re: Pellet Stoves Are Dumb

quote:

---

hat might be true. In any event, I get all the wood I want for free.

---

I was waiting... I was waiting to see who the first poster to say,"well.. Wood is free if you cut, haul and stack your own", but these guys... they kept talking about pellets... That you have to buy. It turn's out... It was my own kind...

It is this that always made me appreciate growing up in the mountains with tons of free abundant firewood at a whelm, I admittedly took it for granted. After my first winter in BR I was sending for that warmth... dat natural warmth...





you can't get that pleasure from a pallet stove, imo


Efficiency? Lol

Who cares when you got free wood?




six cords or so by the shed, not for this year but maybe the next, that is actually some descent wood right there

quote:

---

six cords or so by the shed, not for this year but maybe the next, that is actually some descent wood right there

---

Enjoy the cockroaches, termites and mice, baw.

quote:

---

every cord utilizes 15.3 million BTUs

---

This is nonsense. This might be an average, but the amount of heat depends on the type of wood. The denser the wood, the more heat.

quote:

---

On the other hand, pellets come in 40-lb bags and the stoves have a BTU output of 13.6 million per ton of pellets.

---

The comparison of one subtype of fuel by volume (firewood/cordwood) and another by weight (pellets) when they are both the same type (wood) is another clue that this comparison is suspect. There is also no indication as to the type and efficiency of the stoves used to derive those numbers.

quote:

---

Pellet stoves come out on top.

---

In efficiency, maybe (but you can't tell from the language you quoted). But how about price? At $5.00 per bag, that's $250 for a ton of pellets? Last time I priced firewood, I could get a mix of oak and hickory for $120 per cord, delivered.

So using the efficiency numbers credited to the Dept. of Agriculture:

Pellets cost $22.12 per million BTUs.
Wood would cost me $11.21 per million BTUs, if I bought it (I either cut it or get it for free).

So Pellets are actually a work of genius, for pellet and pellet stove makers.

quote:

---

Information was taken from a chimney sweep site with no dog in the hunt. Do better research on full information.

---

That a poorly informed person has no "dog in the fight" does not lend any credence to that person's poor conclusions. An appeal to authority is just the reverse of an ad hominem argument, both are logically flawed.

quote:

---

I wish you understood this better.

---

I obviously can't "understand" anything that doesn't result in agreement with your conclusion, amirite?

Your chimney sweep quotes don't support your conclusion. Pellet stoves may be more efficient, but the chimney sweep apparently doesn't know that if his claim is based on comparing them to wood burning stoves based on a comparison of volume of wood versus weight of pellets. The heat that they produce is clearly more expensive, which, by itself, implies that they burning pellets isn't really as efficient as the chimney sweep would have them seem.

Depends on the pellets. Some can contain other organic biomass, but most are just sawdust highly compressed into pellets.

They are extremely dense, have a very low moisture content and therefore very efficient as a fuel. Several local office buildings converted over to burning compressed biomass pellets as their main source of heating.

quote:

---

They are extremely dense, have a very low moisture content and therefore very efficient as a fuel.

---

They also have uniform, maximized surface area, which allows more effective interaction with available oxygen.

Obviously, if you live in the woods and have tons of spare time to fell and split your own hardwood, it makes sense. It also makes sense if you use it infrequently. However, if we're talking about someone who uses this all winter, pellet stoves are much more efficient and convenient.

That said, much like the electric v. gas water heater comparison, you can look at site energy versus source energy. An electric water heater is far more efficient at the site, but when you consider the inefficiencies of generating and transmitting the electricity, gas is the winner in source energy efficiency. Using that line of thinking on the pellets, you also need to consider the amount of energy (electricity, gas, elbow grease) that goes into producing pellets v. firewood.

In my opinion, some people are just holding onto the olden days by insisting pellet stoves are dumb. It's just a willfully ignorant statement.

quote:

---

No, it's that you suck at message boarding and provoke friends instead of supporting them. You've been told this for years and just can't seem to grasp it.

---

Disagreement is not "attack."

"You suck" is "attack."

quote:

---

"You suck" is "attack."

---

It's just an honest assessment. I'm kind of an expert.

quote:

---

They are extremely dense, have a very low moisture content and therefore very efficient as a fuel.

They also have uniform, maximized surface area, which allows more effective interaction with available oxygen.

---

Which just begs the question of whether using them for fuel is more efficient. Does more surface area increase the total BTU output or just allow them to burn faster and hotter. Is it the pellet form that creates the efficiency of the stove itself that wastes less heat?

quote:

---

Obviously, if you live in the woods and have tons of spare time to fell and split your own hardwood, it makes sense. It also makes sense if you use it infrequently.

---

If you live in such a place, it also stands to reason that even if you don't cut it yourself and actually pay for the firewood, the firewood is likely to be relatively inexpensive. The cost of pellets likely doesn't change.

quote:

---

However, if we're talking about someone who uses this all winter, pellet stoves are much more efficient and convenient.

---

If firewood is 1/2 the cost of pellets in terms of cost per BTU, it really isn't going to matter how often you use it. It just isn't going to be cheaper to use the pellet stove. If the pellet stove is more efficient, then it should also more efficient no matter how often it is used.

quote:

---

That said, much like the electric v. gas water heater comparison, you can look at site energy versus source energy. An electric water heater is far more efficient at the site, but when you consider the inefficiencies of generating and transmitting the electricity, gas is the winner in source energy efficiency. Using that line of thinking on the pellets, you also need to consider the amount of energy (electricity, gas, elbow grease) that goes into producing pellets v. firewood.

---

I wonder if cost is a good proxy.

quote:

---

In my opinion, some people are just holding onto the olden days by insisting pellet stoves are dumb. It's just a willfully ignorant statement.

---

Broadly claiming that they are dumb is silly. But they can be a dumb choice if bought on the premise that they are more efficient and will save money when firewood is readily available and 1/2 the cost of pellets (for the same heat output). Certainly convenience and other considerations are just as valid but I can get a cord delivered for about $120 and I don't mind having to put it in the stove.

An analogy is hybrids v. pure gas burners. Is a $30K Prius more efficient than a $18K, non-hybrid civic? Probably. Is it going to save you more than $12K on gas? Probably not.