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.
14 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).
Post a Comment