wood burning stove selection

[Matttc]

Hi, recent lurker and first time poster. Looking for advice on wood burning stove location and selection. Sorry in advance for the long post.

Background:

• Interested in a wood burning stove for two main reasons:
  • Add an additional way to heat our house, which is currently heated using natural gas
  • We have an abundance of wood to burn
• House: unusual "rambling" style, with three sections. Picture below
  • A high-peaked octagonal section
    • with a central fireplace with stone facing on all sides. The fireplace is a prefab unit. Because we recently learned that prefab fireplaces won't last forever, and it would be a major project to replace (given the stonework), we don't use the fireplace much
  • 1 story section
    • this sits between the high-peaked section and 2 story sections
  • 2 story section
• Stove location: we are thinking of installing the stove in the main room of the 1 story section
  • ~725 sq ft room with a vaulted ceiling
  • Kitchen, informal dining , family room. Open layout.
  • Has an existing gas fireplace that we never use. The gas fireplace has wide cabinets on both sides, and is bumped out into the main room.
  • When discussing possible stove locations with a nearby dealer, they thought ripping out the gas fireplace and cabinets would be our best option.
• We are thinking Vermont Castings, because that is the main line offered by our nearby dealer, and we like the idea of top-loading

Questions:

• Given the unusual roofline, is the proposed stove location viable from a flue performance perspective? It is somewhat in-between the high-peaked octagonal section and the 2 story section
• What Vermont Castings stove would work in the proposed room? We want to burn longer pieces of wood, but are sensitive to overpowering the room with the heat of the stove
• Possibly related to the above, would a stove with a catalyst be something we should consider? Not sure if a catalyst gives a stove a wider range of clean burning temperatures, and we might be able to operate the stove at a somewhat lower temperature vs without a catalyst.

Thank you for your input!

 

[EatenByLimestone]

What are you looking to heat? Stoves are space heaters. Heat will travel some, but you generally will not have an even temperature across the entire house. The unusual floor plan will further complicate even heating. Since the 2 story house is on 1 side, and a high roof on the other, you may need a fairly tall chimney if the house is not air sealed real well.

What are the secondary lines offered? Due to past issues, I'm wary of VC. I've read they are much better now from an employee, but not much time has past since their issues.

 

[begreen]

Although makes some of the best-looking stoves in America they are also the most complicated. Top-loading is over-rated IMO, but VC stove thermostatic control is nice.

I don't disagree with the stove location suggestion, but considering the options, I think you might also consider a high-efficiency EPA zero-clearance fireplace in that location. The benefit would not only be a traditional fireplace look, but also the ability to duct heat output from it into one or both of the adjacent wings.

If set on a freestanding stove, I would look at other options like the Jotul F45 and the Pacific Energy T5 for that space. In catalytic stoves I would consider a Blaze King Ashford.

 

[Matttc]

What are you looking to heat? Stoves are space heaters. Heat will travel some, but you generally will not have an even temperature across the entire house. The unusual floor plan will further complicate even heating. Since the 2 story house is on 1 side, and a high roof on the other, you may need a fairly tall chimney if the house is not air sealed real well.

What are the secondary lines offered? Due to past issues, I'm wary of VC. I've read they are much better now from an employee, but not much time has past since their issues.

Was looking to heat its room, but also hoping for some spillover into the adjacent areas (but knowing it won't heat the whole house).

Thanks for thought on the chimney height.

Secondary line is Quadra-Fire. I haven't done much reading about this line yet. Another dealer in the area carries Jotul.

 

[Matttc]

Although makes some of the best-looking stoves in America they are also the most complicated. Top-loading is over-rated IMO, but VC stove thermostatic control is nice.

I don't disagree with the stove location suggestion, but considering the options, I think you might also consider a high-efficiency EPA zero-clearance fireplace in that location. The benefit would not only be a traditional fireplace look, but also the ability to duct heat output from it into one or both of the adjacent wings.

If set on a freestanding stove, I would look at other options like the Jotul F45 and the Pacific Energy T5 for that space. In catalytic stoves I would consider a Blaze King Ashford.

Thank you for the input! I will have to read more about high-efficiency EPA zero-clearance fireplaces. This sounds interesting.

 

[begreen]

RSF, Astria, Pacific Energy, Valcourt, FPX, and others make some good efficient fireplaces.

 

[Ahmet94]

If I lived in US I would get one with easiest cleaning and maintenance (easy access to flue, chimney for cleaning) as the cost of chimney sweeping isn't cheap at all.

And I would try to get the highest efficiency epa certified, non cat, secondary burner model metal or cast iron.

And if such stove exists i would get the water heating option. So it both would heat the air and the water. And I would connect the water to my main radiator heating system.

If I lived in a 2 stories house I would build a well insulated chimney chamber and add air vents to get the advantage of the pipe running in my home..

I would use 316 or 304 single walled stainless Steel flue even if I had a good chimney. 6 inches.
The flue where it goes above the roof i would make it double walled or insulate with proper materials (stone wool and SS sheets etc).

I find the masonry type fireplaces as pointless. Cost of building a huge heat chamber to get the heat from your flue is mind blowing. And if its not a water heating solution, it is not that effective tbh...


If I had to go with a wall insert fireplace I would get the water tanked models to give that heat to my water. With the stove it's a bit optional for me. Since the stove pipe is single walled, and if you have at least a meter and half naked in your room, the pipes will give huge amounts of heat... As they are not hidden.


And some models can burn coal too. Just it case you know? Or to make some good got coal bedding and then some wood.

Since I live in an apartment it's very hard to store wood. Unless you pay a huge premium here to buy klin fried bugles wood. I would even put them in plastic bags lol. They suck humidity in them also I'm paranoid with bugs.


In USA its way more common to have a house with a garden than rest of the world i guess.

I would never buy a catalytic burner. And if wanted to burn soft woods etc I would buy an outdoors boiler.

We have natural gas. I believe the best solution is a good stove with water heating + gas heating for the night. You can run them on the same radiator system with proper plumbing. You can deliver the heat to other rooms via water. I don't believe anything can beat that..

 

[Matttc]

Thank you for the input! I will have to read more about high-efficiency EPA zero-clearance fireplaces. This sounds interesting.

An update: we talked to few local dealers, and finally decided to upgrade our useless Marco prefab fireplace in the “high-peaked octagonal section“ of our house with a Fireplace Xtrordinar large flush wood insert. This was the least-disruptive way for us to get a high efficiency wood burner in our house. Install is next week.

 

[Ashful]

Since the OP's questions have already been answered, I'll loop back and address this:

I would never buy a catalytic burner. And if wanted to burn soft woods etc I would buy an outdoors boiler.

You sound like many new members to this forum, but you have things to learn.

1. Any bias you have toward catalytic stoves must come from 30+ year old experimental designs, not realizing that today's catalytic stoves are generally the higher performers, if your intent is to use the stove as a daily heater. Many members of this forum came here with a similarly mis-informed opinion, who have since seen the light, and have actually switched from non-cat to catalytic stoves.

2. There is nothing wrong with burning soft woods in a wood stove. Again, you are basing your opinion on bad information from many years' past. Soft woods have the unfortunate trait of burning pretty well, even when they're wet and poorly seasoned. So, mis-informed burners did just this, creating massive creosote problems, when the water evaporated out of the wood condensed in their chimneys, depositing creosote. But properly seasoned soft wood, burned in any modern EPA stove (cat or non-cat) will do you no harm, the majority of all volatiles creating creosote deposits are burned off in the secondary burn system (catalytic combustor or tubes).

 

[vbu]

I would never buy a catalytic burner. And if wanted to burn soft woods etc I would buy an outdoors boiler.

I will add to this that properly dried soft wood is great for when you're really pushing for heat. Yes you won't get the long burn times like hardwoods do, but it'll give of a bunch of heat quick and it won't coal like hardwoods do.

 

[Ahmet94]

Since the OP's questions have already been answered, I'll loop back and address this:


You sound like many new members to this forum, but you have things to learn.

1. Any bias you have toward catalytic stoves must come from 30+ year old experimental designs, not realizing that today's catalytic stoves are generally the higher performers, if your intent is to use the stove as a daily heater. Many members of this forum came here with a similarly mis-informed opinion, who have since seen the light, and have actually switched from non-cat to catalytic stoves.

2. There is nothing wrong with burning soft woods in a wood stove. Again, you are basing your opinion on bad information from many years' past. Soft woods have the unfortunate trait of burning pretty well, even when they're wet and poorly seasoned. So, mis-informed burners did just this, creating massive creosote problems, when the water evaporated out of the wood condensed in their chimneys, depositing creosote. But properly seasoned soft wood, burned in any modern EPA stove (cat or non-cat) will do you no harm, the majority of all volatiles creating creosote deposits are burned off in the secondary burn system (catalytic combustor or tubes).

It's more than a bias. We make our own stoves from cast iron. Or metals. Some good factories make really high efficiency (they import to EU) like TEBA brand metal stoves with secondary burning etc. But often we don't have locally made cat stoves for wood burning. There are probably industrial ones tho.

Cats are expensive because it's imported (min wage is 300 usd per month here lol). Also the maintenance isn't easy you can scrap those precious metals. Now teach that to people. They just don't make those. That's why i wouldn't get it.

Same. So many stoves are here not very efficient. So people don't know about secondary burns etc so if our folk would burn pine they would make so many creosote.

And we have nice stoves that has heat exchange part with taker inlet and outlet that could add heating to central heating easily.

I agree with you. It's just that I don't live in US or EU and we don't have much great options here like LOPI etc. And people don't like metal stoves here I don't know why tho. It feels "cheap" for them. Because they have no idea about the benefits of going metal and having all that high efficiency technologies.

I really like American made stoves and some European are great too. We only have French made invicta and maybe Jotul (probably over priced) here. Some invicta (wood stove inserts for wall) models are well priced. 11K try for 120kg cast iron insert with secondary burning 75 percent efficiency (tested) and back intake option for out door air feeding. That's imported and I like those. Usually even locally made stoves with approved secondary burners are like over 22K try. (1 usd 18.5try). A good cast iron stove at 9~11kw is around 7.5~8.5K try. So it's really expensive to pay 22K.

 

[stoveliker]

Burning pine without secondary tubes does not make a lot of creosote it it is dry, and not smoldering. Those requirements are exactly the same as for any other wood in stoves without secondary combustion.

Pine is fine when dry.

 

[vbu]

Burning pine without secondary tubes does not make a lot of creosote it it is dry, and not smoldering. Those requirements are exactly the same as for any other wood in stoves without secondary combustion.

Pine is fine when dry.

Exactly. I grew up in Europe. We had a stove without secondary combustion. Burned pine for 20 years, never had one single creosote problem. For insurance purposes my parents had to get a certified sweep to clean the chimney every year. They always reported the chimney to be super clean and that a sweep was not necessary other than for insurance reasons.

 

[stoveliker]

Europe: me too. We had mixed wood, but pine was fine (too). My dad now (as in from 15 yrs ago or so) has a tube stove. Tiny though (as compared to my 3 cu ft box...)

 

[Ashful]

Guys, re: pine... Nothing you say is untrue, but the reality is that most stoves are run on a low setting, most of the time. So there's ample opportunity for "smoldering", which is dramatically reduced on any modern stove with secondary burn.

Ahmet94, I should have taken your location into consideration. You live in one of the most beautiful cities on earth, with amazing history, but yes... income and costs are a problem. But the original poster (OP) you were advising is in Wisconsin USA, so the combustor cost and availability issues are not such an extreme problem.

 

[stoveliker]

Pine is often run wide open here... When it's cold and coals should be avoided...

And I concur about Istanbul. Been there and will never forget it...