BTU and ash content

turtle2010 · Feb 23, 2010

Has anyone ever wondered about just how truthful the BTU and ash contents that mills report for their pellets are compared to what we get in the final product. I've found some test results on a few websites

http://www.corinthwoodpellets.com/corinth7.24.09.pdf
http://www.curranpellets.com/documents/curran-pellet-ratings.pdf
http://www.barefootpellet.com/testresults.html
http://download319.mediafire.com/edcjx1vnhjmg/xw2zgmmjtdz/Maine+Woods.pdf
http://download562.mediafire.com/zcpy4yvbxywg/jd2uznzmdwo/Turman.pdf

I don't know about anyone else. But I've burned all of these brands of pellets and didn't get the results that the majority of the companies out there are reporting. I fully expect pellets to differ from ton to ton. Its the nature of the material they are produced from. But quality seems to be lacking when compared to what some companies are reporting. So I guess the point of all this is something along these lines. Are some mills misrepresenting themselves and selling based on false claims. And what can the consumer do to avoid these situations?

Stentor · Feb 23, 2010

Interesting question you raise.

I checked via Google one of the groups, called Twin Ports Testing.

http://www.twinportstesting.com/images/testingcompanycelebrates23.pdf

They look OK on a website but they're small (35 employees - - including contractors?) and privately held. I don't know if the other pellet brands use the Twin Ports Testing or a similar testing company, the same technical standards, whether details are published for some kind of peer review, and so forth. Also, this pellet business seems to be fairly small and fragmented. Hardware suppliers, wood suppliers and the customer base seem all to be changing pretty fast compared to other products. When it comes to pellets, you can't tell whether you are talking about half a dozen guys walking into the woods with some chain saws or whether there is an established lumber business with wood pellet byproducts. Or somewhere in between.

Finally, any challenge from you to the test numbers could be met easily with some claim like "Oh, that's what happens in our labs. Your home stove might be different just as your car does not get the EPA rated mileage when you are driving on a real road in real traffic."

turtle2010 · Feb 23, 2010

Based on some looking around that I did, Twin Ports is one of the leading testing labs in the pellet industry. I did a google search and came across a listing on the Pellet Fuels Institute website that lists the labs that have to be used in order to be PFI certified http://www.pelletheat.org/3/industry/index.html . So I'd have to say that its pretty safe to say that they're a reputable lab with good testing methods. When I was looking at the site I also saw the new specs that had come out for the various pellet fuel grades http://www.pelletheat.org/3/institute/standards/PFI Standards.pdf . And I understand that not every pellet producer is a member of PFI, but they still call their product premium, super premium, etc. with sometimes little regard for what the actual standards are. Personally I'd like to see the testing results for the companies, in .pdf or similar form (which some companies are doing), linked on the company's website so I have a better idea of what I'm buying. One persons idea of high BTU and low ash might be a lot different than another. I know of people who think that >1% ash is just fine and are similarly happy with a pellet that barely throws heat. Whereas I would go the extra mile to have a pellet that burns hot and with low (truly <1% or <.5%) ash.

BDPVT · Feb 23, 2010

These tests are conducted under controlled laboratory conditions by independent labs. The variables must be controlled to acquire meaningful comparable results. These test results are not an indication of real life performance, but more like the EPA fuel economy ratings for new cars. As they say "your mileage may vary".

Stentor · Feb 24, 2010

Yes but the test results have to have some end user meaning or they lack practical value. You can't assume your individual mileage will match the EPA results, but the figures are worth looking at just as, say, car crash safety ratings from the insurance ratings groups have some value. I'm not denying that some of the testing labs do a good job or maybe even all of them. I'm just complaining that there is little translation of their data to end users who could usefully compare ratings.

turtle2010 · Feb 25, 2010

If you know the rated efficiency of your pellet appliance then you can get a rough idea of how the product should run in your stove. My real point behind the original post was that many pellet mills are posting these high BTU, low ash numbers or simply making the statement high BTU, low ash on their bag with no real verification. And in many cases the consumer isn't seeing the same results in their appliance because the pellets aren't representative of those numbers or statements due to lower quality and junk product. Or, as I've seen in many cases lately, the numbers being given by the pellet manufacturer are the ash free, moisture free BTU levels which is not an accurate measure of what the consumer gets when they burn the pellets. The numbers given in the As Received column of the Twin Ports testing is the relative BTU level you would expect to get from a bag of pellets.

Stentor · Feb 26, 2010

turtle2010 said:
...My real point behind the original post was that many pellet mills are posting these high BTU, low ash numbers or simply making the statement high BTU, low ash on their bag with no real verification. And in many cases the consumer isn't seeing the same results in their appliance because the pellets aren't representative of those numbers or statements due to lower quality and junk product. .......

I think you're probably right in general. The labels are perhaps of some value when you are trying out a pellet brand. But there's (apparently) little or no peer review of these bag claims. As individuals we happen sometimes on a good brand worth sticking with. But it's mostly individual discovery from year to year. Unfortunately the incentive for companies with a quality product to keep up the quality is reduced since the sanctions against uneven quality product are minimal.

Look at a cross section of postings about pellet quality in this forum. Caveat emptor.

Snowy Rivers · Feb 26, 2010

To be quite honest about this issue.

I have never really worried about the ash content or anything else.

We have very few brands available here in Western Oregon.

Golden fire
Bear Mountain
maybe a couple others

They all print about the same info on the bag.

They all seem to burn about the same too.

The issue is HOW MUCH DIRT is in the mix. Dirt and other non burnables is the real issue as this is what causes Clinkering, especially in the hotter burning stoves like the Quads.

The manufactures are going to use whatever they can get in the way of WOOD WASTE these days to make Pellets from.

With home building down, the mills are not cranking out lumber in huge amounts and with that the supply of clean sawdust is also less.

A lot of bark and other scrap is going into the stuff too.

True numbers as was mentioned are likely not very indictative of what you may or may not expeirience with your stove.

As a user of alternative fuels, I pay little attention to ash etc. I just clean the stove according to whats happening in real time in my stove.

Prodigy gets cleaned every 3 days (small stove with a small ash pan)

The Golden fire Pellets USED to be very clean but even they have started using materials of lesser quality due to availability of materials.

Too bab more companies dont start offering grass and or waste paper pellets.

Soooooo much waste paper that ends up in the land fills that can be made into Pellets.

Likely the ash content on Pellets made from paper would be fairly Low. ?????

Snowy

krooser · Mar 1, 2010

Snowy Rivers said:
To be quite honest about this issue.

I have never really worried about the ash content or anything else.

We have very few brands available here in Western Oregon.

Golden fire
Bear Mountain
maybe a couple others

They all print about the same info on the bag.

They all seem to burn about the same too.

The issue is HOW MUCH DIRT is in the mix. Dirt and other non burnables is the real issue as this is what causes Clinkering, especially in the hotter burning stoves like the Quads.

The manufactures are going to use whatever they can get in the way of WOOD WASTE these days to make Pellets from.

With home building down, the mills are not cranking out lumber in huge amounts and with that the supply of clean sawdust is also less.

A lot of bark and other scrap is going into the stuff too.

True numbers as was mentioned are likely not very indictative of what you may or may not expeirience with your stove.

As a user of alternative fuels, I pay little attention to ash etc. I just clean the stove according to whats happening in real time in my stove.

Prodigy gets cleaned every 3 days (small stove with a small ash pan)

The Golden fire Pellets USED to be very clean but even they have started using materials of lesser quality due to availability of materials.

Too bab more companies dont start offering grass and or waste paper pellets.

Soooooo much waste paper that ends up in the land fills that can be made into Pellets.

Likely the ash content on Pellets made from paper would be fairly Low. ?????

Snowy

You can get those recycled paper pellets here in Wisconsin.... absolutely horrible from what I've heard... only viable for commercial/industrial boilers due to an incredible amount of ash...

turtle2010 · Mar 1, 2010

One big problem with paper pellets is the amount of chlorine that is in the pellets. It'll tear apart your exhaust pipe in a hurry

Search

Search

BTU and ash content

turtle2010

New Member

Stentor

Member

turtle2010

New Member

BDPVT

Member

Stentor

Member

turtle2010

New Member

Stentor

Member

Snowy Rivers

Minister of Fire

krooser

Minister of Fire

turtle2010

New Member

Similar threads