An All Electric house is a joke for 98% of the US that live in areas
north of zone 8 as electricity is double the cost per BTU for most.
If heating season is expensive unless you have subsides Hydro, gas is
If OP is looking for total replacement gas units are up to 94.5%
efficient, that is higher than oil units go.
I was under the impression that if you have an all electric house, the
electric company charges less per Kw hour than for houses that are not
all electric. I don't know since I don't use electricity for anything
other than those things that require electricity to run.
Unlike George Gobel, I don't have a 'gas' guitar.
1) Heat pumps (especially ground source heat pumps)
2) "Micro zoned" heating whereby you only heat the ROOMS (no the zones) of
the house in active use.
It would be silly to automatically shut out consideration of all electric
(with, maybe, a propane vestless heater for backup) living.
In places where it gets VERY cold, you can consider heatpump "background"
heat with baseboard electric for room by room comfort.
Gilmer you know Zip about what 98% of the US pays for electricity. It is
more than twice the cost of gas per BTU...... Heat pumps? here it goes
to -20, so no heat pumps. Gas is cheaper, again.....
Electricity is so much more money that in fact the Chicago utility
company used to give free and instal free an electric furnace and
utility upgrade. Because they would have a rapid payback. And of course
, to the surprise of the recipient who was shocked to death over his
more than doubling of utility costs.
Figure this, gas is used to generate electricity here. If electricity
was competive Electric furnaces would be in competion with gas. I dare
you to find a residential electric furnace istaler in areas of the US
with .11 kwh- .13 kwh costs, that is all of the US that is not Hyrdo
Now research your " thoughts" before you speak them. Hopefully you
will post further with facts , not misinformed misinformation.
Ooooh-eeee! Need an asbestos suit to read your posts.
You're right. I did a calculation to compare the two here in Manitoba. For
730.337 M3 of gas consumption, I'd need to replace it with 7,646 kWh of
electricity, considering that both would provide 27,526 Mj of energy.
At those rates electricity would cost $509.50, gas $218.27. Now that's
calculated on the efficiency of my furnace. A more efficient one would lower
the cost of gas still more, but not by much.
Can I run an extension cord to your house? I'll pay for your use as well as
mine. Converted to USD I'm paying triple that in CT. I heat with oil
($1.599) as the only gas available near my house is from eating beans.
Sort of, one can setup a refrigeration cycle, using heat to provide the
cooling, however you still electricity to move the air.
They used to have gas powered fridges for example, but they don't move
Well, "modern" heating systems also require electric power.
(At one time many gas furnaces had "milivolt" type gas valve which used the
small amount of power generated by the pilot light on a "thermpile" to power
the thermostat circuit. If the electric was not working, the
overtemperature sensor would cut the gas. Thus, you could get a little
heat if you had gas but no electricity. Today, most gas water still work
that way so if the power fails you can still fill your hot water bottle and
take a hot bath.)
Up until the 70s the gas companies were still pushing gas central air
conditioning systems. But when the gas shortages hit, they gave up on
efforts to create new demand. Without the gas companies behind them, the
makers of smaller gas cooling appliance (& AC) gave up the fight.
The "absorption" type of gas (or any heat source) water chillers (for LARGE
commercial systems) are still being made but except for large industrial
installations that use process steam they just aren't cost effective.
I think I saw something about that in Popular Science (or variation
thereof.) IF you didn't count the cost of the generator set it was about
break even. But the gas engine would need the oil changes every few weeks
and a complete re-build ever other year.
It might make sense in you are "off the grid" but ...
This seems like a classic example for doing a cost study for one's
No one else will have the magic answers for you, your residence or area.
Such a study has two main components;
1) The First cost of a new installation. Also how long will it last;
presumably many years, before it in turn will also need replacement.
2) The expected future and on going costs of operating and maintaining. The
financial effect of these can be brought back, financially if you wish to a
'Present Worth' cost, in order to compare them directly.
3) Thirdly YOU have to decide what future variables may/will affect you.
This will include existing and future costs of fuel, current and future
major repairs and when and if they will occur. This may include a future new
chimney, oil tank replacement at some future date, future changes in oil
tank leakage regulations, possibility that additional liability insurance
will be needed to guard against environmental pollution due to oil leakage
into ground water etc.
4) Fourthly there will be intangibles that only you can decide if/will
affect your decision. these might include future government policies,
whether you will ever increase the size of your house, add heating to a
future garage, whether you want a system that will be easiest to maintain
when you retire, sell or rent the house etc. etc. Also whether these will
incur any difference in cost either now or in the future. Intangibles also
would include your own assessments of the comparative risks of the various
fuels. This would include the need for Carbon Monoxide/Smoke detectors wired
and linked as required by local regulations? Insurance requirements?
I would suggest that much of this information could be obtained by getting
'several' quotes for both oil and gas for the 'first costs' and also some
numbers from the fuel providers for their expectation of future costs. But
YOU decide what you think future fuel costs will be.
5) Your choice must adequately do the job you want it to do under all
reasonable/expected conditions short of a world flood or a 250 mph
While agreeing that electricity is generally more expensive it also has
advantages. We decided to go all electric some 34 years ago and for us it
was good choice. Our advantages and savings were; no requirement to purchase
and install a fuel tank which by now would have needed replacement at least
once! No cost for chimney and no need to clean it regularly. Great
simplicity of installation, virtually zero maintenance (one circuit breaker
and three thermostats, one of which was replaced for cosmetic reasons during
34 years!). Ability to turn down or off, individual rooms, an advantage now
that there is now only a single person in a four bedroom house. Currently
though the cost of electricity has increased by about 8% and is rumoured to
increase gain mid 2005 due to the increased cost of oil which fuels one
generating station that produces about 40% of our electricity, particularly
during the winter. It has also proved extremely safe and the electric supply
BTW. If I install 'auxiliary' heating, say in the form of a properly
chimnied and installed wood stove there would be a reduction in my
electricity fuel cost, but it would increase my property insurance due to a
higher fire risk. At age 71 I am still able to safely maintain our electric
heating system with ease. Whereas the maintenance of an oil tank system and
responsibility for spilled fuel oil into the ground, which has happened
several tomes here at major cost to homeowners, often not covered by
insurers, here, would be a worry.
So do a comparative cost study using all obtained info and reasonable
financial parameters for interest rates/cost of money etc.
You can almost forget about trying to figure out which fuel is
cheaper. They are tied to each other in the market, people buy btus,
there are many industrial and utility users who can burn either so if
one gets lower they switch until it evens up again, and/or single fuel
users will go to the other, again until it evens out. Any significant
difference will likely be merely temporary. If anything gas may have
a more efficient distribution system - nobody needs to drive out to
your house in a truck.
Gas, the utility charges what they charge, which is either a good
thing or a bad thing. However you can often buy a supplier contract
if you like to get into that stuff (in my area, we do that for our
commercial properties) and play that market.
Oil, there are plenty of different companies, they charge what they
charge, you can try toi time that too, I don't with my residence, I
like the company and just go with them. As a result I bargain more
for my gas than my oil!
Oil, a leak can be very VERY costly to clean up. There are situations
where this is your responsibility.
Gas, a leak may blow up your house and kill you. This is rare but
does indeed happen. However, most leaks are minor and just blow away
and don't need any cleanup.
My opinion, you already have gas in the house, so worst of both worlds
- chance of both blowing up and expensive spill, too. So get rid of
the oil and eliminate that peril. You are apparently already
comfortable with having the gas in the house, just go with it. It
MIGHT even be a LITTLE cheaper, and whether you find utility pricing
better or worse in concept than negotiating your own is up to you.
There is no wrong answer. (Years ago, there was.)
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.