I wanted to give my viewpoints after owning a pellet stove (Harman P38), a wood burning insert (cw2500) and a pellet furnance (pf100). Just my experience, I'm not an expert. The following is just what I think, no need to flame 
First off let me preface this by saying I purchased all appliances used and I paid about the same for the P38 and the pf100. The cs2500 was significantly less expensive and my expectations were adjusted.
Summary of experience with pellets - IMO pellets are best suited for a heating solution when you don't have NG available. Pellet appliances don't require much, just a regularly scheduled cleaning for almost seamless operation. Our P38 would burn 12-14 hours on its own (about 1 bag). The furnace can go almost 72 hours (3-4 bags). (We live in the UP for climate reference). I've been fortunate to not have any significant issues nor require expensive replacement parts for the appliances we own.
The difference between the furnace and the stove is amazing. Our pf100 is heating a larger, older home than the p38 did and the pf100 is consuming about the same amount of pellets that the P38 did. We are also getting constant heat through out the house. The P38 wouldn't be able to do that without using extra fans, open doors, etc. In short, I would trade the ambiance of the stove for the efficiency of the furnace any day. Is the pf100 worth the $5500? Hmmm, that really depends on your income and point of view. I paid less than 1/3 of that price and I'm very happy with it. Of the three, the pf100 is my favorite when it comes to needing even heat in the house and minimum upkeep.
Wood burning - The EPA stoves are pretty amazing when you think of their efficiency vs an open fireplace. Granted our CW2500 is very inexpensive and has its limitations due to a smaller firebox. Of the three appliances we've owned, this one provides the best ambiance, hands down. Although burning wood has it's own "gratification". If you get your wood for free, you are still spending a significant amount of time splitting, stacking, hauling and loading. Also, wood is a constant mess. There's a mess where it's stacked near the insert; there is a mess where I cut and split it.
When I was researching wood vs pellets the argument of power came up. Yes, the pellet appliances require power to burn. However, the wood appliance really need power to get the heat out of them using a blower. I think it's a wash.
In summary, the wood burner can't be beat when it comes to ambiance. There is nothing like a fire going in the living room with the secondaries burning.
The pellet appliances can't be beat when it comes to efficiency. They heat up SO much quicker than wood, dump in a bag and you'll have hours of unattended heat. If anyone is considering a pf100, let me know. I have nothing but good things to say about it and will be happy to expand on it.
Happy New Year to everyone, just wanted to share my experience.
First off let me preface this by saying I purchased all appliances used and I paid about the same for the P38 and the pf100. The cs2500 was significantly less expensive and my expectations were adjusted.
Summary of experience with pellets - IMO pellets are best suited for a heating solution when you don't have NG available. Pellet appliances don't require much, just a regularly scheduled cleaning for almost seamless operation. Our P38 would burn 12-14 hours on its own (about 1 bag). The furnace can go almost 72 hours (3-4 bags). (We live in the UP for climate reference). I've been fortunate to not have any significant issues nor require expensive replacement parts for the appliances we own.
The difference between the furnace and the stove is amazing. Our pf100 is heating a larger, older home than the p38 did and the pf100 is consuming about the same amount of pellets that the P38 did. We are also getting constant heat through out the house. The P38 wouldn't be able to do that without using extra fans, open doors, etc. In short, I would trade the ambiance of the stove for the efficiency of the furnace any day. Is the pf100 worth the $5500? Hmmm, that really depends on your income and point of view. I paid less than 1/3 of that price and I'm very happy with it. Of the three, the pf100 is my favorite when it comes to needing even heat in the house and minimum upkeep.
Wood burning - The EPA stoves are pretty amazing when you think of their efficiency vs an open fireplace. Granted our CW2500 is very inexpensive and has its limitations due to a smaller firebox. Of the three appliances we've owned, this one provides the best ambiance, hands down. Although burning wood has it's own "gratification". If you get your wood for free, you are still spending a significant amount of time splitting, stacking, hauling and loading. Also, wood is a constant mess. There's a mess where it's stacked near the insert; there is a mess where I cut and split it.
When I was researching wood vs pellets the argument of power came up. Yes, the pellet appliances require power to burn. However, the wood appliance really need power to get the heat out of them using a blower. I think it's a wash.
In summary, the wood burner can't be beat when it comes to ambiance. There is nothing like a fire going in the living room with the secondaries burning.
The pellet appliances can't be beat when it comes to efficiency. They heat up SO much quicker than wood, dump in a bag and you'll have hours of unattended heat. If anyone is considering a pf100, let me know. I have nothing but good things to say about it and will be happy to expand on it.
Happy New Year to everyone, just wanted to share my experience.
Were they all in the same home at different times?
![[Hearth.com] My experience with a pellet stove vs. wood burning insert vs. pellet furnace](/talk/data/attachments/121/121880-bf6fcaf8bd27da72037fe9603c39a327.jpg?hash=kY2aW8SupW)
- recent acquisition?
