I think my natural gas furnace is more efficient than running my new pellet stove.

[GVA]

Still though, I can't quite find the savings that you promised me.
http://www.quadrafire.com/products/stoves/gasStoveDetail.asp?f=CASTILE-DV
this was the first one i checked and didn't check any further...... 81% efficient.
Now using your calculator with the defaults.
pellet stove 70% eff at $200 per ton (or the $5 a bag you stated earlier)======$17.71 per mil BTU
gas stove at 80% eff at $1.84 per therm===========================$23.00 per mil BTU

so I punched in a more realistic minimum # for a pellet stove
pellet stove 80% eff at $200 per ton==============================$15.50 per mil BTU

You might have me confused with someone else. You see I bought my stove when pellets WERE cheaper, but maybe I should get a gas stove and wood stove and rotate them out baseed on the market.......
My wife was all excited when I said that we could add another stove to the house and run NG and save money..... Now I guess I have to break the news to her :shut:

 

[webbie]

Hmmm, I'll have to check out the calculations......it is actually quite simple, beyond the fact that I will highly doubt an average 80% AFUE on most pellet stoves - after all a fixed fuel like NG which is run at a lower range of outputs can be engineered better. But for discussions sake, I say we make 'em even-stephen. So we can just count input btu

Wood is 8500 BTU per pound....a fair figure.
A THERM is 100,000 BTU

Therefore, the bag of pellets contains 40 lbs or a total of 340,000 BTU, or 3.4 therms of gas.

That's all there is to it. But to be fair, the average pellet user here paid closer to $250 or MORE for pellets delivered.....or even picked up when gas and hauling are figured. I remember very few reports of low priced (under $200) pellets.

Bottom line (as Cramer says) - Pellet at $200 a ton have some appeal, but at the prices of $250-300 paid by most here last fall and winter, it's not an economic advantage over NG...or even Fuel oil for that matter, except I don't like Fuel Oil freestanding stoves, so NG is the better comparison.

I'll check those calculators. We have to remember that Pellets were $160-$200 a ton for many years - and even less out west. That's the "baseline", but we are not likely to see that unless there is overcapacity (like right this moment).

Still on the thread subject - Is it cheaper? The one word answer of "Is it cheaper to burn NG in an efficient free standing stove vs. Pellets in an efficient freestanding stove".......if I had to give a one word answer it would be no. If we added some "buts", then we could explain that the prices for gas vary, and also for pellets and the maintenance of the pellet unit is more, etc. - but the general answer would be that for the majority of people (who, BTW, pay lower than $184 per therm - and who pay higher than $200 for pellets) - it's a wash or worse.

Corn and other biomass coming up the pike is another story if you are close to the source. BOTH NG and Pellets are usually much cheaper than LP or Electric.... that's my story and I'm sticking to it (but will check the calculator).

 

[GVA]

Bottom line (as Cramer says) - Pellet at $200 a ton have some appeal, but at the prices of $250-300 paid by most here last fall and winter, it's not an economic advantage over NG...or even Fuel oil for that matter, except I don't like Fuel Oil freestanding stoves, so NG is the better comparison.

I'll check those calculators. We have to remember that Pellets were $160-$200 a ton for many years - and even less out west. That's the "baseline", but we are not likely to see that unless there is overcapacity (like right this moment).

First that's one of the reasons for people to buy early whether it be pellets or wood.... oil prices can be locked in.... NG that's a different story.
Buy pellets early
Get your wood supply early.
I remember pellets when they were cheap............er
however oil and gas have gone up at the same (or close) rate so the savings is the same but the overall cost is pathetic...
I'll give wood burners the win----------------- although it is not a competition.
some just don't have the means to store wood so it's not an option.
and those Bio thingy's 40 lbs were $5.95. another not so viable solution as of yet.
I hope that those making new fuels could get the costs down a bit more......... We'll see what happens

 

[Jabberwocky]

Great thread - thanks for all the analysis. Sure, there's an element of the environmentalist motivating me but I need to answer to the wife, too.

I'm not so sure that 1 bag equals 3.4 therms. I used 137 therms for heating last month (35 day cycle). So that would have been 40 bags in 35 days. Yet, last month wasn't very cold and I keep my house at 62 day and 58 at night. I just don't believe that more than a bag a day in a pellet stove would have only gotten me 62/58 degrees this past month.

For the record, my total bills was $281.72 for 159 therms used (32 therms go to hot water)

In my old house (smaller but with a very old pellet stove), I'd burn 25 bags a month only if we got consistent sub zero temps and I'd have the house at 73-75. This March we didn't even had 1 day below zero, yet I still burnt 137 therms for heating (40 bags) while I, the misses and the kids froze our asses at 62 degrees.

Certainly, pellets at $250+ when oil/gas are at moderate prices cuts into the economics of pellets as compared to $200 a ton. But I know I can count on Keyspan to keep their prices sky high, It'll always be $1500/yr so we can freeze. When pellets are $750 a ton, then I'll rethink them.

 

[GVA]

It's important to remember that these are input BTU's
I've burned 25 bags the past 30 days=85 therms or 8,500,000 BTU's
The room the stove is in is still 76* and the surrounding rooms are aout 72-74*

 

[Jabberwocky]

I think your data backs up mine. You're burning more than a bag a day and your home is very warm.

 

[Hammerjoe]

This thread has gone somwhat off topic.

The OP raises a good point, that pellets are actually more expensive than natural gas to heat his home, and that is a fact according to the OP figures as he got a Gas bill for $90 for 30days and in 18 days has burned $50 worth of pellets and he still uses his furnace as a suplement to keep the house warm.

It doesnt matter what the formulas are, what calculations used, what BTU's each provide, the fact is Pellets are not the cost saving they are supposed to be.
Something is wrong with this picture, Natural gas a finite resource, usually under a monpoly corporation is actually less expensive than pellets, a renewable energy, made out of waste wood and easily accessible (meaning no need for pipelines and such)

I can't blame the OP if he fees hels been hosed by the hype that pellets will save him money.

Truth is, oil and gas stayed reasonably stable and pellets increased almost 100% in less than a year.
This industry has to realize that to compete pellets *do* need to be cheaper than oil/gas.
Oil/gas has all the advantages of pellets + the convenience of no work involved by the owner, pellet stove on the other hand do require someone to dump the pellets in, do require constant cleaning and honestly with people budgets being so tight feeling "green" is not reason enough for people to switch from gas/oil.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Not sure what the price of gas is in NB but OP is getting veeerrry cheap natural gas. He's in Iowa, are you up on your American geography? Think Saskatchewan vs. Quebec. His point is moot. But yeah, if natural gas goes down to $.50 therm I'll burn it and open the windows to share it with the neighbors. In the same way, if pellets were over $700/ton I'd call it even based on my climate, local prices, etc. etc.

 

[begreen]

If natural gas were .50/therm, I'd still push for tighter houses with better insulation. There is a generation or two coming after us. But I don't think anyone has to worry about this. Natural gas is also used for fertilizer production and that's a growing market ;-).