Replacing Fireview with....?

They are sold with fixed burn times, meaning fixed costs to 'heat your house'. The fall- down is that they put out a fixed, fairly low heat and so usually will not actually heat the average house w/out some auxiliary heating device such as a furnace or boiler.

Pellet stoves are usually compared with wood stoves, and the big selling point is that while a wood stove will need multiple fillings per day, a pellet stove will go more than one full day on a single, fixed amount of pellets. So people buy them in the mistaken belief that they know the fixed operating cost. The big lie is that a pellet stove will not actually heat the house.

I saw pellets on sale at Home Depot for $259 / ton. I do not know if they were hardwood or softwood pellets. A cord of oak, dried to ~20% moisture content is two ton. Pellets are much drier than that, and pellet stoves are more efficient than wood stoves, generally speaking. But cord wood, delivered, is still less expensive and even a medium sized woodstove will put out far more heat than any pellet stove I have ever see and will actually heat a house. But a ton of pellets is claimed to be about the same as a cord of wood (lie #1), and a pellet stove will run 30 hours on one filling (implied lie #2 in that the stove will actually heat the house).

I am not knocking pellet stoves at all, in fact I think it is a great way to burn wood. But the whole system never came to become a good value as it was supposed to be, and the system has a significant flaw that most homes in colder areas need more heat than the pellet stoves on the market can produce. If the system were improved, with pellet supplies being more reliable and less expensive, and the were actually stoves that would put out 50K, 75K BTU, then it would be a terrific system IMO.

Brian

 

Congrats, No Replacement, for Displacement. I think I heard that someplace before.

 

Got it. Your points are correct but I never felt lied to about any of them. I thought you were going to dwell on the need for maintenance and replacement of all the noisy motors, blowers, and computers. Or maybe being held hostage by the pellet supply chain.

 

my big issue with pellet stoves was cost to operate... here pellets (not sure quality) average 275 a ton, a tractor supply say a ton of pellets is equivalent to 100 gallon of HHO (home heating oil) my back up system is a buderus boiler.. cheaper to heat with oil.. oil furnace cleaned once a year set thermostat and can leave.. why I chose a woodside

jdonna of course we need pics updates and opinions

 

As soon as I get up to technological speed on how to post pics here I will.

I have a corn burner/pellet stove and I loath the day I can get away from having to ever use it. The dust, maintenance, rusted vent pipes from corn or horrible smoke smell from the pellets burning. Yea, I could go on and on. Have a through wall vent and experience a power outage, enjoy the smoke in the house! OK rant over.

 

One quick update, I hooked as many old black pipes together as I could. Probably 12 feet of chimney, filled BK and let her rip out side in my drivewa. An hour into the burn on high, I was quite surprised to see 550 degree stove top and side panels in a 20 mph wind @ 36 degrees.

 

Do all those stoves you list work with a 6 inch chimney? Did I not read she had that size chimney?

 

No, the Regency requires an 8" flue, and no, I did not see anyplace where the OP stated any requirement or limitation on chimney size.

I am unsure about the Blaze King King; they used to list both an 8" and a 6" flue as choices but I seem to remember that changing a year or two back. But to be sure, I would simply call Blaze King as ask as this is something any potential owner would need to know well before plunking down any cash for any stove IMO.

A few posts back, I actually mentioned a downside of the larger stoves possibly requiring an 8" flue but that is the only mention of flue size I found in re- skimming this thread.

At any rate, the stoves I mentioned are, in fact, all far larger than an Englander 30- NC in firebox size. And there are others out there I believe as well.

Brian

 

This is what I read.

 

It is more of an <implied> falsehood. Again, they lay out the statements about burn time, wood consumption and while they do state the BTU output, everyone I have known who bought / uses / used a pellet stove certainly thought that it would 'heat his / her house'. And everyone I know has been surprised and disappointed in that very thing- not enough heat.

And as I said, I really do think burning wood as pellets is perhaps the very best way to burn wood at all; all controlled, small, fuel sizes, very easy to maintain extremely high fire temps. with modest heat output rates, very easy to clean, very easy to 'stoke', extremely easy to handle / store / move the pellets and they are guaranteed not to contain any pests, wood borers, fungus, etc, etc. Add to all of that that what is normally wood waste would be burned and it is literally an outstanding idea IMO, both in theory and actual operation. But the practice and infrastructure has not been created to bring this 'waste' material down to an attractive price, make it readily available (some years no pellets, some years lots of pellets, some years some pellets but not for long....) and the stoves are generally too small to actually heat the great majority of houses in reality. So like any business, they sell their strong points (burn time, ease of loading, and so forth) and ignore the painful parts (not enough heat, pellet availability, pellet quality, etc.) and because it is a relatively new technology, people expect it is a direct competitor to wood stoves because that is how and where they are sold.

The mechanical and electronic problems you mention can all be cured easily if the industry wanted to do so.

BTW, I am not really knocking pellet stoves but more the perceived application. Just a matter of 'full disclosure'. I also prefer catalytic based wood stoves but freely and immediately admit that they require more finesse, are more sensitive in setting, take more time to adjust and set up after re-loading and IMO are not the best choice for anyone looking for easy, casual and especially, occasional wood stove use. So pellet stoves in themselves are not 'bad' IMO but there are a couple of 'left hooks' coming to the unwary or un- knowing, and those people often get their advice at..... the pellet stove store.

Brian

 

Yes, he did post that much earlier in this thread and I missed it- sorry. Just skimmed the whole thread and there it was.

No matter though as he has a B.K. Princess now. Looks to be a nice stove, lots of people quite happy with them and it seems to be a close competitor to other 'large' catalytic and hybrid stoves in that size so he is probably in great shape. It is certainly substantially larger than the stove he had, and the goal was more heat, so this is definitely a great step in the right direction I think.

Brian

 

Yeah, but how did the stove perform? Did you get it to heat up the great outdoors, to 36.00001 degrees?

Congrats on the new stove. I just returned from weekend visit to my brother's house, where I learned first-hand how to overheat a VERY well-insulated with very little wood. I, unfortunately, have never really had that problem (except when it was well above freezing) at my own home!

 

All this global warming and your adding to the problem. ......lol

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

Lol whoops, wrong dude

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

Be sure to report your results. Feel free to fire away here with BK operating questions as well. Or send me a PM. Plenty of guys/gals using them.

 

Obviously I’m biased toward the looks, function, quality and customer service from Woodstock and the Progress. Plus Flamestead is correct about this thread being picture deprived.

Congratulations on your new stove. Enjoy the heat and a happy wife.

 

Boy, I am not up to speed. After all this I realize there is an upload button for pictures.

 

That manometer shot was taken when I was running a wide open high fire. It settled down into .12-.08 on a medium burn. Still on the strong side for draft. I think my burn times are suffering a little bit as I learn this new stove, but I have been amazed how the thermostat has regulated the burn.

I attached a picture of old faithful as a reference to the difference. The BK looks massive in comparison but it's nice that it sits back further. The stove throws a lot of heat off the front and top and the sides and back are really not hot at all with the side shields (100-150) measured on the shield.

Seems I am able to move heat around a bit easier with this setup.

 

I like that black and white pic... gives a bit of an artsy, nostalgic touch to the thread.