Which is more cost effective? Heating oil, electicity or gas?

You've made the first correct step with the radiant floor heating.

Here is some advantages and disadvantages of each power source

Solar, and wind

Disadvantages

• High initial costs, best done at start as upgrades actually costs more than initial installation

Advantages

• Do not rely on outside sources (get off the grid)
• green
• cheep operating costs

Electrical

Advantages

• No change to what you already have

Disadvantages

• reliant on power company. costly
• Power outages
• No backup (unless you get a generator)

Oil

Advantages

• Generally cheaper than electricity

Disadvantages

• requires on site tank that may leak and cause environmental damage
• Prices fluctuate regularly
• boiler (furnace) requires annual cleaning
• requires electricity to operate

Natural gas

Advantages

• slightly cheaper then oil or electricity
• No on site tank
• burns cleaner and hotter than oil

Disadvantages

• only available in some areas. You may have to pay to extend distribution lines
• price fluctuates
• requires electricity

Propane

Advantages

• slightly cheaper then oil or natural gas or oil, and prices are much more stable then oil, or gas
• burns cleaner then oil or natural gas
• Possible to have some appliances that operate without electricity (great for a backup)

Disadvantages

• on sight tank

Wood

Advantage

• does not require electricity
• cheaper than most other outsourced supplies
• get exercise by cutting and storing wood

Disadvantages

• Pollution
• Requires cutting, storing of wood

Thanks for the information, techno. Very useful stuff.

You mention pollution for burning wood, all you are doing is releasing the CO2 back into the environment that the tree used to grow. It is CO2 neutral. Not like fossil fuels (gas & oil) which are not CO2 neutral....

Ja? See for example: Unasylva # 125: Chemicals from Wood. Wood pulping operations (paper making, etc) extracts a number of valuable chemicals from wood, including alcohols, complex sugars, starches,cellulose derivitives, tall oils, resin acids, and so on. What happens when you burn these chemicals? Where does creosote come from, that can coat the insides of chimneys and cause fire hazards?

I've been shopping for a good fire store and there's a lot now that can heat 2000ft^2 and release very little particulate (something like 1g per hour) with effective reburning. These stoves are not cheap (>$1000) and require external combustion air (a second tube going through the wall) so they're not sucking the warm air out of the house and causing drafts around windows and doors.

Older style fireplaces (just a metal box with a chimney, door and a air damper of some sort) are being outlawed as they pollute so much more. In a short while the new models (EPA approved) will be all that you can buy.

All those extra bits being extracted from the wood and leftover residues are energy holders and can be burnt in a good stove. If you have significant ash or chimney gunk then you don't have an efficient burn.

I have a friend that had a fire called a Spin-A-Fire that is basically a circular hearth that has glass all around the fire. You can however open a vent that allows air to enter and causes a vortex that enhances the combustion. He ran his on waste hardwood from a local saw mill and the amount of ash left was truly minimal and he only needed to clean it out a couple of times a year.

pretty cool fireplace...that'd be great for the gazebo in the fall. Seems a bit pricey but then again anything that work is.

With reasonablke quality pellets in a well designed pellets stove, you get less than 1 kilogram of ash from 100 kilograms of pellets.....

...and your point is?

Can you be more specific please?

My uncle heats his house with a high efficiency wood stove that leaves behind very little ash, and it has some sort of catalyst that burns the smoke (when it is hot from the fire) before it goes into the chimney. No creosote problems there.

I'm sorry, but I dont see how oil and gas are not CO2 neutral by your definition. The formation of oil and gas is not all that unlike that of trees or coal (for that matter). The time frame is just different.

The time frame is the impotant bit!

Wood that grew recently (or any Bio burnable substance) just returns to the atmosphere the CO2 that it recently removed from the atmosphere. Fossil fuels are returning CO2 to the atmosphere that was used millions of years ago......as well as using a resource that could be used for better things without adding to the CO2 in the atmosphere!

Oliver, According to your reply,removing wood, and wind from the options, it sounds like your implying propane is the least expensive fuel for heating. Is this correct? And if so is this your personal preference?

The following WEB site will give you the info you need to make a comparison

Hope this helps

https://inspectapedia.com/heat/Current_Heating_Cost_Table.php

Your electricity is CHEAP! in the uk it is over 10 times as much. Electricity is most easily regulated. How about roof mounted solar collectors?

Have you considered Geothermal heating? Geothermal works best with radiant floor heating as you already have. The up-front cost is significantly higher but it is very cheap heat and it will pay for itself over a number of years. As a bonus, you can use it for cooling in summer.

Simple Arithmetic gives us following costs for 1GJ :

ELECTRICITY=$18

Fuel OIL =$13.88 (1gallon=3.6Kg, Combustion Heat= 40,000kJ/kg)

GAS =$ 13.715 ( YOU REPORT)

Yet Electricity is cheapest-if you use only localized hot air fans--your consumption will go to 10% of pointless Central Heating.

Want to buy very nice hot air blowers from China ?

<mikemahant@hotmail.com>

In most cases, electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels, with the usual reduced efficiency of conversion.

In a normal market, burning the fuel yourself (oil or gas) produces more usefully heat directly.

Burning wood or even better wood pellets, is environmentally CO2 neutral and burns relatively clean.....

I have been using a pellet stove for nearly a year now - fantastic. For the same amount of heat, the pellets are at this time cheaper than oil or gas....and produce no visible smoke....its as flexible as oil or gas - turns itself on at preset times, controls its heat output and turns itself off when the program clock tells it to....

Having the glass door shows a cheery fire when burning!!

In the USA you can get versions also to heat water for your heating system.....

I have a wood boiler that I originaly bought for back up, but now has become my primary heat source and I also built a heat exchanger to heat my shower water. I have saved a bundle.

have you thought about using a geothermal water to water unit.

The capital cost is higher but the operating cost will pay for the capital investment in 7 years its a good option if you intend to be in your house for 20 years

I know it is only 1/2 relevant, but...

it's too bad you're using radiant heating, (and this is not a shameless plug, i no longer work for the company).. a company up here in Bangor, Maine by the name of Hallowell Engineering is putting out an air-source heat pump, that contrary to all the stereotypes actually performs below 30F unlike other air-source.. If you're interested in more.. check out www.gotohallowell.com

but, that aside... the real question is not really JUST which is more cost effective.. you need to figure in the actual heating components efficiencies.. just remember

"all heaters are not created equal"..

My real advice would be.. no matter WHAT you go with... don't use a "walmart mentality".. do your research on all your viable heating alternatives, and make an informed decision based on initial cost, but more importantly, how efficiently that heating device REALLY uses its input energy. Working @ Hallowell made me really open my eyes to the discrepancies of posted efficiencies VS real-world efficiences....

-nate

Hi Oliver,

I havn't corresponded with you before so welcome to CR4.

As you are no doubt aware the SI system measures energy in Joules and power is the rate of energy use and it is measured in Watts so that if you use one Joule in one second the power is one watt. What you need to do is convert the energy content of each of the fuels to joules and then compare the cost that way. MUKULMAHANT has kindly done this in post #6 already so I will just summarize them here.

1. Gas $13.75 per Gj
2. Oil $13.88 per Gj
3. Electricity $17.08 per Gj

So on a purely cost per unit energy basis the order is GAS-OIL-ELECTRICITY.

However if you use reverse cycle air conditioning the amount of available heat can be up to four times greater than the amount of electricity consumed so if you allow for a net gain of 3 to 1 electricity then comes down to $5.69 per Gj and that makes it the clear winner on a pure cost basis.

Reverse cycle air conditioning however has some limitations and will not operate it the ambient temperature drops below a certain point. The specific cut off temperature depends on the particular unit that is used but if you ask the suppliers in your area they will be able to tell you what is and is not possible.

A further hassle with reverse cycle air conditioning is that it is the most expensive to set up initially and so requires a fairly large initial outlay for the equipment. However, it can be used to cool the house during hot weather and if you intend to cool the house during summer the equipment will already be there and you would be silly not to use it for heating as well as cooling.

On an environmental basis it is a whole different situation. Even though a reverse cycle air conditioning only uses about a third the amount of energy as gas or oil electricity generation and transmission is only about 30% efficient overall. When you take into account these losses you end up expending about the same amount of energy so there is no gain there. Unfortunately most of the worlds electricity is generated by burning coal which produces more pollution than both gas and oil. So from an environmental standpoint the order becomes GAS-OIL-ELECTRICITY.

On point that has not been covered by those that are proposing renewable energy resources like wood and crops is the total affect on the environment. Ye it is true that some of the carbon that is locked up in these fuels comes from the atmosphere some if it comes from the soul and nutrients that the plant absorbs from the soil. That means that even though they are replaceable not all the carbon being released by their burning comes from the air and so they may add to the carbon level in the atmosphere. Another point is that they truly need to be replaceable and currently we are chopping trees down for fuel and to clear areas for crops many times faster than they are replaced. Thus, not only are they contributing to the amount of atmospheric carbon but are reducing the planet's ability to remove the carbon from the atmosphere.

Your final choice depends on how you wish to measure the efficiency and whether or not you intend to take into account environmental effects but hopefully this will give you enough information to understand and make what you believe is the correct decision.

Thank you all for your insights. I knew this was the place to ask the question and get some good responses.

I'll take your advice and do my homework. The geothermal option was not one I thought about in terms of retrofitting but I'll look into that also. It's a good option where I live.

And all the comments about the environmental impact of a decision are well taken. Although I didn't specify that as an issue in my original post, it's definitely a concern for me so thank you for considering that in your responses also. The environmental impact of a decision was actually one of the reasons I chose electricity to power our boiler in the first place (much of the electricity we consume in our area is produced via clean hydro - although that's starting to change due to increasing demand). I just didn't realize the operating costs were going to be as high as they are.

Anyway, thank you all again!

YOU ARE IN MY FIELD. THE GENTLEMAN FROM AUSTRA. IS CORRECT. BASED ON YOUR KWH PRICE I ASSUME YOU ARE IN THE MIDWEST OR SOUTHERN CENTRAL US. CHECK ASHRAE STANDARD TEMPS FOR YOUR AREA. HEATPUMPS (15 SEER AND UP) WITH R410, WHEN INSTALLED IN A PROPERLY DESIGNED HOUSE AND AIR DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ( DUCTWORK) WILL OPERATE AT 38% OF THE COST OF NATURAL GAS. IF YOU WENT GEOTHERMAL YOUR LOOKING AT A 90% PERCENT REDUCTION IN FUEL COST. YOU CAN ALSO USE GEOTHERMAL IN PLACE OF YOU ELECTRIC BOILER BECAUSE YOU ARE ONLY RUNNING WATER AT 86-98'F THROUGH YOUR RADIANT FLOOR AND A WATER TO WATER GEOTHERMAL UNIT WILL HANDLE OVER 110'F WITH A COP OF 4 AND SEER OVER 24. WITH RADIANT YOU WILL ACHIEVE TEMP COMPORT BUT YOU CAN'T FILTER THE AIR, INTRODUCE FRESH AIR OR HUMIDIFY/DEHUMIDIFY WHICH ALL ADD TO HEALTH AND COMFORT. THESE SYSTEM ALSO QUALIFY FOR TAX CREDITS, CONTRACT UTILITY RATE PRICING AND REBATES FROM YOUR POWER COMPANY. THE LEADERS IN THE FIELD ARE WATER FURNACE OUT OF FORT WAYNE INDIANA AND THEY WOULD BE HAPPY TO FEED YOU MORE INFORMATION THAN YOU WANT ON ALL ASPECTS. OK. STATE UNIVERSITY IS ALSO THE HOME OF THE INT GROUND SOURCE HEATPUMP ASSOCIATION AND THEY CAN OVERLOAD YOU CIRCUITS ALSO. IF YOU RESEARCH EVERY OPTION I KNOW YOU WILL FIND THAT THE SECOND BEST OPTION IS AIR SOURCES HEATPUMPS AND THE BEST BY FAR IS GEOTHERMAL. WE RUN THE SHOP AND OFFICE ON THESE SYSTEMS AND WE CHANGE OUR EQUIPMENT FOR PURE RESEARCH EVERY TWO YEARS( EIGHT SYSTEMS) AND WE HAVE FOUND THAT THE TWO BEST ARE WATER FURNACE AND FLORIDA HEAPUMP AND CLIMATEMASTER ARE A CLOSE SECOND. FOR AFTERMARKET SUPPORT CLIMATEMASTER IS GREAT.

Wow, you change out your systems every 2 years!?!?!? i can't even begin to imagine the cost of doing so... Do you retain the original ground-loops? or are you running a pump&dump?

This is getting a little OT, but is still valid I think... I think that you will find, when you compare installed cost of those geothermals (what are you looking at for your installed cost anyway.. just wondering?), when matched against a high-efficiency air-source... what kind of a difference are you seeing in payback periods? I'm not trying to disagree with you in any way, am just trying to gather more information for my own benefit (and the OP of course).

I'M IN THE BUSINESS ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE AND I AM NOT PAYING RETAIL BY ANY MEANS . SOME OF MY EQUIPMENT IS PROVIDED BY MANUF. FOR ME TO TEST. THE SYSTEMS ARE PACKAGE SO THEY ARE EASY FOR US TO SWAP AND WE HAVE A DDC SYSTEM OPERATING AND REECORDING EVERTHING SO WE CAN TELL IF WE ARE MOVING UP OR DOWN WITH EFFICIECY. I AM ALSO ON THE BAY SO MY LOOP IS ACTUALLY COILS LAYING IN 4 FEET OF TIDAL WATER SO MY EFFICIENCY IS BEYOND ARI TEST RESULTS. OUR SYSTEMS ARE ALL EXPERIMENTAL SO ITS A WRITE OFF AND SO COMPLEX IT WOULD TAKE A NUT LIKE ME TO EVEN THINK OF IT. IF INSTALLED COST IS THE MAIN CONSIDERATION AND YOU WANT AN ENERGY EFFICIENT SYSTEM AIR SOURCE IS STILL SECOND BEST BECAUSE AT 16 SEER AND 0'F YOUR COP IS STILL APPROACING 3 AND AVERAGED AGAINST ALL COST IN A HEATING SEASON YOU COME OUT AHEAD.

Nice info!

Could you recommend any good websites or places to look for info on retrofitting a centrally heated/cooled house with geothermal? I would like to find a system flexible enough that I could use it to heat/cool the house but also heat the pool in the summer.

NO MANUFACTURER I KNOW OF RECOMMENDS IT EXCEPT WITH SEPARATE SYSTEMS. IF YOU USE A GEOTHERMAL ON THE HOUSE, YOU COULD USE A SEPARATE WATER TO WATER WITH THE POOL BUT THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE CHLORINE WILL ATTACK THE METAL IN THE HEAT EXCHANGER. WE HAVE MODIFIED AIR SOURCE HEATPUMPS BY PUTTING A COAXIAL HEAT EXCHANGER INTO THE DISCHARGE LINE OFF THE CONDENSER COIL AND DIVERTING THE POOL WATER OFF THE FILTER DISCHARGE LINE. WHEN IN POOL HEATING MODE THE CONDENSER FAN IS STOPPED BY BREAKING THE FAN COMMON THROUGH A RELAY. IT IS ALSO A GOOD IDEA TO ADD A RECIEVER BUT NOT NECESSARY. COST OFF PARTS $200.00. WITH RECIEVER $300.00. PROBLEM IS THE CHLORINE SO THE COAX NEED REPLACEMENT IN 3-4 YEARS. ONLY CARBON STEEL CAN STAND UP TO THE CHLORINE BUT YOU HAVE SO MUCH OXYGEN THAT YOY RUST THE STEEL. CAN'T WIN UNLESS YOU WANT TO SAVE ON ENERGY AND DON'T MIND THE REPLACEMENT.

that certainly makes sense then!