In fact, it is so viscous that it must be pre-heated by a water bath-like system in order for it to be pumped into a burner. As mentioned above, aside from its dirty and more difficult handling characteristics, it has appealed to building owners and operators due to its economical nature. No. 6 oil has a Btu of up to 155,000 per gallon. By contrast, No. 2 oil has around 139,000 Btu per gallon. No. 4 oil has about 150,000 Btu. per gallon, and is a blend of No. 6 and No. 2 oil. No. 4 oil is mainly used for industrial or larger buildings, where No. 2 oil -- the most common of all oils in use in the U. S., is mostly used by more modern commercial applications. Ultra-low sulfur No. 2 oil is really the equal of the ultra low diesel fuel now being used in greater frequency each year.
The reason why No. 6 fuel oil is so dirty is directly related to its chemical composition. As stated above, it is the residual product of distillation of oil. It contains a broad array of components, of which include 15% paraffin, 45% naphthalene, 25% aromatic, and 15% non-hydrocarbon compounds. It also contains both cracked and non-cracked distillates, which also contain amounts of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) It is these compounds that give off much of the toxic pollution in the emitted exhaust fumes. These compounds are the result of the using of both the cracked and un-cracked residuals in the manufacture of No. 6 oil. In addition, most blending stocks have been noted to include five percent or more of the four to six ringed condensed aromatic hydrocarbons. In addition, there is also the presence of benzene, toluene and ethyl benzene toluene (BTEX) are seen to lesser amounts. These compounds are known to be rather toxic, and have been the subject of intense regulation in the public water supply area since the mid 1980's.
In addition, No. 6 fuel oil also contributes to metal contamination in New York City's air. Nickel levels are said to be as much as nine times the national average. The City Herald in a March, 17, 2011 Internet post, stated this, and went on to state that these nickel levels in the air may lead to heart disease and premature death.
There are other intermediate fuel oils -- No. 3 and No. 5, which are a step between No. 2, 4, and No. 6. These oils are essentially just that -- a step higher in Btu and more polluting than the lower numbered No.2 fuel oil. They are not seen in use as often as No. 2, 4 or No. 6.
By contrast, No. 1 fuel oil is used almost exclusively in residential applications such as single family homes. It has a Btu output of around 135,000 per gallon. Natural gas has a Btu content of just over 100,000 per 100 cubic feet -- the standard measure of the fuel, which is used as the basis of comparison to that of fuel oil for efficiency purposes. In summary, as the numbers go up on the fuel oil classes, so does the Btu output and unfortunately, the emitted pollutants.
Adding to the controversy is the fact that while No. 6 oil and for that matter No. 4 often result in higher operating costs than compared with systems that burn No. 2 oil. This is largely due to the same polluting sulfur and nitrogen dioxides that are all the reason for the proposed ban. These products create very corrosive conditions in the burner as well as the stack flue. In fact, the stack temperature must be maintained at or greater than 225 degrees F. in order to avoid corrosive condensation formation. This factor creates an additional issue -- the reality of the incomplete utilization of the potential Btu content available. One might conclude that by not taking more of the heat out of the exhaust flue gasses, we loss a significant amount of Btu. This waste heat is now easily reclaimed with the common 92 percent-plus efficient natural gas burners that can produce waste flue exhaust gasses at temperatures well below 140 degrees, F., often far less. In fact, PVC plastic pipe is commonly used as the flue pipe material.
With regard to natural gas, fuel oil proponents are quick to point out that natural gas emits large amounts of methane, which is a greenhouse gas. My feeling here, is that we have some measure of control in the matter. First, we can choose to install 92 percent efficient or better natural gas burners that will use less gas, resulting in less emissions. In addition, these systems extract so much heat from the gas, that condensate is produced,which in turn, may reduce the emissions even further, as more of the exhaust is reduced to liquid condensate,which is NOT released into the atmosphere. In exchange, we gain more Btu from the gas, which means more "green" in our pockets for the effort. In short by using burners that are 92 percent or greater, will reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses for two reasons -- less gas will need to burned due to more Btu recovery and less exhaust products are released into the atmosphere.
With No. 6 fuel oil, as I said earlier, we also have the need to pre-heat the oil in order to burn it. This is often associated with mandatory additional professional staff to operate and maintain a No. 6 fuel oil system. In addition, there is also the issue of premature tank failure with the heavier fuel oils. Once again one can argue that over time, the added costs of operation may be able to par-laid into converting to cleaner burning fuel, when these added maintenance costs are done away with.
With all this said, it is time to take stock in the fuels that are used, and look at the overall picture, from both an environmental AND and economical point of view. In many cases it will be clear that when a system is in need of replacement or substantial renovations are planned, there will be significant savings to be had with converting to cleaner burning AND at the same time, MORE EFFICIENT HVAC systems. In my opinion, it makes much sense to look beyond the oil burner itself, and take into account the ENTIRE building system -- envelope, mechanical, plumbing lighting and HVAC and aim to REDUCE overall energy use from the start. This will ultimately reduce pollutants emitted as well as carbon footprint perhaps as much as much as the banning of No. 6 fuel oil . Once again, we have the chance to employ integrated building design and gain from the synergies between efforts to achieve an even more higher performing building that is more environmentally responsible. This building will also be far more cost effective in its operation, with superior return on investment.
I do NOT mean to say that No.6 fuel oil must be not phased out; it must be phased out as planned. It is just too dirty to be allowed to be used in perpetuity.
Posted by Alan L. Englander at 4/4/2011 11:40 PM 
Categories: Building Envelope, CO2 Reduction, Green and Sustainable Design, NYC Green Codes Task Force, Building Codes, Energy Efficiency, CO2 Emissions, Carbon Emissions, Code Restrictions, Environmentally Responsible Design, Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, Reduced pollution Emissions
Categories: Building Envelope, CO2 Reduction, Green and Sustainable Design, NYC Green Codes Task Force, Building Codes, Energy Efficiency, CO2 Emissions, Carbon Emissions, Code Restrictions, Environmentally Responsible Design, Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, Reduced pollution Emissions
Comments