Is loss of electricity on it's way to the end customer significant?

[Richard]

I would not have thought so, like say water loss in the water system.

 

[Don Kelly]

I would not have thought so, like say water loss in the water system.

Transmission losses are typically 3-10% depending on load, system
configuration, etc.

 

[Richard]

Transmission losses are typically 3-10% depending on load, system
configuration, etc.

Quite a bit of electricity then really considering the amount of power
generated.

 

[Cameron Dorrough]

Quite a bit of electricity then really considering the amount of power
generated.

Yes, the losses are significant. IMHO, if someone could invent practical
high-temperature superconductors, one of their first applications would be
power transmission.

"Copper" losses alone cost power stations a small fortune, but they usually
manage to pass the costs on to the consumer..

Cameron

 

[Andrew Gabriel]

Quite a bit of electricity then really considering the amount of power
generated.

More than half the power is lost before it ever becomes
electricity -- the amount lost in transmission is rather
small in comparison.

 

[Don Kelly]

More than half the power is lost before it ever becomes
electricity -- the amount lost in transmission is rather
small in comparison.

-------------
This depends on the source. If you are talking fuel energy into a fossil
plant vs elecrical energy out- you are right except for some combined cycle
plants. If you are looking at a hydro plant as a source-you are wrong. Some
of us still depend mainly on hydro.

Richard is right in saying it is quite a bit of energy and it is worth
pursuing means to reduce transmission losses as long as the cost of losses
exceeds the expenditure to reduce them. .

 

[Andrew Gabriel]

If we assume that the power plant turns 40% of the energy available in the
fuel into electricity, a power grid that loses 10% of it's electrical energy
during transmission will actually translate into a 25% loss of energy
overall.

Your maths has gone to pot... ;-)
Using the figures you give, 60% + (10% of 40%) = 64% loss of energy overall.

 

[Don Kelly]

I would agree that this was a bad choice of words. I was half asleep when I
posted this. Maybe I should rephrase my post: If we assume that 10 kw/h of
electricity is lost during transmission, 25 kw/h worth of energy that was
available in the fuel originally will be lost. (Now it makes sense. It's
sort of like comparing my electric water heater to my sister's gas water
heater. When we take a look at the energy that's consumed at the residence,
my water heater is more efficient since it takes 100% of the electrical
energy it consumes and deposits it in the water in the form of heat. Her gas
water heater would do well just to hit 80% efficiency. But when transmission
loses and power plant loses are factored in, it's soon discovered that my
electric utility only delivers about 35% of the energy that was originally
available in the fuel to my water heater. So compared to my electric water
heater, even the least efficient gas model seems pretty good by comparison.

Robert

---------------
However, you are still comparing apples and oranges. You are including
transmission and convewrsion costs for the electrical energy but you are
ignoring the costs and losses associated with the delivery of gas to the
water heater's burner. The gas doesn't get there under its own pressure but
pumping stations are needed as well as pressure regulators (which waste
energy). In addition, consider the mix of possible electric sources.
Comparisons in terms of energy and costs of this energy a re a bit more
complex than it appears.>