Wood burning stoves>

navig8r

There is sulpur in varying amounts in the different types of fosil fuels. might not acids form if the sulpur reacts with condensation moisture from cold damp chimneys or from poorly seasoned wood if the stove is multifuel.
I have seen holes eaten out of the inner lining of SS twin wall flues that have been in use for a long time,especially where there is a joint.

Dave

A._Badger

navig8r wrote: »

There is sulpur in varying amounts in the different types of fosil fuels. might not acids form if the sulpur reacts with condensation moisture from cold damp chimneys or from poorly seasoned wood if the stove is multifuel.
I have seen holes eaten out of the inner lining of SS twin wall flues that have been in use for a long time,especially where there is a joint.

Dave

You might be right, but wouldn't it be just as likely to be the result of burning high sulphur coal and ordinary condensation and/or rain ingress?

Either way, I still suspect it would only be a problem if it was done a lot.

crphillips

The other issue with burning wood and smokeless fuel at the same time is that it does create a lot more soot as both fuels burn at different temperatures. It's a waste of time burning both as it is an inefficient use of the wood. It's more economical to burn one or the other.

There seems to be a lot of emphasis on the cost of running a wood burner.....i suppose this is due to the forum name so it attracts people wanting to save money.

They were or are intended really as a luxury item.........most of my customers have had fires all of their lives and feel the house has no character or heart without one and i'd tend to agree..........they have always burned fuel in an open fire which are about 15-20% efficient.

Therefore surely you have to take into account what you would have spent on having a fire serving the purpose of ambiance only, whereas a stove is more than just heating.....it's entertainment, ambiance, heating, possibly cooking.....etc. Not to mention that it makes your house a lot easier to sell and can achieve a higher selling price.

£100 seems a bit steap for logs too.....we pay £40 for a builders 1 tonn sand sack full of logs ready to burn. If your really stingy you can buy it wet and simply store it for a year or two.....it doesn't cost anything to store it.

We're on storage heaters so we leave the one on in the bathroom and bedroom and use the stove to heat the lounge.....we'd struggle to spend £150 a year on wood.

I think whether a wood burner is 'worth it' is down to what you want to acheive. If you look at the amount of time you spend stacking, chopping, moving wood and then the amount of time you spend building the fire, lighting it, cleaning it you'd probably rack up at least a couple of days a year in total.

If i went out and worked two extra days in the year i could probably earn enough to pay for the gas. Time isn't free.

I think you can definately save money running on wood if your a fairly low earner but if your self employed and can earn £300 a day or so then your better off running on gas if your not bothered about ambiance. If you wanna save the planet then you need a stove........if you want your living room to be cosey and homely with a nice ambiance then you need a stove. If you want to be self sufficient then you need a wood burner.

I wouldn't be without one but then i don't do it to save money. It's just there to look nice.

AGBAGB

crphillips wrote: »

If you wanna save the planet then you need a stove........if you want your living room to be cosey and homely with a nice ambiance then you need a stove. If you want to be self sufficient then you need a wood burner.

Lots of good points.

After the analysis of our experiance those are conclusions I came to.

(I'de put a link in to the details but some, who aren't contributing to this discussion, think I'm breaking rules. see previous posts)

I thought when I toke the descision to have a stove that it would save money. It doesn't and thats with me buying cheap logs. Folks who think as I did are in for a shock.

It could be worth it "money wise" if your only source of heating is electric, LPG, Oil or you have a good supply of cheap wood. For those of us with a modern mains gas boiler at todays prices you will only replace one cost with another and have a fair bit of work to boot.

It's a Lifestyle and Evironmental positive for us and a ecconomical minus if the capital cost are taken in to account.

A._Badger

AGBAGB - I agree about the high cost of wood and see my post today (elsewhere on this sub-forum) about the wickedly rising price of smokeless fuel.

I am not at all sure about the respective cost of oil, though. I have a modern oil boiler and I am far from convinced that wood is a cheaper source of heat. Nicer to live with? Undoubtedly! But not necessarily cheaper.

Incidentally, I'm with you about the suppression of the link to your site. Rather petty, that seemed.

crphillips

Same here.....don't see the issue with linking to your site.....your not selling directly from it and it is very informative. Don't think it would class as advertising and it seems to be only one individuals opinion.

rendor

We are on LPG for heating and of course the cost is extortionate compared with mains gas.
We got a woodburnner because we really wanted one and haven't regretted it. We have been keeping it going overnight recently due to the cold snap and it has made a real difference in how cosy the house has been. I dread to think how much LPG we would be using if we kept the boiler going overnight....
Of course the cost of installing it won't be recouped by the saving on LPG for a very, very long time and that wasn't the main reason why we wanted to get one.
It has given us great satisfaction to use much less LPG and so when the inevitable letter came from Flogas this week telling us that the price of LPG was going up again it really didn't bother us as we have cut down on our usage so much.

QTC

I think wood was a cheaper option a few years ago, depending where you lived, but those savings aren't there to be made any more.

Try this link: http://www.nuergy.com/comparison/2graphs.php and put costs of fuel local to you.

Typical prices of seasoned logs seem to be around £80 per cubic metre this year..that would probably give you around 1/3rd of a ton, so £240 / ton. If oil is 43p/l (like I've seen on other posts recently), logs are more expensive per kwh than oil now. Coal at £20 / cwt is the same or dearer, depending on whether you are getting anthracite or bituminous coal for that rate..(according to this site, anyway).

navig8r

QTC wrote: »

I think wood was a cheaper option a few years ago, depending where you lived, but those savings aren't there to be made any more.[URL="http://"][/URL]

Wood has not really been the cheaper option unless the suply is heavily suplimented by free wood that one can obtain by whatever means.
It has only apeared cheap because logs are mostly sold by a "ton" load in the back of a pu truck or in recent years, a "ton" builders bag when in fact neither is anywhere near a ton,not even a half of one!
I bet not many,if any at all get a weighbridge ticket with their load.
around here I see wood advertised at prices like 40,60 70 pounds a ton when there would be no profit in selling at those prices.
Example:
My BIL sells around 2 thousand tons of logs a year which he has to pays £40 a ton in 9 ft lengths and ranging in diameter from 4 inches to to 2 feet that comes by the artic load which he has to handle store and season.
Then there is the capital outlay on tractors timber grabs firewood processors and Transit tipper trucks
He then has to pay his staff to cut,split load and deliver them.
Yes he makes a profit but not at selling those prices per ton!
g8r

kate83

Can any stove owners do me a quick favour please.
I want a stove but my local stove company seem to think my chimneys a bit small for most of them at 115cm (45") wide.
Can anyone measure their chimney breasts and the width of stove they've got in for me pretty please.