This is not an area I'm very familiar with but apparently the complex where I live represents three of the 9,000 NYC buildings that play a large part in New York City air failing federal health standards by burning a very dirty heating oil.
A report from Environmental Defense Fund shows that just one percent of New York City's buildings, those burning the dirtiest grades of heating oil, produce more pollution than all the city's cars and trucks combined. The report "The Bottom of the Barrel: How the Dirtiest Heating Oil Pollutes Our Air and Harms Our Health," advocates phasing out the dirty oil by 2020.
The pollution produced by burning No. 4 or 6 oil—some 1,000 tons of it every year—threatens the health of all New Yorkers, creating a rain of toxic soot that aggravates asthma, increases the risk of cancer, exacerbates respiratory illnesses and can cause premature death.
Below the fold are some of the politics involved and the temporary solution my complex came up with.
It would seem that very few New Yorkers are aware of just how bad the dirty oil used in these 9,000 buildings really is. One link claims that New York burns two out of every three gallons of this sludge used for heating in the United States. There are many stories to be read in newspapers and seen on television news about the fact that New York City has twice the national asthma hospitalization rate for children below the age of fourteen but credit being given to the oil that is still being used for heating is not often found in these reports. This pdf. link from The Environmental Defense Fund that was published in December starts out with the fact that unhealthy soot and ozone pollution takes the lives of infants and even alters the lungs of city children.
Still, black smoke pouring out of large New York City buildings is a common sight. These buildings’ heating systems spew toxic soot, heavy metals (nickel) and other pollutants into the air because they are burning unrefined sludge (referred to as residual fuel or No. 4 or 6 oil). Close to 9,000 large residential, commercial and institutional buildings currently burn this type of fuel, which contributes considerably to the city’s air pollution and impacts public health. For example, a new study shows that nickel-laden soot pollution is associated with respiratory symptoms in young children. These sludge-burning buildings – which represent 1 percent of the city’s buildings – contribute 86 percent of the city’s heating oil soot pollution which is more soot pollution than comes from the city’s cars and trucks.
Most of what I had heard about No.6 oil was warnings at previous shareholder meetings under the old management, warnings about environmental groups causing a large one time charge and a dramatic increase in the cost of heating. I never heard this part;
Air pollution exacts a high price for New Yorker’s health and taxpayers’ money. For example, in 2000, New York City asthma hospitalizations alone cost government and individuals more than $240 million a year. Medicaid and Medicare paid about 72% of these costs. In addition, the soot pollution spewed out in disproportionate amounts by buildings burning No. 4 or No. 6 oil not only contributes to unhealthy air but also to climate change. Recent studies have shown that soot pollution (black carbon) is the second-largest contributor (after CO2) to climate change. So reducing soot pollution will also have an immediate impact on mitigating climate change.
My complex has a new and much better management now with less warning and more doing. There was a shareholder's meeting last week under this new management that is presently taking a proactive stance. After seeing GasLand and hearing about toxic chemicals being left in ground water, high levels of methane gas being released at condensation stations and people with flames coming out of their water faucets, natural gas is already sounding a little scary as the answer but that is the present solution on the table and my complex is going forward with it. Tonight the board of directors and management will be meeting with two engineering firms to finalize plans.
What is being done is called co-generation. There will be a huge V-8 engine purchased and installed in each building that will run on natural gas coming in on Con Edison pipelines. These engines will power a generator that will provide electricity for all common areas that amounts to 1/6 of all electricity used in a 1,304 unit complex. There will be a savings over purchasing electricity at the wholesale rate directly from Con Ed plus the added bonus of lighted common areas and working elevators during a blackout.
The way it will cut down on the amount of dirty oil used is that the heat generated from these engines while not being used to heat the building will be used year round to heat all the hot water. The No.6 oil will still be used but there will be less of it used each year and no oil will be used between May 31 and October 1st. Presently during that period of time when the building is not required by New York City law to send up heat the oil burning furnaces are in "low fire" mode. This is the most inefficient time for this dirty oil when they are just burning to make hot water. Hopefully by this time next year the No. 6 oil burning heaters will be turned off for those four warm months.
It was discouraging to hear that plan under way in my complex has nothing to do with city, state or federal regulation and is based on both the boards sense of responsibility and an expectation that regulations are sure to come.
The heating oil sector has been entirely ignored by the federal government and largely remains neglected by the state government, which has not yet acted on various proposals to make its sulfur caps protective enough for public health. Nevertheless, the city has left this air pollution problem unaddressed. Air pollutants from No. 4 and 6 heating oil boilers are uncontrolled, contribute to unhealthy air quality and are a quality of life issue when New Yorkers open their windows to let in "fresh" breezes.
Another discouraging fact is that between management contacting NYSERTA about a subsidy and the shareholder's meeting the incentive had been cut in half. But when I spoke with a board member today he told me that "even after the reduced subsidy the system will break even in two years and be saving the complex money after that."
So for the complex co-generation is the right thing to do financially. I contacted management today to find out what will happen next and was informed that at some point there will be a very expensive transition from No. 6 to No. 2 oil and the cost of heating will go up by at least 30% after that. Because of the added expense no steps beyond co-generation will be taken until the government takes some action against burning No. 6 oil. Being familiar with what is being said by politicians he expects that at some point a tax will be placed on both No. 4 and No. 6 oil that will increase each year until at some point No. 2 will be less expensive for landlords and tenant associations.
As for the city the present hold up in regulating these dirty oils from being burned is not caused by any heating oil lobby. The New York Oil Heating Association is pushing for a less polluting product that will help oil to become competitive with natural gas. The hold up seems to be caused by low income buildings that will need financial support from the city, landlord groups that want more time and the fact that many of the buildings that are using the dirtiest oil are city owned.
There was a story in The New York Times six months back that came after that same comprehensive survey of air quality in the city and a renewed promise from the city government to phase out these dirty oils. If those 9,000 buildings were to burn cleaner oil the amount of airborne pollutants they release would decline by as much as 65 percent to 95 percent.
Last month the state passed a law to reduce the sulfur content of No. 2 heating oil and this law will go into effect in 2012. This would have some effect on No. 4 because that is a mixture of No. 2 and No. 6 but that very dirty No. 6 is still unaffected. When that report came out Mayor Bloomberg who had pledged that his administration will be "greening the heating fuels used in our schools and big buildings" and the City Council were still weighing means to phase out the dirtiest oils but while some city buildings were switching over to natural gas they had still not come up with any new laws or regulations.
Obviously there is room for improvement here but I don't know what that might be with the budget crisis going on. The pdf. link above does have many answers and many buildings seem to be participating in the efficiency area but not willing to go for the big increase of cleaner oil or natural gas. Another point made by a board member of my building today is that they are actively seeking some sort of subsidy to switch over early and there was a deal struck a while back but it fell through. Now switching over to No. 2 or an even more advanced system is unlikely because of the government's unwillingness to spend.