real fire or woodburner?

suered

Guys, wondering not only for myself (new house purchase, many things to be done) but also down the line, if you were buying a house, which would you prefer - a "real fire" or a woodburner in place of it?

Should say - there is currently a real fire - and gas CH, so just wondering if the two grand or so for a woodburner is worth it.

I think I've attached a poll (if not, pls help! ) :rotfl:and would be grateful not only for votes, but also reasons.

Many thanks

csnann

A woodburner is more fuel efficient, so it is cheaper to run.

Swipe

csnann wrote: »

A woodburner is more fuel efficient, so it is cheaper to run.

But costs loads to install if you can't do it yourself, especially if your chimney needs lining. However, I'd prefer my stove over an open fire any day.

jonewer

Stoves cost a fortune, need maintaining (cracked glass, broken handle, cracked case, oops get a new one), and cannot run on cheaper fuels.

You already have CH so its purely for ambience and an open fire gives far more ambience than a little metal box.

Edit - by the way, there are a few stove installers on this board who have a vested interest in persuading people to have a stove put in. Beware of them and their associated stories about how open fires actually make your house colder and other such nonsense

paddyrg

You can get burners which can operate open-fronted for those days when you want the 'open fire' look, but which you can close up to run efficiently and without smoking the room up. They can even have back-boilers to heat the hot water tank/central heating - worth seeing thw whole of the market as you may find something that ticks all boxes ;-)

suered

Thank you all for your thoughts. On reflection I've probably worded the poll badly and it should have been more along the lines of

Given that you're paying to replace complete GAS (i.e. cheaper than oil for running costs) CH system (old backboiler/rusty radiators/only panel heaters in some rooms), and there is a functioning open fire in lounge, do you think it's worth the extra money to convert open fire to multi-fuel stove? with a sub-question of even more money to get one that could power 10 radiators if as, paddyrg suggested, going down that route?

Any more comments/things to think about appreciated.

pinkshoes

I think I'd vote for gas CH AND a small wood burning stove.

How long are you planning on keeping the property for, as I'm sure some people would be put off by not having gas CH!

rosyw

pinkshoes wrote: »

I think I'd vote for gas CH AND a small wood burning stove.

That is exactly what I have, and wouldn't change it! I don't NEED the wood burner, but when it's freezing outside, snow etc., it's lovely to have the wood burner as well and also if there is ever a problem with the boiler I have an alternative means of keeping warm :T

jonewer

suered wrote: »

Given that you're paying to replace complete GAS (i.e. cheaper than oil for running costs) CH system (old backboiler/rusty radiators/only panel heaters in some rooms), and there is a functioning open fire in lounge, do you think it's worth the extra money to convert open fire to multi-fuel stove?

No.

Although stoves are more efficient than open fires, the installation costs alone are so high that you will have to burn through many years worth of fuel to make up the difference. And again, you can only burn certain types of approved fuel in the stove else your warranty will be void.

Theres also the maintenance costs of the stove and the fact that you might actually have to replace your stove at some point if the body cracks.

If solid fuel is going to be your primary heat source, then yes you should of course have a stove (and bear in mind that solid fuel is very labour intensive, so unless you love carrying around loads of wood and coal and ash and lighting fires several times a day, you probably shouldnt).

If you want to have a fire for the ambience, then a stove will cost an awful lot more and you will probably never recoup the costs through saving fuel.

If you just want to have a stove as a toy or a fashion statement then go ahead. Its your house and your money.

Seanymph

We had a stove fitted, and can use coal or wood - we don't have to have 'approved' fuel.

We don't need to light it 'several times a day' - and it costs nothing to run, we get wood for nothing.

Because we live rurally there is no gas - so we have oil central heating.

The stove means that on chilly days we don't have any on, just light the stove and cosy one room..... heating can be kicked on an hour before bed only.

In the winter the stove is lit about 3pm as it gets darker, heating doesn't come on until 5.30ish.

An open fire is harder to draw - it can smoke, it makes more dirt in the house, it's less efficient and takes more fuel, it is less controllable.

A stove has vents top and bottom, you can close it down and it will 'tickover' for a much longer period on less fuel - if you make it up it will often stay in overnight. It is sealed, so you get no smoke into the house, no smell.......

Ours runs on wood or coal, but I've never used coal! We have never paid for wood, but been given it, or collected it. There is very little ash, which goes onto the garden (and only needs emptying about every four days or so.

It's free heating once it's installed, it saves money on oil because I use the heating so much less, it's jolly to have lit, it takes little effort to clean out (although I like the glass clean, so my daily chore is scrubbing that with oven cleaner!).

I've had open fires, this is my first stove (cost about £600, fitting about £400 including flue)........ and I love it - not as a toy or fasion statement, but as a very MS way to heat my house.

PasturesNew

It's easier to balance a saucepan on top of a wood burner .... if the power fails (in line with armageddon thinking).

Open fires need to be looked after else they might spit out and set fire to the carpet etc.

Woodburner for me....