I recall reading where someone wrote his Italian Pallizetti(sp) pellet stove would cut his pellet usage in less than half (or something close) to that compared to other brands. Maybe I read it wrong but if not I`d be wary of such claims. The European designs are drop dead gorgeous and I don`t doubt they might even be a bit more efficient than the best north American competition but anything more than a bit is hard to swallow..
Beware of claims that Italian or Euro pellet stoves are superior?
- Thread starter MCPO
- 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
Pallazzetti's have a good rep, extremely quiet and have high efficiency rating. Not heard of any dissatisfied owners. The only caveat is they only digest the very best pellets you can buy.
Since they are not EPA certified the efficiencies is something you have to take at their words.
Since they are not EPA certified the efficiencies is something you have to take at their words.
Bioburner
Moderator
Having purchased a good American stove or two and an Italian pellet stove they both have thier merits. And the North american stoves don't put a spin on the stoves? Ecoteck is tested by Warnock Hersey.
Well as I understand things that EPA efficiency figure actually says damn little about pellet consumption as it is a mish mash. So it is indeed possible for one stove to best another on the pellet consumption side of things one thing that would help is for that stove to not run a 35 to 1 air to fuel ratio to obtain a complete burn (say around 7 to 1 instead) and actually have a nice large heat exchanger that actually puts the heat into the room instead of up the flue would be another.
Yes, that claim in that post is not credible.......so for the same amount of heat, the stove would have to be twice as efficient as his old stove......so lets say 80% x 2 = 160%.....that sounds reasonable....right?
Not if the EPA effeceincy figure is a true efficiency figure it isn't and if he is saying that he burns 1/2 the pellets as he was while you might think it is not possible it very well can be, pellets burned isn't the same as efficiency.
Efficiency = (BTU of air blowing into the room) divided by (BTU content of pellets burned). For the same BTU output, a stove twice as efficient will burn half the pellets....simple math.
Yes but that isn't the same as those lovely touted EPA figures and your description is bass ackwards BTUs into the room divided by the BTUs output from the pellets burned x 100
Which is a far cry from BTUs into the room divided by possible BTUs output from the pellets burned x 100.
...I corrected my typo...
EPA measures efficiency by measuring the BTU of the flue exhaust, and comparing that to the BTU content of the fuel being burned
Efficiency = ((BTU Fuel Content) - (BTU Flue)) / (BTU Fuel Content)
This will give you the same efficiency result no matter which formula you use.
EPA measures efficiency by measuring the BTU of the flue exhaust, and comparing that to the BTU content of the fuel being burned
Efficiency = ((BTU Fuel Content) - (BTU Flue)) / (BTU Fuel Content)
This will give you the same efficiency result no matter which formula you use.
It involves an average of burn efficiency, electrical energy efficiency , and one other figure the heat exchanger efficiency IIRC (I haven't looked at the definition in several years). It was posted on line on one of their sites and one of the national lab sites.
The combustion efficiency is considered to be 98% and the electrical efficiency is considered to be 99% add the heat exchanger efficiency in and divide by three not exactly a good way to do things but such as it may be, pellet stoves range between 50% and 86% efficient by this method. Note not one mention of into the room BTUs in the whole daffinition. Anyone want to hazard a guess on what this means in the real world?
Just so everyone understands the amount of energy extracted by a pellet stove is so far below the maximum possible which is something like enough to power the US for 1.81 months from 1 pound of pellets. But we just ain't there yet (think total mass to energy conversion ala nuclear processes).
The combustion efficiency is considered to be 98% and the electrical efficiency is considered to be 99% add the heat exchanger efficiency in and divide by three not exactly a good way to do things but such as it may be, pellet stoves range between 50% and 86% efficient by this method. Note not one mention of into the room BTUs in the whole daffinition. Anyone want to hazard a guess on what this means in the real world?
Just so everyone understands the amount of energy extracted by a pellet stove is so far below the maximum possible which is something like enough to power the US for 1.81 months from 1 pound of pellets. But we just ain't there yet (think total mass to energy conversion ala nuclear processes).
Yes, efficiency is measured by escaping stack btu divided into to total btu of fuel since it is safe to assume that any btu lost in transmission was lost inside the home.
X 100 but you are forgetting about the heat released by the electrical parts of the stove and that definition makes far too much sense to be used and unless they recently changed is not the one that they allowed the stove makers to plaster all over the place.
Anyone know what the ASTM 44.2 test involves, I think it is stack temp efficiency. The folks from astm are holding a round table at the heatne conference April 3 to gain input for the inclusion of biomass heaters in the standard
No, but the only thing I can remember about stack tests was that they were more along the lines of efficeincy by the means of smoke and other items in the exhaust stream.
The point I was trying to make is that a stove that consumes half as much pellets as another stove, while providing the same amount of BTUs of heat into a home, is twice as efficient.
Concerning the electrical consumption, the typical 80 to 100 watts of blower motor consumption is a small BTU contribution (3.4 BTU/Wx100W=340 BTUs) of the total heat energy into the home, as compared to the hot air output (from burning the wood), which ranges from 10,000 to 60,000 BTUs for a typical stove.
Concerning the electrical consumption, the typical 80 to 100 watts of blower motor consumption is a small BTU contribution (3.4 BTU/Wx100W=340 BTUs) of the total heat energy into the home, as compared to the hot air output (from burning the wood), which ranges from 10,000 to 60,000 BTUs for a typical stove.
That little 80 to 100 watts becomes +33% in the efficiency figures published.
Yes and it is possible for one stove to be twice as efficient as another, in fact some of those stoves out there are less than 50% efficient in real terms and if you do everything possible to not send your heat up the flue (this includes house air you've heated) you may be able cut your fuel consumption in half. But never go on those published efficiency figures because they ain't real in all cases. Do not confuse fuel consumption with those efficiency figures and if the gubmint is involved make certain what is allowed out as an efficiency figure is a measured or assumed figure in a lot of cases with pellet stoves it is still an assumed figure.
It is like an oil burner tech telling me my heating system is 80% efficient or whatever from a 5 minute test and knowing that there are ongoing flue losses if the unit doesn't have a flue damper that closes when the burner isn't running.
Twice the efficiency or a 50% savings is a stretch. Some stoves are better than others.. Yes they are. But not that much better.
I have a good stove (Quad) and I am getting a Better stove this year. But it won't decrease my consumption by 50%
I have decreased my overall consumption by 50%
Butbi started burning wood. So I burn 3 cord of wood my basement, to save 2.5 ton of pellets a year 
reducing pellet consumption by 50% is possible, but those BTU''s have to come from from somewhere?
I have a good stove (Quad) and I am getting a Better stove this year. But it won't decrease my consumption by 50%
I have decreased my overall consumption by 50%
Butbi started burning wood. So I burn 3 cord of wood my basement, to save 2.5 ton of pellets a year reducing pellet consumption by 50% is possible, but those BTU''s have to come from from somewhere?
Lake Girl
Moderator
I would have a hard time believing that pellet consumption was 1/2 of prior use unless he also upgraded several other factors - insulation, windows, doors, etc. The Palazetti seems to be a slightly different beast in that it is a cast iron body so it may retain more heat in the body of the stove itself - a heat sink. The majolica tiles on the Ecotecks are supposed to act in a similar manner (but significantly different heat retaining ability than cast iron).
From what Keith at Northland Distributing mentioned about their testing, he admitted they screwed up by not bring superior pellets with them for the test. They didn't bring pellets with them so had to use whatever they could purchase locally. Figured they would have achieved a higher BTU for the Ecoteck stoves if he had...
From what Keith at Northland Distributing mentioned about their testing, he admitted they screwed up by not bring superior pellets with them for the test. They didn't bring pellets with them so had to use whatever they could purchase locally. Figured they would have achieved a higher BTU for the Ecoteck stoves if he had...
PoolGuyinCT
Feeling the Heat
Bioburner
Moderator
I think I can throw another wrench in the hopper. Radiant energy. Hard one to quantify with pellet stoves. Almost no radiant out of a Bixby. But a fair amount out of the Harman and Ecoteck.
Lake Girl
Moderator
I went looking ... sorry not cast body, cast combustion chamber with double combustion, majolica sides. Double combustion purportedly increases efficiency - primary combustion is the pellet, secondary is the gases given off by the primary combustion but air for secondary has to be preheated.
Lake Girl
Moderator
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
