Electric central heating via radiators?

I've thought the same as you. I guess it's a marketing ploy for people who don't really understand heating. People have an idea that electric panel heaters cost a fortune to run and that radiators are somehow good. So this is just a way of trying to trick them.

The general level of understanding of anything like this is pretty low. Ever tried to convince a convert to oil-filled radiators that they cost exactly the same to run as an electric convector heater? I remember arguing with someone who claimed that pans with heavy bases needed less power to cook food because they held the heat better. In fact oil-filled rads are part of the same con trick - overcomplicating electric heating to fool people that it's cheap to run.

Cheers!

Martin

Depends. If it used off peak and stored the heat - then used a wet system to distribute it as needed - it perhaps would be ok. But if it's not storing heat can't see any advantage over directly heated rads.

I've thought the same as you. I guess it's a marketing ploy for people who don't really understand heating. People have an idea that electric panel heaters cost a fortune to run and that radiators are somehow good. So this is just a way of trying to trick them.

The general level of understanding of anything like this is pretty low. Ever tried to convince a convert to oil-filled radiators that they cost exactly the same to run as an electric convector heater?

'Electric Furnaces': Not uncommon now, here in eastern Canadian province.

Especially where people have converted their oil fired hot water radiation systems to electricity (which is now a cheaper fuel). There are no cheap or late night rates here. The only gas available is truck delivered propane which is very uneconomic.

Typically for converting older installations the furnace and oil tank are removed (thus getting rid of the pollution hazard) and the chimney is either blocked off or removed.

Following some spectacular, very expensive and extensive oil spills (in one case the tank/piping had been leaking for over four years!) the annual cost of insurance against the possible pollution hazard of oil leaks and spills has also risen sharply. In one instance a complete new building extension basement plus main storey, was constructed in the hole that had to be excavated to remove a long term oil leakage. Following an also expensive court case! This all a few miles from here. And if oil spillage occurs where wells and septic tanks are used the results can be disastrous. If oil tank installed in house basement, not uncommon 'in town' (presumably where people were a little more house-proud about not having external tanks in view) no one wants several hundred gallons of fuel oil in their basement!

Oil fired hot air furnaces can also be converted to electricity in a similar manner.

Know of only one 'new' (well it was actually a complete house rebuild/ refurnish from bungalow with a basement apartment/flat to three stories six bedrooms and 3.5 baths etc. It also completely upgraded all insulation etc. in the now much larger home) where the heating system now comprises mainly in-floor piping that is fed from a double 'electric furnace'. IIRC there are four or five zones in the house, with controls and two circulating pumps, one for each 'furnace'.

This in floor heating system IMO seems to have some disadvantages. It is very slow and the piping being installed below the floors in most areas except the basement where baseboard radiators were retained may be causing the wooden flooring to 'gap'.

Generally people report that the above forms of conversion to electric heating are more economical than oil. And have much lower maintenance costs, no tank, furnace inspections or chimney cleaning. Domestic electricity cost here, which is a little above the Canadian average, is about ten cents (Canadian) per kilowatt hour/unit.

Personally speaking our individual in each room electric baseboard heating with individual room thermostats has worked well. It allows unused rooms to be turned down or off. And individual rooms to be turned 'up' if say someone is ill. Maintenance has been almost nil; only replacements have been two thermostats and one circuit breaker at a cost of less than $100 during the last 38 years. None of the approx.

Last night I manually turned down the living room and kitchen on the way to bed. This morning I turned them up again. However many people install 'Programmable thermostats', these cost around $25 to $35 Canadian each and can quickly replace existing typical wall mounted '230 volt line voltage' thermostats. The minimum wattage that programmables will work with is usually 500 watts. Their maximum capacity at around 17 - 18 amps seems to be around 4000 watts.

There's nothing magic about electricity, or how it is turned into heat. Each kilowatt provides around 3400 BTUs of heat. It does seem cleaner and simpler easy to work with and modify and much less of a pollution hazard. And since almost all electricity here is hydro generated a suitable choice.

Have to agree about the sad state of understanding of basic 'Physics'. people will tell you something like metal IS COLDER than say wood. It isn't! Just that it consucts heat away from your hand more quickly, if you touch it. Geez why do yout hink people wear gloves! Have fun. Today it's minus 10 Celsius, not very cold by Canadian standards!

It's probably a heatbank system, using off peak electricity. We used that at work over 70 years ago.

Off peak electricity (storage heaters or heatbank) are sometimes the only available heating. Multi storey flats, sheltered accommodation etc.

Unfortunately, here in the UK electricity is rule-of-thumb three times the price of gas for the same power. I agree it's easier to work with, which is why it still gets used in small flats and so on, but it's not really feasible price-wise for a larger home.

Pete

Perhaps the price relationship will change over time.

To some extent, we are still living in an era of relatively cheap gas. As the current Russia/Ukraine spat has shown, that era is rapidly coming to an end.

Cheap gas meant that many gas-fired power stations were built. As gas becomes more expensive, and new nuclear stations come on stream, the relationship between gas and electricity prices will change.

Our current heavy reliance on gas-fired central heating will also change, possibly with a wider mix of energy sources coming into use.

Are not heat pumps (electrically driven) already an attractive option?

Possibly. My understanding is that lots of electric heating was put in decades ago on the assumption that cheap nuclear electricity would make them worthwhile. Unfortunately that never happened.

Well, if it does, I guess I can install one of Terry's "electric furnaces" to heat my existing wet system. I'm going with an electric bathroom floor already for simplicity, so one step is done. :-)

If they are, it's because they need less power for a given heat output (moving the heat rather than generating it) rather than because the power is cheaper.

Pete

Nuclear will only ever be cheap in comparison to wind power (which makes anything else look cheap) and the future price of Russian gas.

Interesting.

Of course. But the result is still cheap(er) heat.

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:11:18 +0000 someone who may be Bruce wrote this:-

Both will increase the price of electricity. Nuclear was always expensive, but that was hidden from the public until exposed to the light of day on privatisation.

Despite various bungs from Mr Brown to organisations like the one his brother works for nuclear will remain an expensive way of producing electricity.

It is also a slow way of doing so. The Finnish plant is now going to be completed three years late, it was originally supposed to have been built in four years, now it is supposed to be seven.

outlines the current row and

has some background.

France.

I think "bollocks" would be more accurate than "misleading". Mind you it was posted by Drivel so "bollocks" is a given.

French nuclear electricity only appears cheap per kWh because the French government paid for all the design, development and construction costs. The apparent cost of a unit of electricity therefore only reflects operating costs.

The decommissioning costs will also be picked up by the French government.

A further subsidy came in the form of generous bribes to local authorities in the areas where nuclear stations were built, and the offer of free domestic electricity to anyone living within a certain distance of a nuclear plant.

This meant that local opposition was minimal, but the cost to the French taxpayers has been colossal. At one time, Électricité de France was the most indebted company in the world, and the French taxpayers are having to pay it all back.

Perhaps something similar will happen in Britain. :-)

Great info and discussion re nuclear and gas. Nuclear which also, in Canada, appears to have not been economic or that reliable.

The info regarding 'electric furnaces' in this part of Canada (where piped in gas is not available) Gas (gasoline) here =3D petrol btw! Was in reply to the original posting about whether it was wasteful to have a body of hot water heated, by any means, sitting there all day until one returns home in the evening from work. Hence the observation about hot water radiation being 'slow'.

And it was all for information and comment.

That in my mind raises a question about the thermal mass of a house structure? On might think that a typical brick house with the proper thermal breaks between the outer and inner walls and properly insulated and vapour barriered should have greater heat storage than our comparatively light-weight 'stick built) ones. But I suspect that such a house as the one we lived in Liverpool UK, in the late 1940s and 50s and still standing AFIK, could not be insulated effectively? It was gas only when we lived there by the way. That house was then probably at least 60 years old?

This 38 year old (all electric, although we have added a wood stove etc in basement) house has 2 by 4, insulated wood frame walls. If built today it would have six inch walls and be better insulated. Following recent snow piled some of it up around the approx six inches of concrete basement that is above ground level to reduce wind induced heat loss. The almost completely in-ground basement is uninsulated but this morning (with minus 11 degrees C, outside) was at +9 C (50 F).

Energy costs have risen rapidly during the last 25 years and various 'energy conservation' incentives are being touted by our federal and provincial governments.

As usual with anything designed by a bureaucracy it will have snags. One time taking advantage of such a scheme (adding loose fill attic insulation) later found I had to pay income tax on the subsidy having already remitted the incentive cheque to insulation installer company. Costing it out found that I could have done the same work, buying the material and doing the work myself without any 'incentive', at a lower overall cost!

So am a little cynical and must check; the 'guvmint' seeing very little interest or 'take-up' has reportedly changed the incentive plan. If so and worthwhile, glad we waited!

So what about thermal mass of the house structure?

Oh btw heat pumps. Local discussion seems to show. There is a cost to installing heat pumps systems. The idea that the extra capital costs is worthwhile in energy savings does not yet seem to be well accepted! I guess one can buy a lot of heat against the annualized cost of the plus $10,000 extra cost? Maintenance of refrigerant pumps and valves and controls is also needed!.

Air heat pumps seem to have problems pulling enough heat at anything below about minus 10 C. So auxiliary electric heaters cut in. That reduces the overall efficiency/savings. The weather today for example.

When working within a certain range of air temperatures the heat pump efficiency ratio is said to be anywhere from a 2:1 to a 4:1 energy saving?

Better than air are said to be ground systems where pipes are buried or ducted through the ground from which heat is pumped into the house. Water systems require quite a large body of water or a large ground water well.

Basically they are all like big refrigerators with the advantage, not much needed in these parts, that some can be reversed to provide summer cooling/air conditioning.

Great info and discussion re nuclear and gas. Nuclear which also, in Canada, appears to have not been economic or that reliable.

The info regarding 'electric furnaces' in this part of Canada (where piped in gas is not available) Gas (gasoline) here = petrol btw! Was in reply to the original posting about whether it was wasteful to have a body of hot water heated, by any means, sitting there all day until one returns home in the evening from work. Hence the observation about hot water radiation being 'slow'.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You don't need a body of hot water if using a gas heated system

You can supply enough energy to heat the water virtually instaneously as it passes through the system, you can't do that with electric (not without a three-phase system), so you need the stored water

tim

Well if we get another world consumer boom and oil goes to $150 a barrel again, then nuclear electricity is cheaper..

And if its a heat pump, its cost competitive right now...with any other fuel.

Current generated price of *modern* nuclear is around 2p/unit if you run the stations to the limit. In fact, with interest rates zero, its even less..most of the cost is the capital cost of building..

Yup. About 4:1 step up IF you design the house for warm rather than hot water heating.

Which makes them cheaper than gas at 1/3rd the price as it were.

Also, for heated watts out, even on carbon fuel power stations, the station has to be running at

This weido should be tagged.