Gas Vs. Electric

Errrrr...... To do what?

if you want to heat a large space = furnace. If you want to heat a personal workspace = electric heater the person takes to the workplace and uses when he is there.

electric heat is 3-4 times as costly as gas heat and 6-7 times as costly as coal heat. However a furnace is costly for 1 man

The cost of gas and electric heating fuel is changing too fast to project. Some local utilities will double the price of electricity this year. Some doubled last year. The price of gas went from $2 to $16 and back to $8 in three years.

The units of measure of each fuel is different and very difficult to calculate especially if you plan to project future cost. A bargraph comparison of each type fuel is shown with method of calculation on www.groups.yahoo.com/group/cornplace, in the files section.

In order to meet EPA regulations, power plants are graduallly switching gas from the US average 50% coal. Do not expect gas prices to remain low long term. The only reliable abundant fuel in America is coal. The lowest cost heating fuel throughout local American communities is corn. The price of corn has remained constant for roughly 200 years.

Your question is too broad for a truly useful answer. Specify the type of plug-in heater you mean: radiant heater? liquid filled radiator style heater? element heater with fan? ceramic/ceramic-disk heater? Other? Generally speaking, heating with a distributed/decentralized fuel source (that means an oil or gas fired furnace/space heater) is (and will be) less expensive than with a centralized fuel source (that means electric central heating or plug-in space heaters)--and far less wasteful of fossil fuel resources. Given equal spaces, the plug-in electric heater will invariably be more expensive to use--in part because more than one would be needed to heat the same space as the furnace. Consider also that with even several plug-in electric heaters, it will be a considerable time (compared to a furnace) before comfort level is reached. That time during which the space remains uncomfortable should be considered as almost totally wasted power expenditure. You also didn't say whether or not you presently have a furnace, or need to decide what to buy and use. Capital cost of the heat supplier, and how long it woud be needed to provide heat, would also need to be taken into account to determine which is (will be) cheaper to use.

In many instances a plug-in heater can be of best benefit when used in conjunction with the furnace--for example, when placed in a drafty/cooler area of the house--in order to prevent the furnace (T-stat) from cycling as often--because less furnace heat is "lost" to the cold spots in the house. A particularly good plug-in to use for this is a ceramic heater--especially one that is thermistor controlled. Ceramic heaters are by far the superior heaters for generally room heating as well. This is so because they are 100% efficient at heating the air that passes through them. And the better ones use only as much power as is needed to maintain the selected space temperature--unlike thermostat controlled plug-ins which either are off or are using maximum power at all times--and only heat a fraction of the air that passes through them..

I think it largly depends on the type of furnace that you are taking about. Oil fired forced air furnaces seem to rapidly warm a room but can be dirty with the large volume of air circulated throughout a house, require a humidifer if u suffer from dry air like me and are rather coustly to run. Not to say electriuc is cheaper, but after owning a house with an oil fired forced air furnace versus renting an apartment which has radiant heat powered from propane. I have seen much smaller heating bills. I would also think electric heat could produce astronomically NYSEG bills.

It appears you might be posting from the eastern U.S.? When you say "propane-powered radiant heat," are you referring to a hot water or steam type radiator (i.e., convection) heating system? Also, are you referring to an apartment that was heating the same volume of space as the house? And was equally as old, with similar construction and insulation features? It appears you might be suggesting, that using water as the heat carrying medium (rather than air circulated via an electric powered fan) can be more economical. This would probably be true due to the heat capacity of water and other factors. The distinction, as you imply, would be the quicker heat-up with forced air systems...as opposed to the more stable heat (and in some ways better air quality) derived from radiator/convection heat. However, as posted before, this is one of numerous comparisons that the inquirer might be asking for when he asks whether plug-in electric heaters are cheaper or more costly to operate.

Not to beat a dead horse but propane is not only cheaper to keep you warm and cleaner to operate with use of radiant heat, it is also being found in some reservoirs earlier not known to the mining industry. There is generaly a burial window where oil and gas is found. Older sediment, as found in the eastern US have past their maturity, have been over cooked or once bureid too deeply. It has now been revealed that dolomitized limestones or altering of carbon rich sediments by thermal fluids creates additional gas resveroirs trapped by the Utica Shales in the Northeastern US states. So not only has costs fluctuated in our favor, it may just stay costs effective in the long term.

Back to the referred topic... If im not in my house for long and just wanted take a quick shower an oil filled electric heater works better for me than turning up the thermostat.

Still not sure what you intend by "radiant" heat. Propane can be a relatively economic fuel when purchased in bulk...for firing a furnace burner. It is not economic when purchased in small quantity, as for a portable-burner devise, if that's what you mean by a propane "radiant' heater. As to the oil filled heaters reminiscent of radiators, the sales of these owe much to slick and somewhat misleading package labelling. They would be among heaters better used as supplemental heat with whole house furnace...so that they remain T-cycled off much of the time. They are also somewhat effective as stand-alone heaters...but only in in very small spaces...not much larger than a closet. Their best feature is primarily limited to safety: no exposed element; don't get hot enough to cause ignition of combustibles. But, considering their relatively high cost, and high energy comsumption (during much of which, while the oil is heated, there is very little heat output) they are in most instances the worst value in plug-in heaters. As said, they are best as supplemental heaters (say, to add close-up warmth near a work space) because, by design, they are intended to be turned on and left on...in order to keep the oil from cooling. But, as you said, it is difficult to know what advise to give (the original topic) without more specificity about what the questioner was seeking comparisons of.

One kilowatt-hour is equivalent to 3412 btus. A therm of natural gas is 100,000 btus. There are basic charges for electric and gas service regardless of usage, so one must compare the incremental cost of the energy (what it costs to buy an additional unit). A run-of-the-mill gas furnace is about 75% efficient (the rest of the heat goes up the chimney, plus combustion air has to be sucked into the building somewhere). An electric heater is 99%+ efficient. Premium and condensing gas furnaces are available with up to about 96% efficiency. Considering the average furnace, it would take 75,000/3400 kWh to deliver the same heat as one therm of gas (22 kWh). If you are paying $.10 per kWh for electricity and $1.00 per therm for gas, it would cost 220% more to heat electrically. However as mentioned elsewhere, the electric heater would put all the heat where you want it. A furnace could be overheating other spaces and therefore wasting energy. The same comparison can be made for oil heat. No 2 fuel oil has about 140,000 btu's per gallon.

All depends on the application. In general, 1 unit of electricity is eqivalent to 0.108 kg/hr. of LPG (mixture of propane & butane), taking into account about 25% cimney losses for LPG firing, whereas electric heating can be done in a closed atmosphere. Further, gas firing should have a combustion blower, power (HP) of motor depending on the type of burner used, whether recuperator is / can be installed and whether recirculation is possible. Fuel to fuel cost comparison depends on rates of gas & electricity (inclusive of MD charges). Also, comparison of different fuels should not be done on cost of fuel to cost of fuel basis; convinience of operation, controllability, temperature accuracy & uniformity, rate of heating etc. are to be considered for fuel comparison.

Hence, only if the details of the application are provided, comparison of fuels can be done properly.

mn mahadevan

No heating fuel cost less than local renewable edible whole kernel shelled corn maize. The corn stove is relatively expensive but the ROI is often less than six months unless one resides in a warm location. If you like corn bread you will like corn cooking. Local renewable represents little loss in delivery and handling.

No energy is more environmentally friendly than corn maize energy. Sierra Club Advocates calculate a net positive reduction in global warming with corn energy because the growing corn converts a net positive amount (484 pounds per year they say) CO2 to oxygen. Solar, hydro and wind, once built, are considered environmental friendly but if the equipment is handled, operated and dosposed in a friendly manner even those do not have a net positive influence. Other grain energy and biomass may eventually be developed as friendly as corn. Corn stove and corn grill heater technology is fully developed and available.

Cornstove wrote:

"No energy is more environmentally friendly than corn maize energy."

Is it cheap and economical, maybe. Really depending on supply, demand and local availability. Is it environmental friendly? That is the big question I would ask. Although when comparing the major chemcial reaction for all bio fuels, ethanol, versus octane you would be surprised to see more greenhouses released by ethanol. It has a lower heating value and gives off less latent heat. Also, as for the global CO2 budget regardless of what some might call, sequestered carbon, there is no substantial amount of CO2 sequestered by any terrestrial reservoir. The carbon budget is better balanced by looking at anthropogenic sources, rise in atmospheric concentration and oceanic uptake.

Ethanol was not part of the discussion pertaining to whole kernel shelled corn. Ethanol and natural gas combustion emit 0.09 MMBTU GHG or more as compared to 0.001 MMBTU or less GHG equivalents for the 98.6% combustion efficiency of whole kernel shelled corn. Expect 5 gallons solid effluents per household per year and less than 2 pounds air effluents per household per year.

Coal emits 0.5 MMBTU. Wood emits 2 to 20 MMBTU. Good clean electricity has 25% thermal efficiency using 50% coal at an avg 1.5 MMBTU a low of 0.5 MMBTU with 3% to 20 % opacity in the US and depositing solid effluents of (West coast) 35 tons to (east coast) 50 tons per customer per year. Thermal heat transfer varies from one stove to the next stove depending on heat exchanger efficiency with no relationship to combustion efficiency.

CCA EPA certified data for solid fuel combustion is tested at Virginia Tech.

EPA certified CEMS data is available to the public for utilities. www.tva.gov, www.aep.com, www.southernco.com, www.aes.com

EPA certified CCA regulations are set to increase the global price of food, meat, pork, beef, mutton, chicken. Each farm critter must wear an embedded ID, be counted, and the owner must pay GHG carbon credits of $100 per head for beef, $175/head for milk cows, $20/piglett, etc. Although corn is the food of choice for farm animals, the EPA GHG charges and fines will blame corn for driving up food cost to starving children globally.

For further details go to www.groups.yahoo.com/group/cornplace

I Live in Calgary, it is approaching winter 2009, and my roommates are itchy about my usage of an electric heater in my small basement bedroom, power bill is going up. Wouldn't it save on gas cost? It is thermostatically controlled and only used while I am in the room, and I am there mostly just to sleep, etc, for a total of 10-12 hrs daily. The house thermostat for the gas furnace is upstairs and other than covering the cool tile floor, is there justification in avoiding its use? The room can get very hot then very cold with cycling of the house thermostat. I prefer to cut off some heat input into the room and let it go upstairs, and regulate my room with the heater. I have almost no access to the utility bills for strategic cost comparisons. Also, I am confused with people's preference over ceramic, bare element, radiant and oil radiant with regards to efficiency. I always use a small fan in conjunction (heat rises, so...), wouldn't ANY type heat the same amount? There's no where else the energy could go but to heat... no exhaust etc. I'm not worried about delta T, It only takes a few minutes for it to stabilize.

get an electric blanket. Power use is one fifteenth of an electric heater.

electricity in Calgary is 10.1 cents per kilowatt hour. A heater uses 1500 watts = 15 cents per hour. Times 12 hours times 50% on/off duty cycle = $27 per month.

Just buy a heater and pay them $30/month or an electric blanket and pay them $2 a month.

All heaters are 100%. Heaters are low cost devices. A small motor, $1 worth of resistance wire + housing and knob and thermostat $5-6 raw material cost = $15-20 selling price.

Sellers speak of ceramic blah blah......cost is the same as above, but they sell for $39.95 or more. On late night radio they sell real ripoffs to fools