I am looking into replacing an oil boiler with a wood boiler for a 10,000 sf highway garage in NYS.
My first choice right now is a Garn WHS 2000.
Although I am considering other alternatives - including the smaller model - since I just got a quote of over 18,000.
This includes shipping, 18' chimney and chemicals.
I would think that installation could add another 5k to that.
The garage right now has dual oil burners rated at 320k input and I think around 245k output.
The burners alternate. However I have been told that in really cold weather both will come on.
Yearly gallons of oil burned is about 5,000.
The system is a radiant heat system.
1. My first worry is that a Garn may run afoul of the proposed NYS OWB regulations when they go into effect.
I am not totally convinced of the explanation Garn - and other co's for that matter - give for not participating in the EPA's testing program. It would be very bad to put this in and then have to tear it out considering the above cost.
I don't see why Garn just doesn't submit to testing.
You would think the units would burn just as clean as the boilers that have been approved.
The general opinion here seems to be that gasifiers are substantially superior to standard owb's.
That being the case, I would think Garn and the others abstaining should be able to easily meet these standards - even if the test methodology isn't optimum.
It looks like the systems that are being approved are gasifiers. I would think companies with years of experience ought to be able to surpass a group that are new at this.
On the other hand I am wondering if Garn can claim it is not an OWB - as I believe it can be sited indoors although not usually practical to do so.
It's possible that this is how they have been treated in Vermont.
I sent an email to the Vermont Division of Natural Resources asking this question but have yet to receive a replay.
2. Proper sizing
The WHS 2000 has a burn rate of 425,000. I am not sure what this means.
But if it means output - which will vary as they note - then the system is probably oversized to a degree.
The reason for going with the middle size is the additional storage and the added btu output.
Together the two should allow a greater time frame between firings.
I am hoping for 7 hours minimum in really cold weather.
I would think the smaller unit would only get 6.
Although the Garn site warns against oversizing, I don't see the problem here when there is this much water storage - other than maybe wasted energy.
Also it should heat up the system faster if it falls behind during really cold nights.
3. Hooking into current system
I am hoping we can fit this inside in the place of one of the current oil boilers.
But we may have to build a shed beside the building.
I am thinking that we could pretty much keep the current control system by using a heat exchanger.
Any ideas on the feasibility and cost of that.
4. Also I assume we need a separate chimney. I.e. we can't share the current chimney with the oil burner.
5. New EPA rated boilers.
I have been looking at some of the EPA rated units.
One problem I have with them is lack of clarity on output.
Based on historical usage I have a fairly good idea of needed Btu's.
One of these units claims it can heat up to a 10,000 sf space - which is just what we need.
However when you look at the EPA test it's average btu output for 8 hours is 100,00 Btu.
I can't find btu output ratings on it's site for the new boiler.
And the new central boiler talks about gallons of oil saved - not btu output.
Rich
My first choice right now is a Garn WHS 2000.
Although I am considering other alternatives - including the smaller model - since I just got a quote of over 18,000.
This includes shipping, 18' chimney and chemicals.
I would think that installation could add another 5k to that.
The garage right now has dual oil burners rated at 320k input and I think around 245k output.
The burners alternate. However I have been told that in really cold weather both will come on.
Yearly gallons of oil burned is about 5,000.
The system is a radiant heat system.
1. My first worry is that a Garn may run afoul of the proposed NYS OWB regulations when they go into effect.
I am not totally convinced of the explanation Garn - and other co's for that matter - give for not participating in the EPA's testing program. It would be very bad to put this in and then have to tear it out considering the above cost.
I don't see why Garn just doesn't submit to testing.
You would think the units would burn just as clean as the boilers that have been approved.
The general opinion here seems to be that gasifiers are substantially superior to standard owb's.
That being the case, I would think Garn and the others abstaining should be able to easily meet these standards - even if the test methodology isn't optimum.
It looks like the systems that are being approved are gasifiers. I would think companies with years of experience ought to be able to surpass a group that are new at this.
On the other hand I am wondering if Garn can claim it is not an OWB - as I believe it can be sited indoors although not usually practical to do so.
It's possible that this is how they have been treated in Vermont.
I sent an email to the Vermont Division of Natural Resources asking this question but have yet to receive a replay.
2. Proper sizing
The WHS 2000 has a burn rate of 425,000. I am not sure what this means.
But if it means output - which will vary as they note - then the system is probably oversized to a degree.
The reason for going with the middle size is the additional storage and the added btu output.
Together the two should allow a greater time frame between firings.
I am hoping for 7 hours minimum in really cold weather.
I would think the smaller unit would only get 6.
Although the Garn site warns against oversizing, I don't see the problem here when there is this much water storage - other than maybe wasted energy.
Also it should heat up the system faster if it falls behind during really cold nights.
3. Hooking into current system
I am hoping we can fit this inside in the place of one of the current oil boilers.
But we may have to build a shed beside the building.
I am thinking that we could pretty much keep the current control system by using a heat exchanger.
Any ideas on the feasibility and cost of that.
4. Also I assume we need a separate chimney. I.e. we can't share the current chimney with the oil burner.
5. New EPA rated boilers.
I have been looking at some of the EPA rated units.
One problem I have with them is lack of clarity on output.
Based on historical usage I have a fairly good idea of needed Btu's.
One of these units claims it can heat up to a 10,000 sf space - which is just what we need.
However when you look at the EPA test it's average btu output for 8 hours is 100,00 Btu.
I can't find btu output ratings on it's site for the new boiler.
And the new central boiler talks about gallons of oil saved - not btu output.
Rich
