"Currently electric resistance heating is at the center of a proposal that would alter the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) making it very difficult or impossible to select electric resistance heating in new construction and for remodel/rebuild construction projects."
See http://www.supportelectricheating.com for details.

That is just crazy. If they really want to improve efficiency, they should start mandating electric heat and use the fossil fuels for power plants instead. This would be beneficial in two ways: One, fuel efficiency would be left to the professionals who run the plants instead of millions of gas/oil furnaces that are either inefficient or faulty. Additionally, by following this logic, electricity rates could actually be reduced since there would be an increase in demand.

Then of course, we have the obvious: It is a bit difficult to blow up a building or get killed by asphyxiation from malfunctioning electric heating. Yes, I'm a bit biased because I'm in the trade, but still.........

Around here, higher electric rates already made electric heat unattractive to the masses back in the early 1990’s, at least for new construction anyway. I might add a piece here and there for a bath remodel or small addition, but that is just about it.

There seemed to be a brief resurgence in interest about two years ago when oil and gas prices began climbing almost daily and it looked like they were going to stay high, but that seems to have passed, for the time being anyway. But with the storm that’s happening in the Gulf right now, along with the offshore drilling moratorium, all bets are off as to what will happen later this year.

It's too easy to look at the world around you, and to assume that it's exactly the same everywhere else.

How you heat is a design decision, often decided by matters beyond your control. "One size fits all" rarely does.

I'll make my own choices, thank you.

For spot heating applications resistance is ideal.

The price mechanism should be relied upon to determine where and when it is used.

Additional government regulation is very bad economics.

It is ironic that Gore and Obama are very Green -- yet have, personally, huge carbon footprints.

As long as they can afford it -- I don't really care where or how they spend their money. That's what money is for.

But I must protest when 'do-betters' craft regulations for all of us that they have no intention of following themselves.

If a consumer wants resistance heating what business is it of the government to say he can't spend his money that way?

BTW, I like warm bathroom tile floors, de-icers for my gutters and hot-seat commodes. Their power consumption is trivial compared to my total energy use.

This sounds like the "heat pump act of 2010". Ironically heat pumps need toaster wire heaters on real cold nights anyway.
Some of us do not have much else for an option.

Thats abosolutley absurd given that electricity is 100% efficent. It should be the local juristdiction regulating that, not the codes. He in SE Alaska, we are mostly hydro. Electricity is dirt cheap here. We are currently building a large warehouse with all electric heat that will save us $$$ annually Its cheaper to heat and does 0 impact on the environment. I can see where if the POCO infrastructure is taxed, and fossil fuel power systems are providing powr but still, what options you have for cheap power? Heat pump at high install cost and fossil fuel. Sort of defeating the purpose of the intent. a POCO can get more kWh per unit of then the average home owner, meaning less impact on the enviornment. talking about losing site of the big picture

Just did some research. The proposal was dissaproved by the committee overseeing it

fwiw, there are BTU's per $ calcs....~S~

Thanks for that ~s~!!

Dunno if it really helps Hotone, as sparkyinak is telling us, some poco's are cheaper than others

here in Vermont, there's a big push to shut down our only nuke plant, Yankee.

should this happen, rates will skyrocket.....


costs per state

~S~

~s~:
Based on that great map above....15.12 KWHr in Alaska is not what I call cheap!
NJ is 14.44 KWHr, and SparkyAk siad Hydro is 'dirt cheap'?? What gives?

Any respectable EC can virtually kill any other form of space heating with electric resistance heat on the 'installed' cost, but....pay the piper if the 'use' is not controlled.

well a number of issues are at play at once here Hotone, the cost of any given fuel type, the efficy of any given fuel type, and the enviromental impact of any given fuel type

kinda hard to juxtapose it all towards what would really be best, but i have to also include that our electrical infastructure isn't really able to assume much more a load

Here, i work with multiple poco's, they all said the same thing when oil spiked, they were worried about the EC's selling more electric heat

One even has a rebate, $$$ per ft of elec heat brought into their shop

Makes me feel like dog the bounty hunter.....

~S~

If anyone thinks these sorts of rules have anything to do with economy, efficiency, or 'saving the planet,' they're sadly misinformed.

It's all about one person who, despite their ignorance, aspires to make decisions for another .... without the permission of the other person, or any accountability whatever.

Don't make the mistake of trying to reason with these folks. Economic and techhnical issues will change the 'ideal' choice over time. Rather, point to your license and assert that you, not they, are the qualified design pro, and that their opinion has ZERO value, no matter how many seminars they've attended. It's the name on the prints that counts.

These advocates know this, which is why they attempt to insert themselves into the bureaucratic process. Such positioning allows them to enforce their 'feelings' without ever having bothered to have built anything.

Freeze them out, shut them down ... before they destroy us.

author=renosteinke


true, but it woudn't stop me from having a life sized statue of Al Gore outside my office door .....(i'm not proud when i'm hungry)



can you say AFCI?



design build meets the invisible hand of the market, kinda like 'son of Godzilla', just meaner & greener....(with appologies to T. Friredman)



all kidding aside Reno, a few more years of seeing altruism thrown to the wind, and you'll sound as cynical as i do!


~S~

There is something bogus about that map. I know my power averages out to more like 13-14 cents not the 11 they say there. I suspect there is some tax or fee they are ignoring.

As for Alaska, I bet 15 cents is cheap compared to the alternatives. Everything is expensive up there. When we were there we called it the land of disappearing hundred dollar bills.

Reno:

your partial comment from above..."point to your license and assert that you, not they, are the qualified design pro,"

In some instances here (NJ) a Lic. EC is not a 'design pro'. By the book, an EC is limited to the 'design' portion of a lot of jobs. Probably a rule written by the Architects/EEs/PEs, but alas one that I have to abide by as an AHJ. We here (NJ) are known to some as s state of red tape.

John, the same is true in Florida. You have to be careful throwing the "design" word around or you will be needing a PE/architect stamp.

I will concede that contractors' licenses ... indeed, all licenses, by definition ... have limitations. I suppose that's the real point: WE recognize limits; THEY do not.

Timing is everything. After my post this AM, the news revealed the arrest of several foreign spies, deliberately sent here to infiltrate and influence 'policy' matters. No more stealing military secrets - they wanted one of their guys in a position to get our leaders to compel us to act against our interests.

Against that headline, maybe I've been ahead of the curve.

Sure, this is a 'trade' forum; you want politics, there are countless other places to find them. Yet, it is impossible to remain aloof when others introduce politics into the mix. "Law" is an inherently political field - and these 'energy' regulations directly impact our abilities to do our jobs as best we can.

thanx for the link. I made one in a spreadsheet but its just oil and electricity. Staples for heat here

Where I live, I am on community owned hydro power and there is or was a suplus for generation. We pay about $0.09 per kWh. The more we use, the less per kWh we pay. There are other small communities that are on diesel generator and paying $0.50 to $0.75 per kWh. Fuel is $4.00 and higher per gallon. My girlfriend up in Fairbanks is paying $0.18 per wWh (coal). Over half of that is fuel surcharge. Juneau is paying $0.14 but asking for a 20% hike and an interim %20 hike on top of that (hydro). Two winters ago they had a avalanche take out their main transmission line and 5 towers. They spent six weeks on diesel and their rates skyrocketed to $0.55 per kilowatt. Hydro is dirt cheap in comparison

Wow, after all of this discussion, I verified my most recent bill and was shocked. Including taxes and all of the other crap that is tacked-on, I'm now paying 10.7 cents per KWh here in the North-central part of Virginia.

It was only 6.7 cents two years ago.

I still can't complain. Less than $200 per month in a total electric house (heat pump) with well water, so I am sure I'm still way ahead of the game. It has been in the mid-high 90's for most of June, so I'm all good. My highest electric bill ever during our drastic cold winter last year was just below $400, which is not bad for a 3,000 SF house.

I laugh (quietly of course) at my friends in nearby areas using gas and propane. Their combined bills are almost twice as high as my single bill.

Ive done a couple conversions of to electric heat. During the planning, I told them their electric bill will go up quite a bit especially in the winter and they go ya, ya. They get their first bill and they are on the phone to mee. OMG our bill went up 400 bucks! Never mind the $600 oil bill they are no longer paying and the $200 savings is in line with the estimated savings.

It does say it's an average; my rate is around 9 cents per kWh--including transmission and distribution charges. Raw energy use alone is between 5-7 cents (tiered system). Our PUC just approved a .1% price decrease that went into effect on June 1.

I'm fairly certain our rates would be lower if it weren't for our neighbors to the south; a significant portion of the power generated in the Columbia basin is sent down to California--and a significant portion of our own power comes from coal (38.9%) and natural gas (23.2%). Only 36.6% comes form hydro, which is probably from the dams owned by the PoCo and not the feds. Of course, there are other rate plans to source power from "green" sources, and state law will require utilities to provide 25% of their mix from "green" sources over the next couple of years. This will probably result in a price increase, since the majority of our hydro is controlled by the feds.

spot on Reno, and so the Q can be made simple, because it's asked of us as EC's when confronted>>>

"what's the most economical way to heat my home"

the influences of corporatism , the green machine with it's red roots, and the media's continual din pandering to the sound byte mentality of the general public make a yes/no answer all but impossible.

google the bold above if you'd care to venture into just that excerise in futility....

~S~

Politics aside, the question of how you heat is not decided by the price of utilities.

One issue is availability; mountainous and remote areas often lack piped-in gas, and propane can be problematic in an arctic winter. The simple MAJOR expense of filling an oil or propane tank at the beginning of the season is also a consideration.

Electrical heat has some advantages; it's certainly far easier to insert pretty elaborate controls. On the 'minus' side of the ledger, electric heat can easily double the electrical load your house poses to 'the grid,' and that affects everything from the service drop on back. There are also 'self reliance' concerns.

Electric heat was last 'in vogue' in the 60's, when a rosy future of extremely cheap nuclear power was anticipated. Yet, politics became the driving force by the early 70's; nuclear power was 'out,' in spite of the '73 oil embargo, long before Three Mile Island.

Indeed, political pressures have led to the exact opposite situation, where the price of power is inflated as a means of advancing 'conservation,' 'alternative energy,' and a variety of other schemes. Things have to be pretty extreme these days before electric heat makes economic sense.

Still, electric heat hasn't stopped improving. The latest version is incorporated under your floors, and gently warms the entire floor. For those who have actually experienced this sort of 'radiant' heat, it is by far the most pleasant form of heating. Warm feet mean a dramatic increase in comfort. So far, this is done only in smaller spaces, such as bathrooms.

Yes, Reno, I agree on the availability of utilities, the fill the tank cash $$$ and deliveries of propane and cold , cold issues. Yes, in some areas good old electric may be your only choice, or possibly a wood/pellet stove.

As I said above somewhere....an EC can sell elec heat as opposed to other sources, and be the lowest installed cost. To some people that is 'economic sense'! They look at the gross installed cost, not the operational costs.

Controling the t'stats and 'zone' or spot heating assists in KWHr usage, but that is the end users chore.

Last year, three (3) McMansions had electric radiant heat installed for the driveways for snow melt. We had <6 snow accumulations over the winter, and two of them got huge electric bills. A couple of other McMansions have radiant floors in the baths , kitchen & hallways keeping the marble warm & toasty. All I can say is 'God Bless'

Thanks for the link Sparky. If I were calculating costs per BTU for electric heating, I would not include any standing charges, on the basis that I'd be paying them anyway for the electricity used for lighting and cooking etc.. My poco has a trick worth looking for BTW when trying o calculate the net cost of juice - it adds sales tax @ 19.6% to the local and national taxes levied to 'improve infrastucure' [whatever that means]. Tax on a tax and added to every Kwh used! I'd also be wary of makers claimed COP figures for heat pumps. Not only are these likely to be optimum values obtained in the lab in ideal conditions, but will vary [ ie down!] with the temperature of the source and the temperature of the output fluid. This is particularly the case with air-source units when the outside temperature falls below frost temp.

"Electric heat" and "electric resistance heat" are NOT one and the same. Electric resistance heaters are about the worst think you can do- far far worse than heat pumps, gas or oil. Electric heat pumps and direct burning of fossil fuels are all about 3x more energy efficient than electric resistance heat.

So, yes, electric resistance heat is 100% electrically efficient, but you have to consider losses that went into turning those fossil fuels into electricity. You also most consider that heat pumps are more like 300% efficient- every 1W of electricity in a heat pump will pump roughly 3W of heat. Actual numbers vary with conditions and design, but it is possible to move more heat with a heat pump then you extracted in heat energy burning the fossil fuels to make the electricity; with that respect, heat pumps are really the best thing out there until you start to get into the really really cold climates where heat pumps aren't practical and direct-burning fossil fuels makes sense. When this law proposed eliminating electric resistance heat, that's what they meant- resistance heat. Heat pumps (and presumably emergency strip heaters as a caveat??) would still be OK.

True enough, but the cost of the heat is not all you have to pay for before your toes go blue and drop off. To be able to use a heat pump you need to buy one [duh] and get it piped and gassed up. To take advantage of the COP, you either need Underfloor Heating or twice the area of conventional radiators, because the most efficient water exit temperature is only 104F, half a normal circuit's temperature.

Here in France, the vendors have already done the sums, factored in the Gummint tax reliefs and creamed off most of the advantage for themselves. Example: An air heat pump's major component is nothing more than a big aircon unit, yours for under $2000. Heat pump with a similar output and a bit of sheet-metal work, $7500 plus 20% sales tax. Green Tax credit -£3750. You still have to remodel the existing or build a new heating system, which is not peanuts. I estimate that in my house I'd only save a lousy $5 a week by nursing the planet with a Geothermal heating system.
... and we haven't even started looking at depreciation, interest on the loan or annual maintenance costs.....

Once you do the real sums, electric resistance heating with good insulation starts to look remarkably attractive!

Steve:

Just for the record, the term 'electric heat' I used within this thread references electric resistance heat. Either baseboard, or fan forced units. 'Heat pumps' are HVAC contractors domain with us sparkies providing the wiring. If my terminology was misleading, for that I have to say...sorry.

Toaster wire heat is the norm here in south Florida but our heating season is measured in days and usually not even all day then. My wife turns it on in the morning while she is getting ready to go to work and turns it off when she leaves.
A heat pump would not do much in that short amount of time.

A heat pump is nothing more than an air conditioning unit with a reversing valve. It's a negligible cost increase over typical AC systems, and will heat just as fast as the AC cools, and just as fast as a resistance heater of similar size. I'm surprised they'd use anything other than heat pumps in Florida.

At 12 cents/kWh, a 1500W electric resistance heater of the type you can get for $15 at Wal-Mart will cost $129/month to run. An electric heat pump would only cost $43/month. Insulating/sealing the room so you don't have to run it 24/7 would help considerably as well

All of that implies that you heat the whole house and that you turn it on and forget it. Here heat is more of a "room you are in" and "only an hour or two, a few times a year" thing.

I don’t see that this takes anything away from the known high efficiency aspect of them, but a split heat pump system without electric heat strips or some other form of auxiliary heat normally wouldn’t be able to be used as a standalone heating system in much of the country.
They are intended to be run at the same time as the second stage aux electric heat strips or other heat source is energized when extra heating capacity is needed. This is not just for defrost mode or emergency heat.
The simultaneous operation is usually accomplished through a 2-stage indoor thermostat and/or duct sensors, but sometimes an outdoor tstat is also used to prevent use of the heat strips or aux heat source until a certain OD temp has been reached.
Even so, I think if I were building a new home today with a gas fired warm air furnace and AC, I would instead install a heat pump as a backup heat source and also to use during mild cold weather.