6/20    It costs less for a gas dryer to dry one load of clothes than for an
        electric dryer, or for a gas heater to heat up a room than for an
        electric heater.  But does gas dryer/heater actually use less natural
        resource than the electric one to get the job done?
        \_ depends where you get your electricity from
           \_ PG&E for both gas and electricity, in the Bay Area.
        \_ I think better question to ask is rather natual gas dryer/heater
           is more "efficient" than electronic one.  And the answer is "YES."
           electricity is typically coming from some sort of hydrocarbon
           (in U.S., chances are, it's coming from burning coal).  And during
           the process of convert hydrocarbon to electricity, you typically
           will only get 65-70% efficiency on a good day.  So, in that
           sense, gas dryer/heater use "less" natural resources to achieve
           same effect.
           \_ So what's the efficiency of burning gas in a gas dryer?  Close
              to 100%?
           \_ Not coal.  That's China.  A tremendous amount of US electricity
              is coming from nuclear power plants and hydro.  Most of the rest
              is petro.  Coal?  Not in the last 50 years in this country.  Once
              the rest of the world runs out of oil, we can tap the alaskan oil
              fields and a few other places and use more nuclear before we have
              to touch the coal reserves in a serious way.
                \_ 40% of US power still comes from coal. The Mid-Atlantic
                   states are full of it. 60 Minutes showed mining companies
                   flattening the hills of Tennessee and Virginia with
                   nitroglycerin and bulldozers bigger than a Ford Expedition.
                   \_ Check out :http://www.ucsusa.org/energy/brief.coal.html
                      it details the amount of crap a coal plant makes.  --PM
                \_ Someone tell the Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power that
                   the billions they've spent building coal-fired power plants
                   over the last twenty years is a waste of money since you
                   refuse to admit their existence.
                \_ Want to try real numbers instead of making up your own?
                   Check out http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/2000-04-14_300-00-004.PDF
                   Some numbers:
                        1994: Southwestern US - 74% coal, 26% natural gas
                        1999: California - 20% coal, 20% hydro, 31% gas,
                                16% nuclear, 12% "renewable" (solar, wind,
                                biomass, geothermal, etc.)
                \_ My error in being unclear.  I did not intend to state that
                   coal use in this country is zero but simply that it isn't
                   at the levels of use in less developed countries like China.
                   I certainly don't refuse to admit the existence of coal
                   derived power in this country.
        \_ in the summer PG&E generates quite a bit of power in its
           gas turbine plants around the edges of the bay (those noisy little
           blue buildings with the smokestacks).  it is more efficient for
           you to generate heat by burning gas than for PG&E to turn into
           electricity (with loss) so you can turn electricy into heat
           (with more loss).