I know a guy who moved into a home with an electric furnace. For one
month he got almost a $700 electric bill. He bought a wood stove and a
propane furnace the following month (rural area so no nat. gas).
But in MOST places, 1 therm of heat from a 100% efficient electric
furnace costs about twice what 1 therm of heat from propane, and 3
times from Natural Gas.
Here in Ontario it would only make sense as a backup for a good ground
source heat pump for an install where natural gas is not available.
In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 13 Oct 2015 14:53:13 -0700 (PDT), Uncle
Friends in Delaware have thermal heating and cooling. The house was
built with ?? heat and electric AC, but later somehow had thermal put
in. Makes for an interesting basement.
They live about 50 feet up from the water, on the water, some inlet of
an inlet, maybe of a river. There's a lot of shoreline in Delaware. I
don't know how deep they had to drill for the thermal.
On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 9:04:05 AM UTC-4, TimR wrote:
With a modern heat pump, under ideal conditions, you might
get 5X, but overall, it's a lot less. Which is why you don't
see them used much in cold climates compared to other choices.
If they were 5X most of the time, you'd more than make up for
the cost difference of electric vs other fuels.
I used to know a man who lived in an oil field. At one time landowners
got free gas. When that changed he got a heat pump. One thing he didn't
know was that when the temperature gets low, a heat pump loses
efficiency. That backup electric heat was expensive.
BTW, this is near New London TX where in 1937 a school exploded because
of free (non-odorized) natural gas.
72 days until the winter celebration (Friday December 25, 2015 12:00:00
AM for 1 day).
On Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 1:22:43 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:
bad idea because electric costs way more per BTU than say gas
I have bumped into people who converted from natural gas water heaters to electric to save money because electric is 100% efficent.
after a couple electric bills they all went back to natural gas
On Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 7:43:08 PM UTC-4, Ralph Mowery wrote:
The point of analysis is typically at the meter, ie what you're paying
for. If you go into what it takes to produce it, then the same kind
of further analysis could be done with any fuel, eg propane, nat gas.
All that matters to the consumer is what they are paying for it and how
much useful heat can be extracted from it. And in that analysis,
resistance electric heat is almost 100% efficient. There is a tiny
insignificant amount potentially lost to waste heat in some of the
wiring, where it doesn't contribute to the heating of the building.
On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 19:43:00 -0400, "Ralph Mowery"
There is a lot of heat loss from wires feeding homes and from the
transformers. A big load such as anything heating with electric makes
those wires and transformers warm if not hot. Several years ago, I
witnessed a power outage caused by too many electric food cookers
connected to the same transformer. The women in town all brought their
electric cookers to the same building to provide a community meal. The
pole transformer was actually smoking before it blew. When the electric
company arrived, the guy went up on the pole and said it was so how that
he could not remove it until it cooled down, so they had to wait hours
to get the power back.
Electric heating is probably the least efficient if you look at the
overall picture, from the generating source to the end use at home or a
business building. Aftyer all, you're converting heat from burning fuel
to electric, sending it for miles thru wires and transformers, then
turning it back into heat.
On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 20:46:26 -0500, email@example.com wrote:
And you think oil and natural gas come out of the ground by
themselves, refine themselves, and transport them to your home?????
The "100% efficient" is measured from the point where it leaves the
meter and becomes "yours" - just like the efficiency of propane,
natural gas, oil, or gasoline is measured from the time it becomes
Wood is the only fuel that is more than 100% efficient if burned
properly - it heats twice. Once while you are cutting and splitting
it, and once when you burn it.
Except for hydroelectric, wind power, solar, geothermal, wave power, etc.
Electric costs more in many parts of the country because they have to burn
fossil fuels to create it. Here in the Pacific northwest electricity is
relatively cheap, and most homes have electric heat of some type (furnace,
baseboard, room wall heaters, electric radiant, or heat pumps).
Electric also offers flexibility you can't get from other heat sources.
There are numerous ways to generate electricity. For example, we get most
of our power from a combination of hydroelectric, wind power, and some
natural gas generators.
On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 9:35:39 AM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
The devil is always in the details. It would be interesting to see
what costs are factored in to this "leveling". For all we know, they
could be factoring in some alleged cost to society from fossil fuels,
future estimates of carbon taxes, etc. And I'll almost guarantee they
are comparing a state of the art conventional plant, that has to meet
the most stringent EPA standards, not the installed base. Still, even
if it's half true, it's good news.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.