Hmm, not obviously so if you consider the total cost / fuel cycle, since electric power stations are not 100% efficient either. They *could* be, but you would need to look at the numbers.
[...]
For a given amount of heat production, gas is a lot cheaper than electricity. So this might outweigh the coupling inefficiency of a gas flame to a pot. Or not.
Costs are certainly location dependant. Gas is much more expensive than electricity where I am. I did switch the oven from electricity to gas because the difference doesn't really matter and SWMBO prefers gas.
The word is dependent.
In the winter I'm not very concerned about leaving lights on, for the same reason. Mind you, we normally heat with gas, which is a bit cheaper than electricity.
Yes sorry I was thinking of the situation in the UK (and for mains gas of course). Don't know what it's like elsewhere.
But my main point is still valid: Just because an electrical immersion heater couples more efficiently than a flame, does not in itself mean that will be a cheaper way to heat water.
How could he, if he's dead? :)
with propane heating the's no way to get 15% CO?
propane is C?H? (C3H8 if your reader can't render that) it burns like this.
2C?H? + 11O? => 6CO? + 8H?O (O2,CO2,H20) you get just over half the amount of CO? as the input O? air is 75% N? 20% O? and 2% CO? and 3% other stuffSo, if you use 3/4 of the O? you get another 8% CO? for a total around 10% but the 5% oxygen remaining isnt't enough to breathe. You'd asphyxiate before the CO? killed you.
I'm not sure what concentration od CO? is needed for significant CO to be formed during combustion
lighter gasses (like methane) produce even less CO?
Perhaps you could try that in English?
True enough, I suppose, but just as irrelevant.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required