we have a house and large shop 60x52x18 a the eaves, we are trying to decide on what to put in to heat. both are hot water systems, our total square footage is 9-10,000 square feet. need to know the pros and cons of a central boiler classic 6048 (500,000 btu) and a thermo-control (400,000) btu. everyone says the classic will eat wood, thermo guy says his will use about 1/3 less wood. says the classic is rated at 46% efficent. thermo is 76% efficent. the shop has infloor radiant heat and used 1500 gallons of heating oil. the house has radiators and used 1300 gallons. we just installed all new windows last month, and are reinsulating and new siding this fall.does anyone have REAL #S. thanks in advance
aaaaaaaaarrrrrrrggghhhhhhhhhhhh ... what to do????????
- Thread starter cvanhat
- 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. -
Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
- Status
Welcome to the Boiler Room, cvanhat.
The Central Classic will eat wood. I'm not familiar with the thermo-control, but if it's not a wood gasification boiler, then it won't see 76% efficiency, either.
The only "real" number I have handy is that a gasification boiler will use half as much wood as a conventional wood boiler or OWB like the Central. Sounds to me like you're in the market for a Garn or a big downdraft gasifier like the EKO 80. Plenty of threads here about both. Central has also introduced a big, new gasifier called the E Classic, but it's unproven technology at this point (they've just been introduced), so we really don't know how well it works, if it works at all.
The pros of gasification boilers is that they produce little to no smoke, and use a lot less wood. The downside is that they cost a bit more upfront, and you need very dry wood to take full advantage of the technology.
The Central Classic will eat wood. I'm not familiar with the thermo-control, but if it's not a wood gasification boiler, then it won't see 76% efficiency, either.
The only "real" number I have handy is that a gasification boiler will use half as much wood as a conventional wood boiler or OWB like the Central. Sounds to me like you're in the market for a Garn or a big downdraft gasifier like the EKO 80. Plenty of threads here about both. Central has also introduced a big, new gasifier called the E Classic, but it's unproven technology at this point (they've just been introduced), so we really don't know how well it works, if it works at all.
The pros of gasification boilers is that they produce little to no smoke, and use a lot less wood. The downside is that they cost a bit more upfront, and you need very dry wood to take full advantage of the technology.
I concur with Eric - I think this application calls for the BIG ONE - GARN 3200. That should handle the shop and the house quite well, and with a lot less work to feed it. Search here, go to www.garn.com, and talk to your local dealer to get some suggestions.
jim, just a couple questions, i have no garn dealer in my state(ny) clostest is in pa. how much do these sell for??
I think Dan Hudon has a Garn heating part of his operation, though much of his heat comes from the Johnson OWBs he sells. But somebody told me he's using a Garn, too. Maybe he could provide some details.
I have the EKO 60, cvan.
I understand your concerns about higher cost. Just be sure to factor in that you'll be burning half as much wood with a gasifier, say, for the next 20 years.
I have the EKO 60, cvan.
I understand your concerns about higher cost. Just be sure to factor in that you'll be burning half as much wood with a gasifier, say, for the next 20 years.
No way the Thermo-control can get near 76%.
Probably 40-50%
Classic is prob. 30-40% at best, so it is true the TC will eat 1/3 less wood.
Probably 40-50%
Classic is prob. 30-40% at best, so it is true the TC will eat 1/3 less wood.
A 3200 Garn will definitely do the job, however a pair of 2000's piped in parallel is less expensive and will provide you with 800 gallons more storage. For that matter, a pair of 1500's would easily do the job for even less and still give you 3000 gallons of storage capacity.
I'd run a heat loss calc on both buildings and determine what the real load is. I'd be willing to bet that in all but bitterly cold weather a single 2000 would carry the load. You'd have to fire it 3-4 times a day in that weather but then how often do you have 0* days? When the temps get that low your existing system could be kicked on to supplement the Garn. If the load proves to be too great you can always add another 1500 or 2000.
My recommendation would probably be a pair of 1500's. That will give you a firing rate of about 700,000 btu's minimum.
Here's a direct quote from published data for Garn emissions and efficiency.
" On January 29,2007 the US EPA issued phase 1 emission guidelines for outdoor wood fired hydronic heaters (commonly known as outdoor wood boilers). The EPA Phase 1 emission limit is 0.600 pounds of particulate emission per million BTU input. Preliminary testing of a Garn WHS unit indicated an emission level of 0.297 pounds of particulate emissoin per million BTU input. This is 51% cleaner than the EPA guideline. In addition overall efficiency was found to be 75.4% on a high heat value basis and 84% on a low heat value basis. "
This was a lab test conducted by an independent organization for the EPA. Other brands of OWB's tested ranged from 28% to 41% efficiency under those same controlled lab conditions.
Speaking from personal experience this past winter on a construction site, I have measured the heat output of a Garn 2000 at over 580,000 BTU/hour. That unit was operating under nearly constant burn conditions while a new 11,000 sq ft barn was constructed through January and February. It heated the semi enclosed space (sheets of plastic staples to studs) and thawed the ground so cement could be poured. The output was calculated by measuring GPM of flow and temp drop in the main loop supply/return. A Garn is a no BS piece of equipment. When the company says it will do something you can take it to the bank. They rate them conservatively from what I've seen.
I'd run a heat loss calc on both buildings and determine what the real load is. I'd be willing to bet that in all but bitterly cold weather a single 2000 would carry the load. You'd have to fire it 3-4 times a day in that weather but then how often do you have 0* days? When the temps get that low your existing system could be kicked on to supplement the Garn. If the load proves to be too great you can always add another 1500 or 2000.
My recommendation would probably be a pair of 1500's. That will give you a firing rate of about 700,000 btu's minimum.
Here's a direct quote from published data for Garn emissions and efficiency.
" On January 29,2007 the US EPA issued phase 1 emission guidelines for outdoor wood fired hydronic heaters (commonly known as outdoor wood boilers). The EPA Phase 1 emission limit is 0.600 pounds of particulate emission per million BTU input. Preliminary testing of a Garn WHS unit indicated an emission level of 0.297 pounds of particulate emissoin per million BTU input. This is 51% cleaner than the EPA guideline. In addition overall efficiency was found to be 75.4% on a high heat value basis and 84% on a low heat value basis. "
This was a lab test conducted by an independent organization for the EPA. Other brands of OWB's tested ranged from 28% to 41% efficiency under those same controlled lab conditions.
Speaking from personal experience this past winter on a construction site, I have measured the heat output of a Garn 2000 at over 580,000 BTU/hour. That unit was operating under nearly constant burn conditions while a new 11,000 sq ft barn was constructed through January and February. It heated the semi enclosed space (sheets of plastic staples to studs) and thawed the ground so cement could be poured. The output was calculated by measuring GPM of flow and temp drop in the main loop supply/return. A Garn is a no BS piece of equipment. When the company says it will do something you can take it to the bank. They rate them conservatively from what I've seen.
- Status
Similar threads
