Charlie range

charlie b said:
I believe it will never happen.

For starters, you would only need to recoup the difference between the $6000 price of this item and the price of whatever else you consider buying. Unless your other option is a professional grade unit, such as a $8000+ Viking unit, you are likely to find a very acceptable unit under $2000. So then, how long will it take to recoup the additional $4000? At 16 cents per kwh (a representative, average number in Illinois), you would need to save 25,000 kwh.

Here's the essence of the situation: the amount of energy (in units of kwh) it takes to boil a pot of water is the same, no matter what energy source you are using (i.e., gas versus electric, but let's stick with electric for now) or the method used to cause the pot to get hot (i.e., electric coils versus induction). It's all about the amount of energy absorbed by the water, water that is unaware of where the heat comes from. The difference boils (pun intended, with no apologies) down to the efficiency with which the source converts electrical current to heat.

Induction heating is more efficient than electrical coil heating, but by how much? Suppose it is 50% more efficient (I think that is way too generous). So if coils will use 25,000 kwh to do their job over some period of time, induction can do the same job for only 12,500 kwh. Looking back at post #8, and not considering all burners running at maximum, let's say you are using 1kw on average, while using on an induction cooktop. If you use the cooktop for 4 hours a day (that too is a bit generous), equating to 4 kwh a day, it would take you over 3,125 days (just over 8 years) to save a total of 12,500 kwh.

Realistically, I would estimate the time to recoup the extra $4000 to be more like 15 years. And if your chosen unit cost under $1500, the recoup time would be much longer.
Click to expand...
Probably more due to yearly electric rate increases and my thinking the battery most likely would have to be replaced at least once during the 15 years. Years ago a few businesses that I did work for never like to go pass 5 or 6 years on ROI ( return on investment ). Might be feasible in California in next ten years after no new houses will be allowed to have natural gas. Might also have to spend money on a dedicated 20 amp 120 volt AFCI circuit. In older homes the receptacle that feeds existing gas range is on same circuit as the refrigerator.
 
garbo said:
Probably more due to yearly electric rate increases and my thinking the battery most likely would have to be replaced at least once during the 15 years. Years ago a few businesses that I did work for never like to go pass 5 or 6 years on ROI ( return on investment ). Might be feasible in California in next ten years after no new houses will be allowed to have natural gas. Might also have to spend money on a dedicated 20 amp 120 volt AFCI circuit. In older homes the receptacle that feeds existing gas range is on same circuit as the refrigerator.
Click to expand...

If you are building a new house, you just run a 40A (or 50A) 240V circuit to the range.

There is no good reason to use a battery range in new construction.

Where a battery range might make sense is a place where you want to add a range but can't cheaply bring in the required full size circuit. And you probably have very few cases where running a 40A 240V circuit will cost you $4000, so very few cases where this battery range will make sense.

However labor is getting more expensive and batteries are getting cheaper, so expect the useful range to expand over time.
 
How about those hunting shacks running on a portable generator?
They would no longer need to cut down trees to get wood for the stove.
 
winnie said:
This range will never save money by saving electricity. I'd expect it to use more kWh than the alternative.
Click to expand...
True. A battery is not a net producer of power and its "round trip" isn't 100% efficient. The only possible savings I can see is maybe on demand charges, but that is a stretch at best. First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics - the best you can do is break even, and you can't break even.
 
ggunn said:
True. A battery is not a net producer of power and its "round trip" isn't 100% efficient. The only possible savings I can see is maybe on demand charges, but that is a stretch at best. First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics - the best you can do is break even, and you can't break even.
Click to expand...

Exactly. As I stated above, IMHO the use case is saving installation costs in situations where running a proper full size circuit would be tremendously expensive. And IMHO there _are_ such situations. One example is if adding the electric range would lead to a service upgrade that you otherwise don't need. Another is if adding the electric range would require upgrades across an entire apartment building.

But in any situation where you can run a full size circuit you simply should.

The use case of saving on demand charges or saving if you have some sort of time of use metering is also real. However if you are in a location where this is real, it would make far more sense to install the battery where it can provide demand shifting for the entire house, not just a single appliance. Batteries are expensive (for now) and you want to spread their capital costs over as many uses as possible to get the most value.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top