When to switch from oil to electric heat
Hi all,
I have a 1000 sq/ft house that’s currently heated with an 80% efficient forced air furnace in the crawlspace of my home.
In addition to paying $1.10 per liter for heating oil I have the added joy of having to pay between $200 and $400 a year in maintenance costs to keep the thing working.
I have an electric furnace sitting in the garage (a friend just installed Geothermal and this 10 yr old furnace came out).
Problem is……
I can’t get a straight answer whether it makes sense to replace the oil burner with the electric locally.
I know the $$$ I save on maintenance could be applied to the cost of electric heat at an average of $300/year as I am spending that without fail on the oil furnace.
I guess I need to know how to calculate when it makes sense to make the switch.
Electricity costs vary depending on when its used, low period is 5.7c per kilowatt hour and the high is 6.6c per kilowatt hour; They add some other fees (delivery charge and regulatory charges and debt retirement charges to the tune of about $60/moth just cause I use electricity whether I use it for heat or not.
Any ideas…
I would like to get away from oil but need to have it make economical sense,
I live in NW Ontario Canada and the oil retailer tells me that its WAAAAAAAAAY more expensive to heat with electric. Does this make sense to you?
Thanks
Tim
Replies
Hi,
You can use my Fuel Comparison Calculator:
http://www.builditsolar.com/References/Calculators/Fuels/FuelCompare.htm
If you are paying $3 per gallon for heating oil with an 80% efficient furnace, that is equivalent to paying about 8.5 cents per KWH with a 95% efficient electric furnace.
But, the electric furnace results in 43 lbs of CO2 emissions per 100K BTU of heat to the house, while the oil results in 17.5 lbs of CO2 per 100K BTU. So, electricity is about 2.5 times worse on CO2 emissions. This is using the national average of 1.4 lbs of CO2 per KWH.
Natural gas might be a better choice for both cost and CO2 emissions. NG is 14 lbs of CO2 per 100K BTU of heat with an 85% efficient furnace.
If you could get NG for (say) $1.50 per therm, it would cut your heating bill by 35% compared to $3 per gallon oil.
Gary
CO2 emissions
Aint No. Ontario near 100% hydro??
Anyway, who cares about CO2, all just a fantasy to extract cash from the average Joe by boosting the cost of everything, huh??
If'n i wuz in No Ontario and did not already have a backhoe, would buy a used one and install GSHP - pay for the backhoe and everything else in < 10 years. Own GSHP paid for itself the very first year, 100% of total installation costs (DIY of course) recovered in just 8 months in the electric bill (10 cents here) vs. air-air HP.
Missed the Ontario bit.
Yes -- electricity is probably a good bet there.I think my grandkids might care a lot about CO2 -- whether they want to or not.Gary
Told my grandkids to use any inheritance to buy NW territory highlands, they should make out pretty well <G>
Beachfront property, eh?
As I stood before the gates I realized that I never want to be as certain about anything as were the people who built this place. --Rabbi Sheila Peltz, on her visit to Auschwitz
Yes its lakefront, I considered a lake loop but again the cost of the system is over $20000.
Sorry, I guess you missed the thing about rising sea levels.
As I stood before the gates I realized that I never want to be as certain about anything as were the people who built this place. --Rabbi Sheila Peltz, on her visit to Auschwitz
Rising sea levels?????
Hahahaha...I just read read the entire thread and got it (highlands in NW Territories)..I..
Sorry I was being literal when I mentioned the place is lakefront not hypothetical
Edited 8/20/2009 12:54 pm by kenora
its lakefront, I considered a lake loop
WOW, IDEAL setup - ya gotta learn some DIY thermodynamics, a couple months of study in off time (actually fun to learn) and you can do a DIY install with no liscense for under $1K. Ya maybe gotta go on ebay and splurge on another $300 for gauges and vacuum pump, brazing torch, etc.
You be retired, you have the time, wadda ya gonna do otherwise, watch your hockey team lose again <G>
BTW ; Ya know the easiest and cheapest way to braze Cu pipe so you dont have oxide residue inside and dont have to buy a N2 tank? Vacuum out a free old propane bottle, pull the valve, drop in some sticks of dry ice, pull a quick 30 second vacuum, Presto - a full CO2 cylinder for $3!
Unfortunately natural gas is not available and geothermal is too expensive to consider.
I was using the calulator (thanks for the link) and wondering if $3.00 (US) gallon is accurate, I don't know the conversion liters to US gallons but think it would be closer to $3.50 (US) gallon making the electric appear to be even a better deal.
Thanks
Edited 8/20/2009 10:36 am by kenora
If geothermal is too expensive why did your friend put it in? And he took out the electric furnace you are considering installing. What does he know that you don't?
He had $20000 to spend, I don't.
The geothermal is without a doubt the Rolls Royce of heating/cooling systems and with several Government rebates he brought the cost to him down to $20000 (it was about $25k before rebates).
He could afford it...
I have a Corvette taste in heating systems but a Chevette budget!
I have a Corvette taste in heating systems but a Chevette budget!
One more to get you to the library/internet and learn another skill /
I myselves got a Rolls taste for heating an' only willing to spend for a used '71 Datsum car <G>
BTW, when my current job panic is done, at request of another HP enthusiast on this board, will do a pictorial essay on DIY >20 EER GSHP for under $1K - watch for it.
May even propose to FHB editors to do a story on such using 410 (no license needed) and starting from scratch.
I look forward to your pictorial essay on GSHP.
You make it sound easy enough, but honestly, for those of us with non-engineering backgrounds and skills is it truly within reach for $ 1000.00.
Currently next energy is flogging these systems approaching C$ 30000.00 before rebates and I struggle to see a payback before the equipment craps out.
I look forward to your tutelage if that is the case.
Cheers s.
P.S. I have considered gasification wood boilers but your proposal blows that idea out of the water. What say you?
From the Fuel cost calculator site:
"CO2 emissions numbers are strictly the emissions associated with burning the fuel, and do not include energy involved in extracting, harvesting, growing the fuel, or transmission line losses."
Fossil fuels (NG, propane, coal, and oil) do not include the CO2 emissions associated with extracting and transporting the fuel.
Electricity does not include transmission line losses.
Seems like this leaves out alot of data, so how accurate is it to compare CO2 emissions if these factors are not taken into account? Do you feel the extraction and transportation is not significant?
Shawn
They're significant, but so highly variable that the folks putting the site together decided not to estimate them. Wad'ya want for free?
As I stood before the gates I realized that I never want to be as certain about anything as were the people who built this place. --Rabbi Sheila Peltz, on her visit to Auschwitz
Hi Shawn,
The bit of material I've seen on this indicates that the transmission/delivery losses are in the 5% area for fuels like electricity, NG and oil. I suppose wood could range from almost nothing up. Since the losses for the big fuels are of the same order, and not all that large a fraction, it seems like just counting the burning part gives a pretty good idea. Its the approach the other carbon calculators that I'm aware of take.Gary
And, eg, electricity generated from fuel oil will have essentially the same extraction cost (in pounds CO2) as heating with fuel oil, assuming the oils is sourced the same in both cases, so the extraction costs net out, as a first approximation.But the extraction cost of a pound of coal or a gallon of oil can vary by a factor of 4x or more, so it's hard to put absolute numbers on extraction cost.
As I stood before the gates I realized that I never want to be as certain about anything as were the people who built this place. --Rabbi Sheila Peltz, on her visit to Auschwitz
But isn't the generation of hydroelectric power like they have at Niagra Falls free from any carbon footprint?
99 and 44/100% free.
As I stood before the gates I realized that I never want to be as certain about anything as were the people who built this place. --Rabbi Sheila Peltz, on her visit to Auschwitz
So how are you arriving at the CO2 emissions for electricity, specifically? Are you basing this on coal as the generation fuel?
As a side topic, what does everyone think about the use of off-peak electricity for storage heating? As I understand it, this uses excess power that would be wasted if not used, correct? Seems like this would be a more responsible use of energy than to burn other fossil fuels and letting the available electricity go to waste.Shawn
I would guess that the carbon figures are arrived at taking the average for all US generating plants.Off-peak use is good if it offsets on-peak use, but otherwise probably a loser. With the exception of wind energy (and some hydro), the power would not be "wasted" if not used off-peak, it's simply that the generating capacity (capital investment) is unused.
As I stood before the gates I realized that I never want to be as certain about anything as were the people who built this place. --Rabbi Sheila Peltz, on her visit to Auschwitz
So if you are relatively close to the generation plant where transission losses are at a minimum you are treated the same as a distant customer?
Yup. Most people have no idea how far they are from their primary generating plant, and even when they do, the losses are only partly line losses -- much is lost in the transformers up and down which is relatively fixed regardless of distance.
As I stood before the gates I realized that I never want to be as certain about anything as were the people who built this place. --Rabbi Sheila Peltz, on her visit to Auschwitz
Hi Shawn,
I use 1.4 lbs of CO2 per 1 KWH of electricity. This is the average for all US generation -- includes coal, NG, hyro, ...For electricity from coal plants, the number is 2 lbs per KWH.Off peak hour electricity is definitely not electricity that would be wasted if not used. Generation has to match load -- there are no plants our there humming away making electricity that no one is using -- where would it go? -- megawatts of electricity don't just vanish -- any power that gets generated has to be dissipated somewhere. Gary
Gary,
I guess I worded my comments poorly. What I was told previously, is that power generation is more efficient when there is less fluctuation in demand. So if the demand can be smoothed out by using off-peak for heating at night, this would help the system run more efficiently. Do you agree?
any power that gets generated has to be dissipated somewhere How do we handly demand fluctuations, anyway? If everyone shuts off their AC at the same time, and the grid sees a sudden drop in demand, what happens to the power being produced at that time? Hmmm.
Obviously, I don't know much about power plants and how they operate. Considering how big a factor they play in CO2 emissions, I'd like to learn more...any suggestions on where to get information on this topic?Shawn
When you shut off your AC, the generator speeds up slightly. An RPM sensor detects this and reduces the power (water, steam, whatever) feeding the generator.And, of course, this is averaged over a large multi-state network, so an individual AC unit has no real effect -- only hundreds or thousands switching together would even be noticeable on the instruments in the generating plant.
As I stood before the gates I realized that I never want to be as certain about anything as were the people who built this place. --Rabbi Sheila Peltz, on her visit to Auschwitz
Hi Shawn,
I'm not a power generation expert either -- I do have a fried who spent his whole career in this area, and have asked him these kinds of questions. In a nut shell, he says that generators adjust to load and for bigger load changes, generators and whole plants are added or subtracted all the time. There are engineers whose full time job is to predict demand and arrange for how it is to be produced.
From the utilities point of view "more efficiently" probably means they can run their lowest fuel cost generation -- which will be coal for most US utilities. This may be more efficient from their knothole, but certainly not from a pollution point of view.I realize that Kenora does not have access to NG, but many people in the US can choose between NG and electricity. For most of the US, if you choose electricity, the fuel is coal, and its generated in a 35% efficient power plant. The combination of coal being a fuel that gets proportionally more of its energy from carbon (vs Hydrogen) and the low efficiency of the generating plant makes for about 2 lbs of CO2 for each 1 KWH of heat delivered to the house. For the NG choice, you can buy a 95% efficient condensing furnace and us the NG at 95% efficiency. The NG gets proportionally less of its heating value from carbon than coal does. The combination of lower carbon fuel and higher efficiency results in 0.5 lbs of CO2 per 1 KWH of heat delivered to the house. So, NG is about 4 times less carbon intensive than electricity generated from coal fired plants. For most people, its also cheaper.Gary
do have a fried
Have come close to being fried myself a few times. <G>
What I need is a spell checker that knows what I meant to say :)
Of course, the money equation changes somewhat with a heat pump, where you can get more than 100% of the energy out of the electricity (maybe 300-400%). But from a carbon standpoint it's probably only about break-even.
As I stood before the gates I realized that I never want to be as certain about anything as were the people who built this place. --Rabbi Sheila Peltz, on her visit to Auschwitz
Our coop meters the electric heat separately. Much lower rate than toaster, microwave..I would invest first in best insulation envelope you can.Good luck and thanks for being efficient...dan
so what you saying is, it doesnt matter how much you pay as long as you believe in the green movement and the global warming thoery
Hi,
I don't see where I said that at all.
The calculator gives both the cost comparison and the carbon comparison.
People can see both numbers and make up there own minds.Gary
Tim 3.785 L = 1us gal. So that would be $4.16.
Why so high on maintenance, maybe learn and do yourself?
Check and see if your electrical panel has room from the 10yr old furnace.
Play the game and use both?
Wow, that makes electric even a better deal at over $4.00 (US) gallon...
The panel is 200 amp and has lots of spare capacity so no worries there.
As for maintenance I can't explain it, nor can the service people. Its an electric start model (no pilot light# and each time they have to service it the nozzle is replaced and it gets a thorough cleaning.
As for servicing it myself...the oil company won't deliver fuel unless its got a sticker indicating its been serviced annually. I get a pre-season tune up in November #$120# and it usually breaks down by March #$200 - $300).
I am not a happy camper.
That is a very good rate on power. Standard local rates here in Colorado are almost twice that.
Sounds to me like you should go for it.
And maybe work on tightening up the house a little more.
Sounds like to me he needs to burn wood and fergit about it .
400 dollars will heat a house here a full winter in wood. [ Im talkin a big house , 4000sq ft] Set the furnace at 65 degrees to tell you the wood is on its way cold .
I dont spend any thing on wood .
That may not be possible for him and he probably doesnt want to.
I heat with sun and wood and a little supplemental electricity. I have enough wood already split and stacked for about 6-7 years. Call it insurance.Seemed like he wanted a narrower answer.
Electric forced air is very inefficent way to deliever heat.. there are much more efficent ways that don't cost a lot..
In your situation here's what I'd do.. I'd keep the oil furnace as back up. Use it only rarely or if your calculations are slightly off and you don't meet the extreme cold heating needs.. My house with 107 windows (5500sq.ft.) I can heat with one electric water heater 80% of the time. for the addition 19% I use a second back up water heater which is also my domestic hot water. and for that 1% of the time when the outside temp gets below 20 below I kick on my back up forced air heater..
Then I'd get a staple up radiant tubing heating system going. (do you have access to the bottom of your floor?) If not there are still ways to do it.. with a 1000 sq.ft. house you can probably heat it with an electric water heater which is massively cheaper than a boiler plus it would be more efficent.
I 'll explain the thermal dynamic reasons to go this way rather than forced air if you'd like..
Bottom line? It used to cost me $500 a month to heat the house when it was 1/2 the size. Now with 3 times the number of windows, more than 2 times the space. I spend about $200 a month heating during the coldest months.. 0r about $2500 a heating season. Now it costs me about $900 a month. Annual savings? $1600.
I suspect that all the materials you'll need to convert your house to infloor radiant heat will cost you about $1500-$1800 So I can see a payback in a couple of years with additional savings to come..