Here are some questions we wanted to answer:
- What’s the best (i.e. least energy intensive) way to boil water?
- Is the answer different for 1 cup of water vs. 4 cups? What about 2 quarts?
- Most importantly, if I’m doing it wrong, is it worth changing the way I do things already?
Question 1: What’s the best way to boil water?
Answer: The electric kettle won hands down. The real advantage with the kettle is on the first cup. It boils in half the time as the first cup boiled in either the microwave or the stove. Since (at 1450 Watts) it uses about the same amount of power as the others, halving the time halves the energy. Thereafter, the energy requirement for boiling larger volumes of water is nicely predicted by a linear function. Each additional cup requires an additional 25 Watt-hours of energy and about a minute of additional time. The stove had similar performance except that the first cup required twice the energy (and time) of the kettle’s first cup.

Question 2: Does the answer change based on the volume of water boiled?
Answer: For the first quart of water, the answer is surprisingly unchanged. The only thing that really changes is that the microwave performance degrades much more rapidly than the other two. So, while the decision to boil one cup of water in the microwave isn’t much worse than using the stove top, using the microwave to heat up 4 cups of water is a bad choice (from the energy and time perspective).
Question 3: Is it worth changing my behavior?
Answer: In the grand scheme of home energy usage, it turns out the savings you could gain by changing your habits on this one aren’t huge. In fact, even if you boiled a quart of water every day, the cost difference between the best performer (the electric kettle) and the worst performer (the microwave) would only be about $4 per year. But, what if we extend this lesson into other realms? We might consider reheating our soup in the kettle rather than the microwave or adding an electric kettle to the office kitchen for all of those cup-o-noodles (after all, the kettle is faster too). Furthermore, this is one of those rare energy decisions that can save time, money, and energy. Electric kettles are cheap, fast and efficient. Microwave ovens are expensive, slow and inefficient (for heating water).

The relative strength of the stove can also be seen as great news. If you size your pot appropriately the stove can almost rival the kettle… not bad.
*- To heat 8 cups in the microwave or electric kettle would take two batches. You can therefore approximate the time (and energy) by doubling the time it takes for 4 cups. The savings are small enough though that you might as well just use the stove for volumes greater than your electric kettle capacity.
35 comments:
Running the same test on one cup of water in an old-fashioned tea kettle on an 8000 BTU/hr natural gas burner resulted in boiling (whistling) in about 2:30. That burned 333 BTUs or 0.0033 therms or 97.6 Wh (equivalent) of gas. Let's compare the amount of gas burned to the amount of gas burned at a power plant to produce the electricity necessary for the other approaches. Factoring in a 60% generation efficiency for large-scale gas turbine utility generators, that same 97.6 Wh (equivalent) of gas could have produced only about 57 Wh of usable electricity. We'll ignore transmission losses for now. That's not enough energy to boil water in the best-case electric appliance, the electric tea kettle. So, at least for one cup of water, a gas burner and old-fashioned whistling tea kettle wins hands down.
Greg, great comment! I like the idea of comparing natural gas at the home to power plant equivalent. Here are my actual electric kettle numbers:
1C - 34 Wh
2C- 58 Wh
3C- 81 Wh
4C-103 Wh
If we factor in your 60% efficiency figure, it still would only require 60 or so Wh of equivalent power plant natural gas and the electric kettle still wins.
If, however, we look at national averages for generation and transmission efficiency, your numbers become much more competitive. I think we're about 30% efficient on average (see upstream watt multiplier post). That takes my 34 Wh to about 110 Wh of equivalent source fuel. Yikes.
So, if you're in a coal-powered area and have a natural gas stove, take Greg's advice and use the stove top.
This also goes to show how much more efficient it is to make tea with friends:
alone - 34 Wh/cup
1 friend - 29 Wh/cup
2 friends - 27 Wh/cup
3 friends - 34 Wh/cup
It looks like more data might be necessary since the 4 cup pot seems to be just as (in)efficient as the 1 cup, but in general you're likely saving 10-25% just by making tea with your friends, roommates and/or family.
Spending time with other people saves energy and money in more situations than just making tea: cooking, heating/AC, transportation, listening to music, and watching movies to name just a few.
Great point Zach. Check your 4C math. You + 3 others: 103/4 = 26 Wh... the most efficient per cup value.
doh. That makes way more sense.
Thanks for the info. My wife and I are constant tea drinkers (kicked the soda habit and my wife won't drink plain water). We have always microwaved our water, but I figured that it had to be pretty inefficient... After reading this, I will be headed to the store to get a electric kettle!
Excellent post, my girlfriend and I have been going back and forth forever about the merits of having a microwave and whether it's really worth it. Until now, I thought the one area where it really excelled was in boiling water. Looks like I will be experiencing a case of foot-in-mouth-disease in the near future.
What did you use for kettle on your stove top? A pan with or without lid, or an old-fashioned teakettle? Thanks!
Kaat,
Good question. I used a medium pot with a lid. The pot was sized such that the stove element was slightly smaller than the base of the pot (i.e. the pot completely covered the element). A tea kettle would probably have performed even better.
I always heated my cup of water in microwave because it was the most convenient and quickest (2.5min). I knew it wasn't the most efficient way, but since the difference is very small to really care about. I really enjoy reading your articles. I started a similar blog of my own at smartenergypractice.com
Hi,
Great test! I can add that a drip brewer can be even more efficient than the electric kettle. I have tested it to check how to do our morning coffee http://urge4lessenergy.blogspot.com/2009/11/most-efficient-way-to-boil-water.html
Svein*
Any idea on how this data would change with the new glass cooktops?
Good question.
If you're referring to an induction stove top, the performance should be about 20% better (20% less energy) than that of a conventional electric stove. We don't have an induction stove handy for testing, but theoretically it would even out perform the electric kettle, especially with large volumes.
If you're asking about a halogen stove though, the results are only slightly better than those of a standard electric stove (we've verified this with testing).
I clocked my gas range doing 3c water in 5 minutes on a 12.5k BTU burner. Doing the math puts that at 305 Wh. Incidentally, gas costs 72c/CCF here, so that means my water cost almost a penny to boil. Electricity is about 13c/kWh net, so that would have been 2.3c--over 230% more expensive.
Maybe next time I'll put a lid on it.
Josh,
I'm with you up to the 305 Wh figure. Then, I'm not following. Please correct where I've gone wrong:
12,500 BTU/hr * 5min / 60 min = 1042 Btu
1042 BTU * 1 cf / 1028 BTU = 1.01 cubic feet
1.01 cf * 1 ccf / 100 cf = 0.01ccf
0.01 ccf * 72c / ccf = 72 cents
3C in the electric kettle required 81 Wh.
81 Wh * 1kwh / 1000Wh * 13 cents / kwh = 1 cent
Consider that the lower gas stove efficiency will mean heating the house, that in winter can be considered fully used heat, not waste. Isn'it?
Anonymous,
Sorry for the delay. This is an interesting way to frame heat loss from the stove. The answer in my opinion is "kind of." Here's my thinking:
- Compared to a proper heater, the stove tends to be an inefficient way to heat a space. For instance, heat pumps can introduce MUCH more heat per unit energy than the stove top. An air source heat pump can provide 2.5 units of effective heat per unit of energy (depending on outside temp). Natural gas and propane provide more like .95 units of heat per unit of energy. What's more, stove tops don't tend to be very effective at distributing the heat. In fact, ventilation fans can serve to exhaust it directly.
- If you count it as useful heat in the winter, you need to doubly count the waste in the summer b/c its fighting with the AC. Right?
WOW, what a cool thread. I want to weigh in.
Luke - It's worth considering that at $15/mcf natural gas costs $.05/kwh, and burns much more nicely than coal and other fossil fuels used for electricity generation. If you heat with it, it's actually more efficient (in terms of net heat/unit of energy) than your air-source heat pump because of the 30% conversion efficiency for industrial power plants.
At my house, we can't get natural gas, but have a set of propane burners next to our grill on the back porch. In the summer, we cook (almost exclusively) with these. Consider that (because food and drink re-radiate the heat our bodies don't) fully 100% of the heat used in cooking will end up in your house. If you need to cool it down again, (assume COP of 3) you add another 30% to the energy cost of heating up your water inside.
And the pleasure of cooking on an instantly variable, super-powerful heat source is inestimable for someone like me with an enthusiasm for cooking; hence the maxim 'Now you're cooking with gas!'
Griff,
Great comment! Good point about more fully accounting for the heat pump energy. We'll dive into home heating and cooling in a future post.
To be clear, I'm all for cooking with gas. As Greg's test revealed, it's efficiency can rival even the electric kettle... especially when we look at coal power plant losses.
This post was intended more than anything to highlight microwave inefficiency for boiling water.
Thanks for weighing in!
In case anyone is checking the math on the Josh Mac comment. It looks like I missed a decimal point.
The bottom line is that for Josh's case we should be comparing 0.72 cents with his gas range to 1.01 cent for an electric kettle boiling 3 c of water. Gas wins (but not by a huge margin).
Burning gas on a stove may use less fossil fuel than burning it to generate electricity but why burn it at all?
Buy your electricity from a company that only buys from renewable generators like wind turbines and photo voltaics. And uses a higher percentage of your bill to invest in new renewable generation than any other company. (In U.K. Try Ecotrcity or Good Energy).
If you use a stove you may waste some electricity compared to an electric kettle but the world has no shortage of wind or sun and you save the energy used in manufacturing and then recycling the kettle as they tend to break down every couple of years, unlike a stove
It is a lovely and interesting experiment that you carried and the results are mind blowing.I always thought micro oven was the best of all.
Good question. I used a medium pot with a lid. The pot was sized such that the stove element was slightly smaller than the base of the pot
benz
Home Design
I have a question: Do micowaved liquids lose heat any faster than those heated on the stovetop?
Anonymous, the short answer is no. Thermodynamically, the mechanism for heating makes no difference on how fast the liquid loses heat. BUT, the container plays a big role in the rate of heat loss. For instance, if you pour the hot liquid (regardless of heat source) into a room-temperature container, the liquid immediately starts to lose heat as it warms the new container. I'll explore this more in a future post.
Very nice touch from you, I admire your dedication...
Re: loss of heat from microwaved liquids versus stovetop boiled. Thank you Luke. However, it seems to me that if you don't stir a microwaved liquid, there might be cooler spots that take the heat from hotspots, thus accelerating cooling.
amazing
Hi Energy Savers,
I'd like to add my thoughts and observations that gives the advantage to using a microwave over a kettle or pot on stove, especially for heating small amounts of water and also larger soup or stew dishes.
1. Unlike your findings, my microwave ("Panasonic 1200 watt High Power" "inverter") boils 1 cup of water (starting temp 55 degrees F. ~ 1000 ft. above sea level) between 1 minute and 30 seconds and 1 minute and 50 seconds. My method of heating is to place a thin, flat saucer on top of my mug and to turn the microwave off soon after I hear a rattle created caused by the steam escaping from the vigorously boiling water. (I assume the variation in boiling time is due to voltage variations depending on electrical demand at different times in the day.)
2 Our microwave, heats my mug as well as the water. When I use boiling water from a kettle for my hot beverage, as soon as the water is poured, the mug saps a noticeable part of the heated water and my "hot beverage" is no longer hot enough for my liking. If boiling water is poured into my mug to preheat it there is a waste factor to consider.
3. When my wife boils water for her cup or small pot of tea using our electric kettle, inevitably a good portion of hot water remains in the kettle i.e. She doesn't measure how much water she puts in the kettle accurately.
Being a conservationist and an interested observer, I've noticed that many hosts do an even worse estimation of water than my wife when using their kettle to heat water - often boiling nearly a full kettle to make a pot of tea which might require 1/3 of a kettle's capacity. On the other hand, using a microwave the actual drinking or serving vessel is being filled to exactly the amount of hot water needed. For these folks using their microwave would be more energy efficient when heating a 1cup beverage or a small pot of tea.
4. For heating liquid intensive dishes such as soups, a microwave has the added advantage of “contaminating” only the serving dish. As a result there is no waste of time and additional hot water needed to clean a pot.
For heating 1 cup of water or up to 3 cups of soup I use our microwave. For larger amounts, I agree the electric kettle or stove is worth using, both for speed and efficiency - ESPECIALLY IF ONE TAKES THE TROUBLE TO MEASURE THE AMOUNT OF WATER BEING BOILED.
The original analysis is far too naive. As earlier commenters point out, the only meaningful comparison is not raw BTU consumption at the point of use but the net consequences, energetic and otherwise, of providing the desired energy service by one means vs. another. Electricity is well-transferred at the point of use (by stovetop coil or microwave) but, in a typical thermal power plant -- where almost all our electricity still comes from -- it is very inefficient to generate. And don't forget those 7% grid transmission losses.
Boiling water on a gas-burning stove is more efficient than burning the same natural gas in a distant power plant and shipping the power to an electric stove or even a microwave oven. During the heating months, burning gas is 100% efficient in a very real sense because all the "waste" heat from combusting the gas for one purpose contributes automatically to a second purpose, i.e., heating the house: whereas all the waste heat at the power plant goes up the chimney all year round.
Also, focusing on "energy" leaves out every other aspect of energy generation and use -- and what justification is there for doing that? In practice, about 50% of US electricity is made by burning coal, which is even more destructive to obtain than gas and infinitely more polluting (toxics plus greenhouse gases) to burn. (We can mix the combustion products of a gas stove, whether propane or methane, directly with indoor air, and breathe them -- CO2 and water vapor.) So as regards environmental cost, sucking electricity vs. burning stovetop gas to boil your water is a flat-out, across-the-board loss.
And of course the cleanest kWh or BTU is always going to be the one you don't use at all. Right on, about not heating more than you need, no matter how you heat it.
Take-home message: there is nothing "clean" about electricity per se. Think not of white, humming appliances powered by wind turbines but of coal toxins going up chimneys, strip mines, vast landscapes drowned by hydroelectric dams, and ever-accumulating nuclear waste. All these lovely visions should be kept in mind, too, when discussing all-electric cars. A gasoline-powered hybrid pollutes far less than an all-electric car simply plugged into our existing, real-life, 2010 grid.
Take-home message: there is nothing "clean" about electricity per se. Think not of white, humming appliances powered by wind turbines but of coal toxins going up chimneys, strip mines, vast landscapes drowned by hydroelectric dams, and ever-accumulating nuclear waste. All these lovely visions should be kept in mind, too, when discussing all-electric cars. A gasoline-powered hybrid pollutes far less than an all-electric car simply plugged into our existing, real-life, 2010 grid.
Yes you are right Larry, gas stove is more efficient than electric one, but again you need to take gas from the ground. It would be interesting to test efficiency of the induction stoves, they should perform better than any other.
Post a Comment