Efficiency of Insert vs. Stove

[CarbonNeutral]

Clearly I'm looking in the wrong place, as I'm sure that this question has been answered somewhere. In the house that we are hopefully buying there are two external fireplaces. In one of these I will be putting either a stove or an insert.

I'm not sold on which looks better, so it comes down to efficiency - It would seem that a stove is more efficient as more surfaces are exposed, as is part of the flue, but is this true, and how much more efficient?

 

[ClydesdaleBurner]

There will be lots of different answers to this question. I'm sure if you simply search insert vs stove you'll find at least a few threads on the subject.

As for the questions of efficiency, an insert and a stove are comparable as to the rate of burn, as for the heat out they are two different animals. Stove radiates heat in the room it is located, whereas an insert (with a blower-all inserts should have a blower) will heat by conduction which forces hot air into the room, as opposed to radiating it. I find that an insert does a better job of heating the surrounding rooms of a house and a stove will heat the room it is located in easier. But that's just my 2 cents.

 

[johnnywarm]

My f400 heats the air not the hearth.no noisy blower to listen too.

 

[CarbonNeutral]

As I think about it more - I like the fact that inserts are tucked away, but I don't like the blowers. If stoves are as efficient without blowers, then I'd go for a stove. If they both need blowers then an insert is probably my answer. If one is more than 10% efficient than the other, I'd go for that regardless of blowers/taking space in the room.

 

[Martin Strand III]

"Efficiency" is not the main concern if you cannot decide between an insert or a stove for your fireplace.

"Heating effectiveness" is more relevant. If I had to choose, and I had a masonry fireplace surround, I'd choose a hearthmount stove.

Read more about your choices here:

http://www.woodheat.org/technology/technology.htm

Aye,
Marty

 

[savageactor7]

I use to be what you might call anti blower but I came around.

You can burn a stove super maximum recklessly hot as possible and the blower cools the stove and throws out tons of heat...what can I say I'm old school.

edit... we burn X hot to heat up the outer perimeter of the house.

 

[johnnywarm]

on my setup i dont need to remove my stove to clean out the liner.i can use a very quiet fan to move the heat around if necessary.

 

[Valhalla]

There is a lot of personal choice in this. An insert typically requires a running blower fan and and external power cord to be efficient. Some cannot be cleaned very easily.

A wood stove on the hearth does not require power and is very easily moved for cleaning and maintenance. The heat output is also naturally dispersed w/o power. My choice is the wood stove. Your first winter power outage will also be much less troublesome!

Research thoroughly and choose wisely.

 

[Nice-N-Warm]

I agree with much of what was posted above... However the choice between insert and freestanding sometimes has to do with room layout and aesthetics.

In my case, while I had preferred a free standing stove, due to the setup of our room and the clearances required, an insert was really the only choice unless we wanted to do some renovation (which didn't make sense). That being said, I've been very happy with the insert (a Lopi Declaration) which heats a good size area quite nicely, the blowers are infinitely adjustable and on the lowest settings are pretty quiet.... Best of all, it really looks great in our home.

Even in the event of a power outage, we've run the stove without the blowers and, while heating effectiveness drops, it still does a decent job of keeping us warm until the power kicks back on... Bottom line, take all factors into account and choose what's going to work best for you. Good Luck!!

 

[bluefrier]

I have a freestanding stove installed in a fireplace and I am voting for the blower. What I have come to realize is that without the blower the room will take longer to heat up but will stay warmer longer (at a lower temperature) which is OK when it's not so cold outside. With the fan running the room will heat up faster and maintain a higher temperature. The blower is also a great tool to
throttle the heat output of the stove...room too cold? turn up the fan, room too hot? turn it down or off. A blower will save wood too (in my experience), sometimes I have to let the fire die out completely to maintain a comfortable temperature.

 

[CarbonNeutral]

Given that the chimney is exterior and I want to heat as much of the house as possible, it sounds like I would be better with convection heating rather than radiant (info here).

From this I would suspect that an insert with adjustable fan would be best.

 

[karl]

I have an insert and it's quite adequate as a heater. I think with either an insert or a stove, you need a blower. Inserts are less efficient because there is still some radiant heat exiting the stove that gets absorbed by the fireplace. A high temperature insulation will help mitigate this. They both are good ways to heat, so buy the one that is best for your hearth.

 

[Corey]

Given that the chimney is exterior and I want to heat as much of the house as possible, it sounds like I would be better with convection heating rather than radiant (info here).

From this I would suspect that an insert with adjustable fan would be best.

Ya can't go wrong there. I heat my entire house with an insert in an exterior chimney...all the way at one end of a 'rambling ranch' You'll definitely want the blower. With the forced air, my brick fireplace hardly gets above room temp...maybe 110º-120º right above the top/center of the insert. With no blower, I'd hate to think how hot all that brick would get..and pump all the heat right outside.

The only slight downside is that you may need some additional equipment such as a generator or battery/inverter for power outages.