Frequency of reloading, storage vs no storage

  • 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
Not open for further replies.

ioldanach

New Member
May 19, 2008
4
Newburgh, NY
Recently a friend who does HVAC contracting (he lives several states away, so he can't contract for me) noted a heating upgrade could get me a more cost effective system. In addition to the straight oil boiler replacement (we have a cast iron oil boiler right now) he recommended an Econoburn unit (they're made close to us, so shipping costs are fairly low, and he likes their quality). I spoke to him and a representative at Econoburn, and read some things here, and now I'm just confused, so I want to toss out a couple of questions to the crowd here.

First, the rep indicated that due to the efficiency of the gasification process, idle losses are fairly minimal, and their system doesn't benefit a lot from a storage tank. At the same time, my friend indicated that a storage tank would allow for more efficient use of the wood. My friend also indicated that I'd be looking at filling it 2-3 times per day in the winter.

Now, for some math. Our current boiler is fairly inefficient, though we keep our heat turned fairly low in the winter (62F at night, 65F daytime upstairs 68F daytime downstairs) With that, we used 780 gallons of oil over the worst 12 month period. Presuming the wood gasification boiler is no less efficient than our old oil boiler, and using the btu chart at their faq I see that I need 4.9 cords of wood per year. (780 * 138,690 / 22,000,000) Presuming a simple case where I need 4 of those cords over the worst 4 months of the year, that's 1 cord per month. A cord is 128 cu ft round (unsplit), and contains only about 74-86 cu ft of solid wood, split & well stacked. That's an average of 4.3 cu ft round wood per day (or 2.7 cu ft of solid wood mass). The unit sized for my needs (EBW-150) has 6.19 cu ft of space in the firebox.

So here's what I don't understand, with the exception of a very few particularly harsh days, why would I need to load the firebox more than once per day? Surely 2.7 cu ft of solid wood mass can fit within 6 cu ft of firebox, even loosely arranged. If I do need to load it twice per day on average over the 4 coldest months, does that mean I'll be using closer to 8 or 10 cords per year?

Secondly, if I were to get a storage tank, how would that help? If losses to idling are less than 30% (and even if they're bad, I can't imagine they're that bad, I'm talking cool weather, where the heat is demanded every few hours, not summer) then that still wouldn't be able to load only once in one day on average. I might have 24 hours of heating time available in the storage tank, but I'm still going to have to load it twice per day. Those two times can just be at my convenience, instead of when the unit runs low.

Is there something I'm missing? Are losses to idling truly that bad? Or does one fill substantially less than the capacity of the firebox? Or are there far fewer two-refill days than I've come to understand?

I'd certainly like to have a system with a storage tank, I just don't think I can afford that at day one. I'd like to put in a system and save the difference in fuel costs for a few years and then invest that into a storage tank later. I'm already going to have enough work to do erecting an outbuilding to house the system, and leave suitable space for a storage tank at a later date.

Is there perhaps a different unit sized so that I can fill it only once daily for my heating needs?
 
Originally, I was answering that this had some impressive numbers, but then I looked again. The emissions levels per 10,000 btu are 3 times higher than that of Central Boiler, an OWB.

Plus I'm not sure how this answers any of my questions. Does it only need to be filled once daily? Its firebox is larger, at 8.4 cu ft, even if I do only need to load it once daily, a full load daily for 4 months still implies 8 cords over those 4 months. Some testimonials of various products seem to indicate that a lot less wood should be needed. (I even saw one overly enthusiastic "testimonial" that said someone was heating 7800 sq ft with 11 face cords for the first 3 months of winter.) (12 face cords = 4 full cords)
 
The EKO, which I have, is similar in design and function to the Econoburn. In my experience, you should be able to run fine without storage, but it's something you will want to consider adding down the line, as it just makes everything easier and I suspect adds to efficiency, despite what the sales rep may claim. The 2-3 loading sessions sounds about right, though I'd plan on using more wood--maybe twice as much--without storage.

These boilers, which are fundamentally different from the Greenwood/Seton design, are easy to use in my experience, they burn clean and kick out a lot of heat for the amount of wood burned. The only problem you will have without storage is balancing your demand to the heat output. There will be times when the boiler puts out more heat than you can use, and then it will go into idle, during which time you'll get a little smoke.

If you're comfortable running a conventional wood boiler, you won't have any trouble operating a gasiifer, I don't think, and you'll be impressed with how superior it is.
 
I haven't run a conventional wood boiler, I'm still in the 'due diligence' phase of the project. I used Pook's linked chart to make some comparisons. If you divide the heating average input emissions by output emissions levels, you should (in theory) end up with the average efficiency of the unit for this test, and hence the relative proportions of wood that should be burned to make the same amount of energy. Also, while the agency appears more interested in the emissions per input, I think what's most interesting is the emissions per output. After all, I need a certain number of btu's to heat my home. Looking at just the winter rated units, I get the following interesting comparisons. Also, I note that I presumed 88 million btu's of input per heating season, with my 50% efficient boiler, so 44 million btu's of output per heating season*, so I include the pounds of emissions per heating season.

Greenwood: .418/1.362 = 31% (60 lbs)
AFB (Econoburn) (.434/.80) = 54% (35 lbs)
Central Boiler (.21/.32) = 66% (14 lbs)

Ok, and now I'm again confused. I'm told that Central Boiler, as an OWB, should be far less efficient than a wood gasification boiler. Is it the nature of this test to skew the results? Does the test only account for high flame conditions and not idling conditions? Every time I think I'm getting to an answer, my calculations go in the wrong direction. In this case, the AFB should require 22% more wood than the CB for a given number of BTU's, and the Greenwood boiler 113% more wood than the CB. Am I completely misreading these columns?

* (That is to say, if I currently use 88 MBTU's per season at 50%, only 44 MBTU's are making it into the output, and hence warming my house)
 
The problem, as pointed in out in another thread, is that the tests are designed to measure emissions under very specific conditions, i.e., specific shape and moisture content of the fuel and burns conducted under a set of different parameters. Unfortunately, the test results don't really reflect actual battlefield conditions. The Central Boiler model in this instance is an OWB, but a new one designed to work like a downdraft gasifier.

The CB unit may have passed the test, but I don't believe there are currently any operating in the field. The dealer I spoke with last month had never seen one in operation, and he was trying to sell them at a trade show. So regardless of what the tests results are, your mileage is going to vary.

If you use wood that has a higher moisture content than what the boiler was designed to burn, for example, you won't get nearly the efficiency nor the clean burn suggested by the test. The list goes on and on.

We're talking about wood here, not oil or gas. Wood is a pretty inconsistent form of solid fuel, with quality being determined by things like moisture content, type of wood, shape and size of the chunks you're feeding the boiler with, etc. Bottom line: the kind of analysis you're doing is not going to yield the information you need to make your decision.

The typical approach would be to determine your heating load with a heat loss calculator. You can download one for free at http://www.heatinghelp.com. Then buy a boiler that is sized to meet or exceed that number. The manufacturers have already taken the average efficiency of their units into account when making the output calculation. If you plan to add storage at some point, then boiler sizing becomes even less important, because you can run the boiler at full output (peak efficiency) and store the heat, regardless of your heat load. Then all you need to do is keep the tank above a certain temp, say 120.
 
Eric Johnson said:
The 2-3 loading sessions sounds about right, though I'd plan on using more wood--maybe twice as much--without storage.

Does this mean I should be looking at 2-3 loading sessions per day with storage, and 3-6 sessions without? (presuming a properly sized unit) And am I likely to see that all through the winter, or just on particularly cold days? If each load is 4 of the 6 available cu ft based on 128 cu ft cord and I need 2.5 fills per day, that's over 9 cu ft for 4 months.

Though, its good to know that the CB I compared to isn't what I thought it was, that means my math isn't entirely useless, even if it isn't a great comparison. I was just doing it to provide myself with some relative efficiencies, not really sizing of units. I wouldn't go with a unit that has no track record, but it isn't surprising that a brand new unit gets numbers that are better than units that have been around a while, because the science should be constantly advancing. On the downside, a brand new unit with great numbers probably has some kinks that will lower those numbers as it really goes into service.
 
If you size your boiler to your heat load then on the cold days you will have to fill it up but on the warmer days you will make smaller fires. The thing with a gasifer is they burn best at full output. they will idle but when they kick in again they will smoke alittle untill they get gasifing good again. Thats why storage makes life easier with them. depending on the storage you may only have to make one fire all day on even the coldest days and only fire it up every other day on warmer days. With out storage you will have to keep a fire going somewhat any time you need heat. The eko does fairly well idleing once you learn how to time your filling and how much you fill it. If you are going to idle you want it to be towards the end of each burn so you will have less smoke. You don't want to fill it up and have it go into idle in the next half hour . Check out some of the threads of the seton type boilers and you will see what will happen if you fill them up amd don't burn them hot long enough. I think that is what is going to happen with the CB as people are going to try and run them like the old OWB's , fill them up and expect them to run for two days and they will be problems. Any of the boilers will operate with out storage but I really think the manufaturers are doing a misservice by not encourageing storage. I know it costs more but it solves so many problems and makes life easier. Storage doesn't have to cost a arm and a leg. there are lots of ideas here and if you look at your situation I'm sure that you can find somet6hing that will fit.
leaddog
 
Leaddog is right. With adequate storage, you can fill the firebox up full every time you load the boiler, which is the most efficient and most convenient way to go. You will get more mileage out of a full firebox than you will with two half-full loads, for a variety of reasons. Without storage, you can only fill it full during the coldest weather. So basically, it's more work and calculation to go without storage, though certainly not difficult to manage once you get the hang of it.

The results on the new CB remain to be seen. You really don't know how well any new design is going to hold up until after it's been field-tested for a season or two. All sorts of problems can emerge when you have an installed base operating under a variety of different conditions, and the problems tend to come out in forums like this one. The CB gasifier looks like a well-built boiler and I hope it operates as expected. I'm a bit put off by the company's opening salvo, which is to claim 98% efficiency. That's clearly not possible, and it makes me wonder how much of their new offering is hype, and how much is engineering.
 
Eric Johnson said:
once you get the hang of it.

My suggestion would be to NOT attempt to convert all this data with some magic formula into a new fangled way to burn once a day without storage. I have no storage, and if I am using space heating I load based on 3 loads a day. When I am only doing DHW I do one, small, hot (high quality, dry hardwood) fire, then let it burn out.

I can only say based on my GW, but I suspect it is similar with other brands . . . If you over fill without storage, it will spend more time idling, and the same amount of wood will burn up faster. The closer you can get to a full-out burn, the better the efficiency. This probably is more of an art without storage.

Quite probably, if you have never used a wood-fired hydronic before, the first season will show you just how little you actually know. I also suspect that each unit has it's own learning curve. The GW curve was a groan. Maybe it was the operator :lol:
 
I'll trust an experienced operator over mfg. claims or test results any day.

Pook, you're starting to sound like broken record with the GW stats.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.