I read with interest the post by BrowningBAR 12/17 regarding wood consumption. I have decided as I wrestle with my plans to use my 79 Lange or a new stove with new technology, I should probably factor in how much wear and tear my 60 year old carcase has to go thru to make firewood. Anyone else want to chime-in with either personal experiences or statistics they have run across that compare using a modern stove equipped with secondary burn features against a 60's or 70's stove without such capabilities? When thinking about cost, labor, moving the wood once/twice/three times, cleaning the chimney, etc., it would be interesting to know if a newer stove in general cuts down the consumption of wood by 5%, 10%, 25%, more??... assuming other factors are more or less constant. Thanks.
New vs.old; wood used
- Thread starter holg
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
- Status
lowroadacres
Minister of Fire
I will echo your question as I move towards adding either a second stove, actually insert, to our home or whether to replace our non epa stove in our basement as a next step in increasing our heat capacity.
It goes without saying that we want to go to an EPA unit, ideally in the main level fireplace. I am very curious though as to what the difference in wood usage will actually be when we make the changes.
It goes without saying that we want to go to an EPA unit, ideally in the main level fireplace. I am very curious though as to what the difference in wood usage will actually be when we make the changes.
BrowningBAR
Minister of Fire
Wood consumption savings will differ from person to stove to location. I am using a pre-EPA stove and an EPA at the same time. Wood consumption is far better in the Heritage than the Vigilant, but the Vigilant does throw off more heat. Which has more to do with how BTU ratings are more of a marketing ploy than hard numbers.
Vigilant claimed BTU output is 50k and the Heritage is 55k. Realistically, a more fair comparison would probably be a Vigilant and a Mansfield. That's not to say the Heritage isn't a good heater. It is. It heats a larger area of the house than the Vigilant does.
Either way, there would be wood savings. I throw more wood into the Vigilant than I do in the Heritage and Intrepid combined. Will you have a staggering amount of wood savings? For some, yes. For others not so much. A lot of variables factor into this.
That is a realistic look at it.
Vigilant claimed BTU output is 50k and the Heritage is 55k. Realistically, a more fair comparison would probably be a Vigilant and a Mansfield. That's not to say the Heritage isn't a good heater. It is. It heats a larger area of the house than the Vigilant does.
Either way, there would be wood savings. I throw more wood into the Vigilant than I do in the Heritage and Intrepid combined. Will you have a staggering amount of wood savings? For some, yes. For others not so much. A lot of variables factor into this.
That is a realistic look at it.
BrowningBAR
Minister of Fire
lowroadacres said:
What stove do you currently run, what temperatures do you like the house to be, and what is the size and location of the house?
Basement installs are hit or miss, and you could have a monster pre-EPA stove down there that could be hard to compare to modern stoves.
BrowningBAR
Minister of Fire
riverbrother said:
For the Vigilant/Heritage comparison it is in the 40-50% range. But, again, the Vigilant is technically a bigger stove.
laynes69
Minister of Fire
We upgraded from a standard woodfurnace to a EPA certified model last year. While we didn't get the heat output with the new, the new one has saved us money. First year of use we seen a decrease in wood by 1 1/2 cords. When we swept the chimney on the old furnace, I could see a 5 gallon bucket at times. That was also trying to burn cleanly. With the new, the sweeping is done once every couple of months instead of monthly. We get maybe a few cups of powder at most. This year we installed a liner and I am thinking I will be another cord less than last year and it's been colder it seems. We went from burning 6 cu ft of rounds cut at 24" to maybe 3 cu ft of splits or less to take us longer through the night. I have never woke to a cold furnace and a cold house with the new unit. It was the best money besides the liner that we spent. We currently have 3" of insulation in the attic so that is going to come next here soon. In the past with the old furnace, between 8-10 cords would have been consumed.
After almost four full years with this stove, I am averaging three cord per season and clean my chimney once a year with little creosote. With the old stove, I averaged four to five cord and was cleaning the chimey twice, getting a five gallon pail of "creosote potato chips" each cleaning from the flue. I'd say the new stove is a vast improvement. Plus I now get to see the fire!
Jim
Jim
IMHO the only useful comparisons are the ones done in a controlled setting (i.e. combustion laboratory), and that measure useful heat output/mass dry wood fiber consumed. This is not just the combustion efficiency, but rather, the total or overall efficiency. These tests have fairly consistently shown that there is about about a 25% reduction in pounds of wood consumed per thousand BTUs released into the living space for non-cats, and up to 33% reduction in wood use for cat stoves in peak operating condition when both are compared to a typical pre-EPA airtight stove (having roughly only 50% overall efficiency).
Of course, not all stoves are the same, neither the older ones nor the EPA stoves. My old Vigilant tested fairly well in some of these tests because it has a rudimentary secondary combustion. Overall efficiency on my stove is probably on the order of 60%. The best non-cat EPA stoves are up around 75%, while cat stoves can have overall efficiencies in the mid-80% range at low to medium burn rates - a very significant increase in overall efficiency.
Of course, not all stoves are the same, neither the older ones nor the EPA stoves. My old Vigilant tested fairly well in some of these tests because it has a rudimentary secondary combustion. Overall efficiency on my stove is probably on the order of 60%. The best non-cat EPA stoves are up around 75%, while cat stoves can have overall efficiencies in the mid-80% range at low to medium burn rates - a very significant increase in overall efficiency.
It seems reasonable to me to assess this in economic terms as well. Like what if it saves a cord of wood per season buying a new stove? What if it saves two? How much are you paying for wood? What will trhe payback period be? Honestly, without having run the Lange to get some frame of reference, the equation is academic. I suppose that your consumption is likely to be in the 3-5 cd./yr. range burning full time.
Truthfully, if you lived closer to me, I'd try to talk you into a new unit and take the Lange off your hands. I love those things!
Truthfully, if you lived closer to me, I'd try to talk you into a new unit and take the Lange off your hands. I love those things!
BrowningBAR
Minister of Fire
Coming from a die hard old school guy like myself you will like the new stove. I like many find the new stove doesn't quite keep the place as warm, however for now I'll take the trade off since we haven't used one stick of kindling in over a month, chimney is powder instead of flakes, wood consumption is less than half, and the view is awesome through always clean glass. Only dislike is what I consider excessive coaling. If I weren't pushing the stove so hard it might not be as big an issue.
formula_pilot
Member
In September, we replaced a Vermont castings Defiant 1975 with a Jotul F600CB. I have burned almost 2x more wood so far this year with the Jotul than with the Defiant all of last year.
To be fair, it has been much, much colder this year than last, and seeing the fire with the Jotul allows for a more steadily managed fire (adding fuel more evenly). We have overall been warmer in the house and been baked out of the house much less on milder days.
I am happy with the decison to get the Jotul, but I must say that when the need for serious heat is on, I think the old Defiant burns just as clean and efficient, maybe better, and has a somewhat higher max heat output than the F600. Both stoves get the job done when the need for serious heat is on.
The problem with the Defiant is, on milder days, it makes serious creosote when the air is restricted, trying to keep the temps down makes a mess of the chimney. The Jotul does much better at that role. On the other hand, it is much easier to get a fire going with the Defiant, the Jotul takes much more attention to detail.
My bottom line on the EPA stove is great, would not go back. That said, the Old Defiant is not an inefficent "smoke dragon" some may think it is, but an awesome stove that burns clean , but was made to run hot, not choked down.
To be fair, it has been much, much colder this year than last, and seeing the fire with the Jotul allows for a more steadily managed fire (adding fuel more evenly). We have overall been warmer in the house and been baked out of the house much less on milder days.
I am happy with the decison to get the Jotul, but I must say that when the need for serious heat is on, I think the old Defiant burns just as clean and efficient, maybe better, and has a somewhat higher max heat output than the F600. Both stoves get the job done when the need for serious heat is on.
The problem with the Defiant is, on milder days, it makes serious creosote when the air is restricted, trying to keep the temps down makes a mess of the chimney. The Jotul does much better at that role. On the other hand, it is much easier to get a fire going with the Defiant, the Jotul takes much more attention to detail.
My bottom line on the EPA stove is great, would not go back. That said, the Old Defiant is not an inefficent "smoke dragon" some may think it is, but an awesome stove that burns clean , but was made to run hot, not choked down.
BrowningBAR
Minister of Fire
formula_pilot said:
Well, the Defiant was a bigger stove than the F600. But, I am surprised how much more wood you are using.
formula_pilot said:
I've never run the Defiant, but my guess is that the Vigilant runs fairly close in style, if not in output. I have finally given up on closing the air down to get a longer burn. I get less total heat out of a load that way. Making creosote is wasting fuel no matter how you slice it. I keep the primary air open more this year, yet wood consumption has dropped and peak burn temps last longer. Sounds counter-intuitive, but I think it makes the secondary burn work better, so the stove can spend most of it's burn time in downdraft mode and still burn extremely cleanly.
I'll admit that I get some smoky burns, but not belching out dense, brown smoke, just visible smoke at the beginning. After that, it can burn as clean as any stove I've seen. No one would drive by and figure there was a stove burning. And without a doubt, startup is a lot easier than I see folks describing with their EPA stoves, or at least with some makes. My new avatar is a photo that was taken about six minutes after I put a match to the firestarter in a cold stove. Stove was already up to 325º, and was up to 700º nine minutes later. When I read about some folks not hitting 500º for an hour, I wonder just how useful that can be for an evening burner.
BrowningBAR
Minister of Fire
They're doing something wrong. Probably burning with the primary air wide open. If I left my stove like that it would never warm up either. The sooner I get the air shut down the more heat it produces, but that means using good seasoned wood that doesn't need a gale blowing through the stove to keep it alight.Battenkiller said:
firefighterjake
Minister of Fire
bokehman said:
+1 . . . as soon as my stack temp is in "the zone" I start to slowly close down the air . . . and that's when I start to get some real, meaningful heat . . . and when the fire slows down so I'm not burning through as much wood as I would if I was to leave the air control all the way open.
Thanks to all for the thoughtful replies. I realize there is no way to make a real comparison in a situation that is so hypothetical, but the anecdotal info is helpful. I like the idea of being more environmentally friendly with a cleaner burning stove, but want to weigh that against the environmental costs of producing a new unit when the old one is still capable of providing some real warmth.
The comments regarding creosote build-up really gave me pause to think. As I haven't heated with wood in this home, I haven't had to climb on the roof in the winter to clean a chimney. With a new stove, after I did several chimney inspections to be sure what was going on, I like the idea of maybe getting away with cleaning fall/spring, rather than climbing up there when the snow is deep. And of course, cutting less wood means moving less wood, sharpening the chain on the saw less often, and that many less swings with the splitting maul. As for anybody talking me out of the Lange, if I do retire it, I wouldn't want to part with it for the little cash it would probably bring. It still is great to look at, and I can see it being a wonderful piece of furniture in the right setting
in the house.
Hmmm---as I reread what I just wrote, it sure seems to be like I am leaning towards a new purchase.
The comments regarding creosote build-up really gave me pause to think. As I haven't heated with wood in this home, I haven't had to climb on the roof in the winter to clean a chimney. With a new stove, after I did several chimney inspections to be sure what was going on, I like the idea of maybe getting away with cleaning fall/spring, rather than climbing up there when the snow is deep. And of course, cutting less wood means moving less wood, sharpening the chain on the saw less often, and that many less swings with the splitting maul. As for anybody talking me out of the Lange, if I do retire it, I wouldn't want to part with it for the little cash it would probably bring. It still is great to look at, and I can see it being a wonderful piece of furniture in the right setting
in the house.
Hmmm---as I reread what I just wrote, it sure seems to be like I am leaning towards a new purchase.
Jimbob
Minister of Fire
I still don't think retro-fitting the Lange to burn cleaner would be that bad, especially if you know somone in the metal-fabricating business.
The link I posted for you in another thread might have been a bit overwhelming, but I think there were simpler retro-fits done somewhere here.
The main thing would be to pipe some hot air to the area just under the baffle.
The link I posted for you in another thread might have been a bit overwhelming, but I think there were simpler retro-fits done somewhere here.
The main thing would be to pipe some hot air to the area just under the baffle.
formula_pilot
Member
BrowningBAR said:
My post was not really a good comparison for wood consumption on old vs new. Last year we were doing more evening / morning fires, letting it go out during the day on week days. This year, my wife is home more and keeping the fire going during the day. I think seeing what the fire is doing has helped her a lot. We also started buring earlier this year to enjoy the "novelty" of new stove , plus January temps came right after Thanksgiving here this year, so it makes sense that we burned alot more this year. I do hope spring comes soon, because we are on the last stack of good dry hard wood. Dry Pine in reserve if necessary.
Warm and happy.
Bill
riverbrother said:
I was wondering the same thing as you 2 or 3 years ago. I also cut my own wood, so there's no real financial gain to upgrading my 1981 stove. It's a sheet steel stove (of very good quality) made by a small stove fabricator back when everyone was copying Fisher stoves. It's heated our house well for years and lives in the cellar, so a nice fire view stove is not a necessity.
So more as an experiment really (I like to tinker), I installed secondary burn tubes in the thing. It really changed the way it burned (for the better) and cleaned up the emissions a lot. Comparing a couple of year's wood use and factoring in the difference in heating degree days between the 2 I found I was saving about 11% on my wood use with the new setup. Equal to a new EPA stove, no...but not bad for an investment some black pipe and fittings and some of my time. So now I'm even less likely to get a new stove anytime soon (unless the DEC forces me into it some day) but I'm currently plotting on how to add a cat to it to clean it up a little more and squeeze a little more performance out of it.
phatfarmerbob
New Member
Hmmm---as I reread what I just wrote, it sure seems to be like I am leaning towards a new purchase.[/quote]
Yeah do it ... if nothing else your stimulating the economy
Yeah do it ... if nothing else your stimulating the economy
If your stove has a 6 in outlet, most new stove's you'd replace it with do too. You already missed the big tax credit so I'll be the fly in the ointment and say run this for 1 year and then make the decision. All it will be is a swap job next year if you want to try something else out. It is a good stove so it's not like you are compromising safety.
But no matter what you do, start getting your wood ready NOW! Or else you will be caught w/ your pants down next winter with a good stove (whatever that ends up being) and inadequate wood to put in it which defeats the whole purpose either way!
pen
But no matter what you do, start getting your wood ready NOW! Or else you will be caught w/ your pants down next winter with a good stove (whatever that ends up being) and inadequate wood to put in it which defeats the whole purpose either way!
pen
Why climb on the roof when you can clean from the bottom (either by just removing the baffle or having a tee piece)? Also, I haven't cleaned my chimney in 3 years and when I had the top section of pipe off earlier this year there was nothing to clean anyway.riverbrother said:
bogydave
Minister of Fire
I know that the new cat stove is burning less wood.
I get almost twice or more longer burn times with more heat in the house = less wood burned.
& the house is 4 to 6 degrees warmer inside.
I would typically go thru 10 cords per winter with the old non cat BK.
This winter less than 1/2 that so far, about 4 -1/4 +/- cords so far. (been burning 24/7 since Oct)
my guess now is 35 to 45% less wood. With more & better inside heat (if that makes sense)
that equates to about 4 cords +/- less per year.
I get almost twice or more longer burn times with more heat in the house = less wood burned.
& the house is 4 to 6 degrees warmer inside.
I would typically go thru 10 cords per winter with the old non cat BK.
This winter less than 1/2 that so far, about 4 -1/4 +/- cords so far. (been burning 24/7 since Oct)
my guess now is 35 to 45% less wood. With more & better inside heat (if that makes sense)
that equates to about 4 cords +/- less per year.
- Status
Similar threads
