alderman
Addicted to ArboristSite
Is there a ballpark figure on how much a cord of wood weighs? Would a ton of fire wood produce the same amount of heat as a ton on pellets if stove efficiency could be made equal?
Where did you get the 35% figure?
My Regency is listed at 70%
From http://chimneysweeponline.com/wscompe.htmLet's look at an example of how combustion and heat-transfer efficiency figures can be misused. A masonry fireplace may have a high combustion efficiency—say in the range of 90%—simply because there's an unrestricted supply of air to the burn zone. However, so much excess air may get sucked up the chimney while the fire is burning that little or no neat is delivered into the room. With a combustion efficiency of 90% and a heat-transfer efficiency of 0%, the net Btu delivered into the room by the fireplace will be zero. A typical airtight heater, on the other hand, may be able to achieve only a 60 or 70% combustion efficiency; but because its heat-transfer efficiency is 70 or 80%, it may have an overall efficiency of 42 to 56%. Thus, if you looked only at combustion efficiency, you might assume that the fireplace is a better heater.
From http://www.woodheat.org/technology/outboiler.htmThe new EPA approved woodstoves are not only kinder to the environment, they offer a bonus: since the secondary burn that cleans up the emissions also creates a great deal of free heat, EPA approved woodstoves will heat the same area as their non-approved ancestors while burning much less wood. This translates into heating efficiencies that are nearly double the industry standard of just a few years ago.
The only useful efficiency number for potential buyers is net delivered efficiency, and even then the conditions under which the tests were conducted and the agency that conducted the tests must be known. For example, the results from a universally recognized and government sanctioned test method show that advanced, EPA certified stoves have net delivered efficiencies between 60 and 80 per cent and that conventional wood stove efficiency is between about 40 and 65 percent.
How "traditional" is your Regency ?
And which method was used to test its efficiency
From http://www.motherearthnews.com/Natu...ove-Efficiency-and-Emissions-1984.aspx?page=4
From http://chimneysweeponline.com/wscompe.htm
From http://www.woodheat.org/technology/outboiler.htm
Many maufacturers claims can be rather optimistic compared to real world use. And why not, they want you to buy it. What I was reffering to was a non-exempt 'airtight' type that may have a very low combustion efficiency but a high heat transfer efficiency. You know the ones , the smoke belching, wood eating fireboxes of yesteryear. Lots of heat, big appetite and bigger fireboxes for longer burn times.
My take on wood burning is :
Fireplaces = 0 - 15% overall efficiency
non exempt OWB = 20 - 40% overall efficiency
nonexempt wood stoves = 25 - 45% overall effeciency
catalytic EPA certified stoves = upto 65 -70 % overall efficiency initially, degrading over time.
noncatalytic EPA certified 70 -80% overall efficiency
Maybe I wasn't optimistic enough for a traditional smoke belcher I doubt I was far from wrong though.
The point I wanted to add when I added the edit was that the newer corn/pellt stoves are going to be more efficient when compared to a non-exempt wood burner that most are familiar with. So initially I didputed the 2:1 ratio offered by RedProspector but changed my mind after a bit od thought when thinking about worst case and best case scenarios between wood versus pellets. Id say a ton of pellets in a good stove comopared to a non-exempt wood eater to be quite accurate.
Where did you get the 35% figure?
My Regency is listed at 70%
Pellet stoves have a cache to them now: supposedly cleaner, easier to use, less fuss and mess indoors. In the programs we run for wood heat, pellet stoves are not recommended except for the infirm or elderly.
Here's why:
1. The mechanisms to burn the pellets - motor, hopper, filters - need to be maintained many times over a winter. The reliability of many pellet stoves for 24/7 heating is questionable from dealers' experience.
2. Pellet supply and cost. Last winter the cost went up, suppliers ran out.
3. Noise of those pellets rattling around, motor and usual blower. Not much romance in a grinding, rattling hopper You do need romance, don't you? :monkey:
4. Less heat from a similar sized pellet stove compared to a wood stove.
5. Power outage = no stove without a specific backup for the pellet stove.
6. Not a pretty flame.
7. Finally, for the Gang Greens among us: pellets take power/energy to manufacture. Kind of takes the sustainablity out of the pellet bag.
I'll stick too wood versus pellets till I can no longer cut and process my own wood. I just don't like the idea of being tied too a manufactured fuel source that could (due too the the greed factor) increase at any time in price. It's just a personal thing but I like the fact that I am out in the woods collecting and processing the wood for my winter heat.
I'm probably a throw back too the hunter gatherer clans of old although I have a good sized garden (Agricultural age) too
That's the way that I feel about it also. I like being self sufficient and depending on others (especially the government) as little as possible.
I'd like to raise a big garden but the deer and rabbits would like it also. I might try an electric fence in the future.
Enter your email address to join: