Which is more energy efficient between gas vs. electric fireplaces?

How bad are gas fireplace flues in regards to energy loss?

Your gas fireplace should have sealed combustion. meaning it draws in outside air to burn and then exhausts it. About 70% of the heat goes into the house. The rest goes up the chimney. The flue should lose very little heat while it is not operating.

There are catalytic gas fireplaces which need no venting at all. They exhaust clean gases into the living space and are nearly 100% efficient.

Electric fireplaces are about 100% efficient as there is no flue for heat to go up.

But note that the electric fireplace costs 2-3x more to operate. So far less efficient than nat gas in terms of $/btu. Plus they don't look right.

I think it depends on what you are measuring when you talk about efficiency. For example, different areas have different energy costs. One might have an electrical rate of $0.037/kWh and LPG at $2.24/gal. That is hardly $1.00 for electricity but more than $3.00 for gas for the same amt of heat at those efficiencies.

Yes, residential natural gas is usually a lower cost, but you need to compare your local rates to figure out what works best for you.

And, if you want to be "green", what about the relative CO2 costs for each? :-)

Plus with gas fireplaces one has to deal with flues and the energy loss they create when not being used. No gas fireplace is 100% sealed. It will always have a draft and air leakage.

Wood, if you can.

Posted By narcszm on 12 Dec 2011 10:18 PM
Wood, if you can.

Wood?

As in a "real" fireplace? Those are hard to find and cost in the $20k-$30k range and always pose a fire hazard. Not very efficient design and usage.

Am I doing this correctly? Propane costs me $2.95/gal producing approx 91600 btus. Electric costs approx 11.8 cents a kWh, so would cost around $3.17 for the equivalent in btus - so not too much difference.

The electric fireplaces are relatively inexpensive as compared to the propane ones and even more so when you think about running gas lines. After heating with wood for 34 years, I am missing snuggling up to my wood stove, but NOT missing the dirt and dust it generates. I had discounted getting an electric fireplace, but after doing the math, maybe I should reconsider. It would be nice to have something on the main floor in the evening and on those cold, damp cloudy days when the solar tempering is not working.

My new EPA certified "real" fireplace from Quadrafire puts out 60,000 BTU at a steady state efficiency of 77%. Total installed cost including all venting, flue and zone blowers is less than $8,000. It meets all fire and safety specifications.

Am I doing this correctly?

Yup. That's how it works.

but NOT missing the dirt and dust it generates

Did you have an EPA sealed unit or an "open" fireplace?

Posted By Lbear on 12 Dec 2011 10:42 PM
Wood?

As in a "real" fireplace? Those are hard to find and cost in the $20k-$30k range and always pose a fire hazard. Not very efficient design and usage.

A wood stove. For about $2k plus another $600 or so in ventilation you can get a 50Kbtu stove made of steel or soapstone which heats the space very efficiently. Look for an EPA certified one for maximum ROI.

Did you have an EPA sealed unit or an "open" fireplace?

I had an air tight catalytic Hearthstone soapstone stove.

Actually I still have it and am thinking of getting an electric log set to retrofit it for use in the new house. 

I had an air tight catalytic Hearthstone soapstone stove.

And it got the inside of your house dirty?

I have never met a wood stove that didn't generate lots of dust - the three I owned and operated over the last 34 years being no exception. Just cleaning the ash out makes a mess, no matter how careful you are. Given the right atmospheric conditions - especially with a catalytic - you get occasional downdrafts that belch smoke adding more dust. Add to that the detritus from the wood, and you have way more mess than I am willing to clean up after. I am getting old and need lower maintenance ways to heat. I might put some way to heat my radiant with wood outside at some point - but no more wood burning in the house if I can avoid it.

I tend to agree. If I wanted to burn more wood, I'd be interested in something like an outdoor or garage wood boiler than ran cleanly (fast burn, no high smoke throttling) and stored the heat in a 1000+ gal water tank (so my schedule isn't driven by reloading it). But even that isn't worth it for me since I have nat gas (clean, cheap, fully automatic).

I think I will go with an electric fireplace. It saves time, money by not having to poke holes in my walls & roof to vent the flue. It also takes less space to install an electric fireplace.

Plus I don't like the idea of running gas lines through the walls of the home. I know it's done a lot but the area has some seismic activity and having a gas line break during a quake does happen and they can explode.

Here is a really nice modern design, 10,000BTU

If you happened not to want the aesthetic of a burning piece of wood, do they make electric heaters with less presence?

Posted By narcszm on 15 Dec 2011 07:45 PM
If you happened not to want the aesthetic of a burning piece of wood, do they make electric heaters with less presence?

Yes, they make efficient "space heaters" but they will still take up room.

do they make electric heaters with less presence?

They make electric heating units that mount right in the wall with a small fan to bring room air in and circulate it back out after heating. They are called "wall heaters". They take up NO room.

having a gas line break during a quake does happen and they can explode.

There are fittings you can add to your system (and probably even the meter) that will shut the gas off at the entrance in the event of an earthquake.