Pellet stove

Page 1 of 10  
With the price of natural gas going up I'm wondering how efficient it would be to supplement my forced air furnace with one of these pellet stoves. I would guess that the price of pellets or corn will go up too with gas prices going up delivery has to follow suit. Does anyone have one of these or any other helpful information would be welcomed. I live 30 miles south west of Chicago for my general area of the country.
Thanks for any information.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I have a regular epa approved Jotul wood stove as a heating supplement to my rather weak central gas system, and I love the stove. My friends who have pellet stoves cannot run them in an emergency, as they take electric power to feed the pellets to the fire. They also make an annoying grinding sound all the time. A real wood stove is both silent, romantic, and works when electricity is down. I suspect pellet types are also more expensive to run than a wood stove. All you have to do is compare cost and btu yield from pellets vs wood, per hour of burning. A good resource for your question, with lots of good advice, is newsgroup alt.energy.homepower. Good luck.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That depends on how you value labor.

My friend's grandfather is quite happy with his new $7500 corn stove. He bought some moldy corn for $1.50 per bushel (vs about $2 for good corn), and says it's equivalent to 4 gallons of oil. The stove has been burning non-stop for the last 3 weeks making hot water for showers, etc. It has an automatic feed and needs ashes removed about once a week. Some pellet stoves have concentric chimneys with air-air heat exchangers and an efficient low flue temp and don't need conventional chimneys.
Corn seems more convenient than pellets, if delivered in bulk, but it's hard to believe it's so much cheaper than oil. Maybe that has something to do with ag subsidies. And a corn plant seems like a very large and inefficient way to produce an ear or two of corn, with lots of water and herbicides and cultivation and fertilizer. Maybe we should burn soybeans instead. They are round and might bridge less in a hopper.
Nick
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hmm. right now I wouldn't mind knowing where I could sell good corn for $2. It's around $1.50 for #2, with heavy discounts for pretty much everything.

I'm not sure what you are implying here, but if it's what I think I take some offense to that comment.

How else do you propose to get an ear of corn? :) And FWIW, $1.65 is about break even cost for most farmers(not considering capital amortization) for input costs. At least in my area. The two biggest variables that will vary from region to region being expected yield and land rent(generally directly related). Given the skyrocketing cost of fuel(and consequently Nitrogen) that number is probably going to be $1.80 next year.

Haven't tried it, but I have heard burning soybeans is less recommended. Due to the higher oil content, there will be higher soot/creosote stuff in the flue. So I have heard. I haven't done it so don't know for sure.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What kind of offense are you taking to this comment. It is no secret that corn is highly subsidized by the taxpayers through our ag-oriented government.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Oscar_Lives wrote:

(National) Socialist

....Brock.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 20 Sep 2005 05:09:51 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@ece.villanova.edu wrote:

Wow. I had no idea corn stoves cost that much! A high end pellet stove is under $3,000. Why are the corn ones so much higher? The mechanisms must be very similar.

Actually, most pellet stoves are this way now. I don't think you'll find one without a heat exchanger. You can exhaust them through a wall and vent them 6" from the building without needing a chimney stack at all. The close tolerances are allowed because of the very efficient burn and significantly lower flue temps. They do require a slight rise from the stove to allow for natural convection to exhaust smoke in the event of a power outage.

I was thinking the opposite, but upon further reflection, pellets/corn should all be the same with regards to convenience. It's about the same size and in bags.
I must say that wood pellets are much cheaper than oil and gas in my area. It's costing me 40% less to heat my home (and keep the thermostat a little higher to boot).

I agree. Perhaps this accounts for the cost difference. Wood pellets are produced from waste sawdust and are formed under high pressure. No additives.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

Local economies are different from global ones. If you live on a street where they throw away a lot of cardboard boxes, that could be your cheap fuel, but it won't work for everyone. North America has vast regions of rapidly-growing aspen poplar that can and are being compressed into fuel for pellet stoves. Farms produce a lot of excess plant matter that is either left to rot or is plowed back into the soil. Pellets are the easiest form of biofuel to produce, but they still load the atmosphere with carbon.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSixPack wrote:

actually they do not add to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Bio based fuels are carbon neutral, no gain. They remove the same amount of CO2 during the growing season.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

for
either
form
LOL
come on, guys! havn't you been over this *thoroughly* on nearby threads ?? ;)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
zenboom wrote:

Yes, of course we have, but some folks have learning disabilities or just can't believe in the concept that biofuels are carbon neutral.
Then again, I suppose they could be trolling. Nothing's going to incite a reply more than posting a blatant non-truth.
Anthony
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

We've had this argument before, and it's a specious one. Switching to biofuels does not significantly reduce the amount of carbon being loaded into the atmosphere, nor does it trigger the earth to assimilate carbon faster. The dramatic rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1800 has been a result of burning carbon-based fuels faster than the earth can assimilate it. It makes no difference which carbon-based fuel is being burned, rapid atmospheric CO2 loading will still occur. The only way to reverse the trend is to reduce the burning of carbon-based fuels to a point where the assimilation rate exceeds our emission rate. The bigger the difference, the faster the CO2 levels in our atmosphere will decline.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSixPack wrote:

It's only specious in your eyes, and it's surely no argument. It's a fact. Burning fossil fuels releases new CO2 into the air, adding to concentrations, burning biofuels releases co2 removed in the previous growing season, not adding to concentrations. That's all there is to it.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You're either terribly set in your ways or very uninformed. Either way, you just aren't getting it. When you put carbon into the air faster than the earth can remove it, the levels rise. The carbon won't dissipate from the atmosphere any faster just because you are burning biofuels. Growing more plants for biofuel won't scrub the atmosphere any faster either. All the cropland is already covered with vegetation.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSixPack wrote:

We have to burn fuel. which fuel would you rather burn, one that is carbon neutral, or one that is releasing carbon that's been sequestered for eon's? It seems you are the one who is not getting it.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It doesn't matter if you call it carbon-neutral or not, the CO2 will continue to rise if you continue to burn carbon-based fuels at the current rate. The atmosphere doesn't know you switched to your "carbon-neutral fuel." It continues to take the carbon out of the atmosphere at the same slow rate that lags behind the rate we put it in. This is what caused the rise. Growing more biofuel crops doesn't automatically lower the atmospheric CO2, because there are already plants growing on nearly all the arable land.
You keep saying "carbon-neutral" as if it were a fact that it would reduce atmospheric carbon in some way. Prove it to us.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSixPack wrote:

I'm sorry you are having problems reading. I never said it would reduce atmospheric carbon, I said there would be no net gain. Neutral does not mean subtraction or addition. Burning fossil fuels is addition.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I see where you are having difficulty. I am saying that as long as emissions exceed assimilation, atmospheric CO2 will continue to rise. If you are saying that if we start growing a lot of crops for biofuels, that trend will stop, I have to respectfully disagree. The globe is already covered with vegetation, and the oceans are full of blue-green algae, so anything we can do by way of increasing crop growth will not be enough to halt, or even slow significantly the rise of CO2 in our atmosphere.
If you are willing to debate me on this point, I'm quite willing to listen.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

loaded
assimilate
reverse
where
fact.
you
So how is the air levels after 14 hurricanes, water scrubbed it. Must be the reason we didn't have any fish kills in low oxygen water areas. That NO hurricane just aerated the "fire out of" the water. If that be the case, your air can absorb alot more stuff this year. Even by your logic.......

-
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

to
carbon
it.
the
the
more
the
areas.
News==----
Newsgroups
=----
-
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.