Hi,
I'm sure this has been discussed but here goes;
Currently I run a buckstove 74 insert. I live in Michigan and though I do have a furnace I heat the house primarily with wood. Gas bill is usually 30 bucks a month.
Anyways I go through A LOT of wood, maybe 10 face cords per season. The 74 gets about 3-4 hours max usefully heat, my house is old, big, and drafty so it's usually cold when I wake up. Generally there is enough coals to get a fire going.
I'm not old but I'm tired of filling and tending the stove constantly,cutting kindling, and also I source my own wood from downed trees which takes a lot of labor in the spring.
So I've watched some YouTube and read some manufacturers claims of 12 hour burn times with the catalytic.
Are those claims realistic? Seems like I would reduce my consumption by at least half if those claims are accurate.
At 4000 bucks I wanna be sure before I swap out my perfectly functioning reburner for something that may not provide what I'm looking for.
Thanks for any input!
I'm sure this has been discussed but here goes;
Currently I run a buckstove 74 insert. I live in Michigan and though I do have a furnace I heat the house primarily with wood. Gas bill is usually 30 bucks a month.
Anyways I go through A LOT of wood, maybe 10 face cords per season. The 74 gets about 3-4 hours max usefully heat, my house is old, big, and drafty so it's usually cold when I wake up. Generally there is enough coals to get a fire going.
I'm not old but I'm tired of filling and tending the stove constantly,cutting kindling, and also I source my own wood from downed trees which takes a lot of labor in the spring.
So I've watched some YouTube and read some manufacturers claims of 12 hour burn times with the catalytic.
Are those claims realistic? Seems like I would reduce my consumption by at least half if those claims are accurate.
At 4000 bucks I wanna be sure before I swap out my perfectly functioning reburner for something that may not provide what I'm looking for.
Thanks for any input!