The case against low quality pellets...

[movemaine]

I started this thought in another thread, but thought I would break it out for a broader discussion.

There's a lot of chatter around shoulder pellets and/or only buying pellets in the sub $200 range.

This is my case for burning the best quality pellets (highest btu/lowest ash) you can buy.

If you use only straight readily available data, the cheaper quality pellet is a no-brainer. Try my pellet comparison tool below. If you compare a cheaper pellet against a high quality pellet, the cheaper pellet will be the most cost effective in achieving desired temps/btus.

Generally known factors that people are aware of:

Maintenance:

• Cheaper pellets generally produce more ash/cleanup
  • increased wear & tear on stove
  • decreased part lifespan
• Cheaper pellets need increased burn rates to achieve desired temps
  • increased wear & tear on stove
  • decreased part lifespan

There's currently not any data on how the above would translate into actual dollars per ton, so we all quantify the above based on our own personal experience/perspective.

However, there are other factors that come into play, but are not so easy to quantify.

Namely, let's say you have pellet A - 8k btus and pellet B - 9k btus. To reach a desired temp, you will have to burn more pellet A than you would pellet B. Your stove will have to work harder with pellet A, and burn at a higher burn rate to achieve the desired temp. This higher burn rate has a higher CFM (cubic feet per minute) for the combustion blower. Due to the higher CFM, more air is being sucked into the stove - that air (unless you have an OAK) is drawing in air from other parts of the house and drawing in cold air in from the outside (negative air pressure). Pellet A will draw in more cold air than pellet B, because of the increased burn rate.

By burning a cheaper pellet, you are actually causing your stove to increase the negative pressure in the house and are drawing in more cold air than if you used pellet B. Your stove then has to overcome this increased amount of cold air brought in due to negative air pressure.

So the question is, does the increased maintenance and compounded decreased efficiency cover the dollar difference between a cheap pellet and a high quality pellet?

For me, I think it does. My time is worth money (at least to me) - so the increased maintenance is a negative. Additionally, my stove is only 48k btu's, which means when it's really cold I'm up against my maximum burn rate and a high quality pellet will spit out more btu's to overcome the drawn in cold air.

I think my above argument is actually a bigger argument for OAKs than better pellets. If you can eliminate negative air pressure, you are going to see an increase in efficiency as your stove won't have to overcome an influx of cold air.

Additionally, for those with stoves in the 55k-65k btu range, I think this argument is largely moot, as those stoves have a much higher burn rate and can overcome the decreased efficiency of the cold air influx.

Ok.

Discuss.

 

[jtakeman]

I don't put a lot of faith in the lab tests BTU content. Its a per pound basis with no regard to the amount of volume in the pound of fuel. Because pellet stoves feed by volume to the burnpot you have to also look at bulk density too, A pellet that allows more fiber(size density) will offer a higher heat output but usually consume a hopper load faster. But should equal out by less run time as it will bring inside temp up faster. That is as long as the stove is controlled by a stat.

 

[newf lover]

My head hurts after reading that. For me it's simple; I burn Turman because it burns clean and hot, I don't have to bother with it as often. I do a quick clean every week because I'm OCD, but I don't have to. I burned NEWP for a season and didn't like my stove as much. It required more of my time, the ash was ridiculous, the heat was less. Like movemaine said, my time is money. However, there are people who simply don't have money to fork over over $1000 for 4 tons of the expensive stuff. There are people who don't care about cleaning ash, or are less fussy and let it build up. I'm not sure it could ever be quantified how much wear and tear this would cause to a stove. I would have to leave that to the guys who service stoves for a living.

 

[movemaine]

I don't put a lot of faith in the lab tests BTU content. Its a per pound basis with no regard to the amount of volume in the pound of fuel. Because pellet stoves feed by volume to the burnpot you have to also look at bulk density too, A pellet that allows more fiber(size density) will offer a higher heat output but usually consume a hopper load faster. But should equal out by less run time as it will bring inside temp up faster. That is as long as the stove is controlled by a stat.

Well hell, then it's all conjecture at that point, because there's no way you can gather enough data to actually make an informed decision.

 

[jtakeman]

Well hell, then it's all conjecture at that point, because there's no way you can gather enough data to actually make an informed decision.

Just keep doing what works for ya. There are so many variables in this game. Not just with the pellets, Stoves themselves also have variables. Take for instance the EPA ratings that got some a nice discount on their stoves. Some stoves were never EPA tested or they just took a default(78%) while others had them tested. The biggest IMHO is the heat ex-changers.

One variable between a standard pellet stove and a multifuel stove is the self cleaning burnpot. Self cleaners keep the air passages clean which keeps the stove burning at a more efficient rate IMHO while burning higher ash content pellets.

 

[john193]

I used to stick with the mid grade stuff (price wise) and always thought it was great, until I went for the "good" stuff. I'm convinced that the extra $30-40 ton upcharge is completely worth the time savings in cleaning and the increased heat output. I dont bother with the cheap stuff anymore. It doesnt pay.

 

[MCPO]

I don`t think you have to get that technical with this issue . If you are an experienced pellet burner all you need is to burn a few bags of pellets to tell you all you need to know about how good they heat and how dirty they get the stove. .No more cheap pellets for me.

 

[save$]

I burn MWP because they are cheaper, here anyway, (209 at HD ) and they are far less dirty than some others that I paid $270 a ton. The softies cost more, got a wee more heat, but not worth the price point. I enjoy cleaning my stove. Every time I do the leaf blower thing, I get a kick out of it. When I take the blower off and dig into the stove cleaning and brushing and running the vac I get a sense of victory over the evil ash monster! For me, it isn't all price, it is the performance YOU get.

 

[movemaine]

I burn MWP because they are cheaper, here anyway, (209 at HD ) and they are far less dirty than some others that I paid $270 a ton. The softies cost more, got a wee more heat, but not worth the price point. I enjoy cleaning my stove. Every time I do the leaf blower thing, I get a kick out of it. When I take the blower off and dig into the stove cleaning and brushing and running the vac I get a sense of victory over the evil ash monster! For me, it isn't all price, it is the performance YOU get.

Maybe I'd feel different if I had a tee or easy access - mine goes up my chimney, and it's a little hairy up on the roof (steep pitch).

 

[save$]

Maybe I'd feel different if I had a tee or easy access - mine goes up my chimney, and it's a little hairy up on the roof (steep pitch).

You bet that one right! I don't do ladders. I have a T and I have ground level access to my stove vent. If I couldn't do that, there would not be a stove. I can't have something I can't take care of or afford to hire it done.

 

[moey]

for the cost of some of the more expensive pellets your starting to converge on how much it would cost to run a oil or propane system. Of course many folks have a old system that is very ineffecient. Something to think about if paying 280+ a ton.

 

[UpStateNY]

I wonder when Lowes and other big box stores will start selling both the good stuff at $280 a ton and the cheap stuff at $220 a ton. Currently Lowes has said there is no market for the good stuff. If you want the good stuff you got to go elsewhere.

For the folks that burn less than 2 ton a year it probably doesn't matter.

 

[jtakeman]

I wonder when Lowes and other big box stores will start selling both the good stuff at $280 a ton and the cheap stuff at $220 a ton. Currently Lowes has said there is no market for the good stuff. If you want the good stuff you got to go elsewhere.

For the folks that burn less than 2 ton a year it probably doesn't matter.

Check member IHATEPROPANE post

https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/help-choosing-my-pellets.113040/#post-1507253

Looks like they are trying to do just that! Our local Lowes is getting more for Greene Teams than any other pellet they sell. $279/ton for the GT's vs $219 for the others. This is the second seaon as well.

 

[save$]

I wonder when Lowes and other big box stores will start selling both the good stuff at $280 a ton and the cheap stuff at $220 a ton. Currently Lowes has said there is no market for the good stuff. If you want the good stuff you got to go elsewhere.

For the folks that burn less than 2 ton a year it probably doesn't matter.

Lowes has both here.

 

[jlupi]

sometimes the $209 pellets are quite good at lowes, They seem to switch up brands quite a bit.

 

[DV]

I just burn pellets.

 

[briansol]

Real world "butt dyno" testing, I disagree.
I think using the cheap pellets (when its cold) actually costs more.

In order to maintain temp, I have to run a level or two higher than I would with a better pellet.
this goes form 2 lbs per hour to 4 pounds per hour.

therefore, until cheapo's are 200 and good ones are 400 (double the usage), it is still cheaper to burn the better stuff.