1,300 sf insert vs. 1,300 soapstone stove

[Hestia]

We had absolutely decided on a Woodstock Keystone - great reviews, long burn time, appears to heat more than the 1,300 it states (from peoples' happy comments in the reviews.) Because of the below "issue" we are now considering an insert - We both really like the stove, but my dh wants your advice on the following: How would you compare an insert and its stated btu/sf heating versus the Soapstone Woodstock Keystone btu/sf heating? I know a btu is a btu, however it appears, from comments, as if less wood is burned for the same warmth with the soapstone stove. We would like to heat at least 1,100 sf, (ranch/open floor plan, old windows, room where stove would be is cathedral with a fan) - the bedrooms will be somewhat cold. Also, my dh really likes the Scan insert, however it does not have a fan. (I don't think that this will work well.) Though it is rated up to 1,300 sf, does convection really work that well for an insert? The dealer was concerned about it heating our size space.

What has us wondering: had a recommended chimney guy in to evaluate an install for the stove. My dh loves everybody, but the chimney sweep made him feel uncomfortable -he was fairly opinionated without listening to dh and what we wanted. He was mildly dismissive of soapstone. He did have a good argument for an insert with our floating hearth, and that is why we are considering one at all. We are going to have another sweep in for a second opinion, but would appreciate responses to the question above. I would personally like to be convinced to stick with the Woodstock Stove. DH wants to hear why the Scan probably would not heat the same area even though it is rated the same.

Thank you all. Hestia

 

[jpl1nh]

Well I've never used an insert but I have a Keystone. It's a beautiful stove. The combination of soapstone and the catalytic combustor allow its small firebox to produce burn times more comparable to a medium or medium large stove. Its fire display is absolutely hypnotizing as the wood starts to gassify because it produces a lot of lazy dancing secondary burn. It's extremely efficient and burns hard or softwood superbly. Someone who is mildly dismissive of soapstone has never operated one. Only drawback is you don't get immediate heat. They work best when you burn 24/7 and keep your house warm all the time. Loaded mine this AM at 8 with middling quality wood packed fairly tightly. Came home at 6:45 PM, house was 68. Threw in a load and it was burning within 2-3 minutes from the coal bed that was left. House is 71 now at 11PM, stove is re-packed and shut down for night. Will be 68 at 6AM tomorrow. I'll load some mostly soft stuff loosely for a quick hot fire, then pack around 8AM for the day agian and we're off to work. We heat primarily around a 1000 ft with a cathedral ceiling but als warm to upstairs bedrooms and a downstairs bedroom as well though we keep them all much cooler unless we're using them.

 

[Sandor]

I have a Keystone and second the above comment.

The Keystone has no heatshields (other than a small one below the ashpan), so it radiates from all sides.

When you use an insert, you really need a blower to get the heat out of the stove, because you don't have all sides exposed. Many heat the masonry of the chimney, and if its exposed to the outside, then that heat will be lost.

Heating with wood, and especially a soapstone, is all about momentum. If I maintain the room the stove is in at about 82, the back bedrooms will maintain about 70. If I let the whole house cool down to about 65, then the back bedrooms take about 6 hours to come back up to 70. If its really cold, it may take 8 hours. This is in a 1400/sq ft rancher.

If it were my home, I would go free standing, as long as I had the space, with a block off plate on the fireplace.

The Keystone is a work of art, with a large glass window for viewing.

Also, I think that putting storm windows on the back bedrooms windows (or all for that matter) should be a priority. I read some govt studies last year that stated a single pane window, with a quality storm window is nearly as efficient as a modern, double pane.

 

[velvetfoot]

Wouldn't the stove consume valuable floor space?
Our insert into a zero clearance fireplace required no hearth mods.
The 1.6 ft2 firebox insert heats the lower 1000ft2 of our relatively open 1st floor with no problem.
I haven't tried running it without the fan though, which would be an issue in a power outage. (Note to me: try this before the big ice storm hits )
Our last insert, a Quad 2100i, did not have a fan and it worked pretty well, but a fan really helps.

 

[AndyD1480]

Hestia,

Maybe I could help. I dont have a ton of experience, but I just went through the same process as you. We put in a Hearthstone Soapstone stove (the Heritage) in front of our fireplace and many of the dealers/chimneysweeps wanted us to throw in an insert. When you look at the two though, there's no such thing as "dolling up" an insert. It's basically a big black metal front on your fireplace. You also HAVE to run a blower. The stove will gett hot in the back, sides, and top and needs the air to get that heat out into the room.

Now, part of the reason we decided on the Heritage in front of the fireplace was that it looked beatiful. But was also very functional! We pulled it out a bit and put it on a hearthpad my father had sitting in the garage. In the summer, I'm going to build a new pad using Micore, Durock, and nice tile (that my wife picks out of course!). Just remember, all spring, summer, and fall, the stove wont be churning out heat, but you'll still have to look at it. For three seasons its just going to have to look nice, so the look of it should be a factor.

Now, my soapstone stove has a 2.1 cubic ft. firebox. Not huge, but it will definelty heat 1300 sq. ft no problem. So you really wouldnt have an issue, what will happen is that hte heat will rise and move towards the cold. Just think of it this way, if you want the back rooms to be 65 degrees, you'll need to make the room your stove is in like 70 degrees.

As for the Woodstock's, they get amazing reviews. I would have totally loved to drive up there and pick one up (no sales tax either!). The problem was having an install, as most of the chimney sweeps came in really expensive compared to the installers at the stores that came with the purchase of the stove. My better half was also more found of the look of Hearthstone as opposed to the Woodstock.

I'm so happy with the freestanding unit and I'm incredibly happy with soapstone. It's a different heat, it radiats warmth but its not "blow you out of the room heat!" I also personally feel that freestanders end up getting more heat into the room than an insert, although many people believe the inserts are more effective at heating a whole house because the heat comes out of the blowers. I'd rather use the freestander and get the ceiling fans going

One more thing. I've gotta say, being raised in a house where my parents used an old "smoke dragon" stove downstairs, and a Resolute Vermont Castings upstairs.... my Hearthstone is sooo easy to run. Every stove takes a bit to "lock in" to, but its really easy to figure out and get real good heat. Happy shopping and please use the search function on this site...there is a wealth of knowledge here!!

 

[webbie]

My guess is that a cat woodstock will give you more heat (for each lb of wood) than an insert. This is due to a couple things - the stove itself, the fact that it is not back in the fireplace behind panels....and also, most inserts are non-cat, which in the case of a unit with no exposed pipe might be a little less efficient.

The soapstone does take a little longer to heat up......so if you want really quick heat you can get a thinner non-cat stove for the hearth.

Style DOES come into the picture, and that is where certain inserts can't be beat. But in terms of MPG, you are likely to do best with a hearth stove.