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

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

-- Don Kelly snipped-for-privacy@peeshaw.ca remove the urine to answer

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:-)

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. .

-- Don Kelly snipped-for-privacy@peeshaw.ca remove the urine to answer

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.

Robert

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

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

transmission

comparison.

--------------- 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.>

-- Don Kelly snipped-for-privacy@peeshaw.ca remove the urine to answer