real fire or woodburner?

sirmosh

I prefer to have an open fire place for the appearance but a woodburner is much more practical. A woodburner does look great in the right room though.

daisy_darling

My vote was for a stove too. I prefer them to an open fire because they're more controllable. We don't have mains gas so ours, a Hunter 80 B, runs the heating and hot water as well. I honestly wouldn't be without one.

suered

Thank you all for your input. The main source of heat would be the gas CH, the open fire/stove would be secondary/nice as opposed to the main heat/hot water source. I'm pretty sure the chimney will need lining too which pushes the costs up. If I had oil heating, it would be a no-brainer, but I think that given possible breakage costs mentioned, it will have to be if I have any ££ left, it could be a nice extra. It's reassuring to see that some people do prefer the fire - and if I don't do it I imagine potential buyers would rather budget for a nice luxury than something as disruptive as complete CH replacement.

The current open fireplace is much nicer on the eye than the avocado suite with matching tiles which is going to take the other huge chunk of money! Any retro fans out there want to buy it - going cheap....:D

Thanks again

Werdnal

We have 2 woodburners, one in lounge, and the other in the kitchen which has a back-boiler to run our hot water and central heating in the winter.

They are more efficient than an open fire, can keep in all night, although a bit of an art to getting it right! We get free wood - generate a lot of our own from our field hedges, but my hubby is in the gardening business, so brings home a lot that he would otherwise have to dump. We also burn coal when its really cold. Contrary to the reply above, we find them pretty maintenance free - only had to replace glass in our oldest one in 14 years, and its not expensive if you get stove glass cut to size from a glass supplier, rather than the genuine article from the stove retailer! This same stove is on its original fire brick lining and I think we may have replaced to door seals (fireproof rope cut from a roll and stuck in the groove) a couple of times.

I would go woodburner every time, as they chuck out far more heat than an open fire, and you are not up and down all evening poking and tending it, but if you want it just as a "feature" the open fire is already there, so no financial outlay to install.

Whichever you go for though, make sure you have your chimney swept atleast once a year, and more often if you only burn wood! And be careful what you burn - old paint can give off lead fumes and tanalised timber is carcinogenic when burnt!

motherofstudents

We have a multi fuel stove, cost £1350 including installation (and chimney liner). It does give out plenty of heat and is a nice feature. I've always wanted one but it is not the main source of heat, just a nice cosy feature. I'm sure our central heating bills are slightly less though.

My son has an open fire which is lovely to sit and look at and it is also warm so I guess it's just a matter of preference unless you want a stove with a boiler and the full works. I voted stove, but they are both a nice thing to have in my opinion.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

I have both, in two different rooms.

Woodburner is great for practicality and better for actual heating use, cooking in a power cut, etc.

A roaring open fire in a nice big fireplace is nicer to my mind in an ambient background sort of way, especially for entertaining or sitting beside on a snowy winter night, but less practical by far, and less efficient.

I'd hate to choose, we use them in different ways.

But if I could only have one, it'd be the woodburner.

princeofpounds

I'm replacing my open fire with a burner, but I have a long experience of burners as my family have one.

It has required one service in 10 years.

The open fire is pathetic in terms of heat generation; it all goes up the chimney and you can only feel it from about 4 inches away! Also it smokes the room out slightly, although a better-designed one might not.

So if you want a fire source that you are in any way going to use, get a stove.

I know you aren't after heating but rather aesthetics, in which case get whatever you want, but I would consider a firebox with openable glass covers rather than a continually open fire, because it can help with smoke control and safety.

If you want to save money by not changing it, fine. But then I'm not sure why you are asking the question in the first place if you are happy with the way it looks at the moment. I would be prepared to spend a few grand on the main feature of my living room, but that a personal choice and dependent on disposable income.

Hoof_Hearted

We have a woodburner. On colder days we have that on rather than the CH. It seems to warm the whole (well-insulated) house. There are more up-front costs but we like the fact that it is safe -- no spitting -- and we burn any old wood in it. At the moment we are using our mountain of free wood from a demolition. It is a lovely feature. If you are happy to pay more, I would recommend you opt for one, but an open fire looks very nice as well, although less efficient.

What I have found surprising is how easy it is to light and how little ash remains after burning -- we only clean ours out every couple of months.

martinthebandit

pinkshoes wrote: »

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!

That's what we have too, central heating is very rarely on.

......and its very heart warming sat looking at the wood burner chugging away, the good lady not complaining that she is cold and turning up the thermostat and knowing that my fuel is bought and paid for and I am not going to be hit by a big heating bill.

When I say bought and paid for I mean time and effort really as I very rarely need to buy logs anymore.

The only downside is that the Mrs seems to think that she has a magic log basket :cool: but hey I have a magic laundry basket

lostinrates

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I have both, in two different rooms.

Woodburner is great for practicality and better for actual heating use, cooking in a power cut, etc.

A roaring open fire in a nice big fireplace is nicer to my mind in an ambient background sort of way, especially for entertaining or sitting beside on a snowy winter night, but less practical by far, and less efficient.

I'd hate to choose, we use them in different ways.

But if I could only have one, it'd be the woodburner.

Not that disimilar to hamish, but if i had to plump it would be open fire.

Part of the consideration has to be the house....our wood burner is in a huge ingle nook, amd frankly, thatbis where the heat stays too,whereas a fire would be more effective there,and will be going back in the near future. In our study we are turning the fire into a woodburner, because its more practical in that environment. Of we had children or a modern home of different dimension or were less comfortable with cool background heating supplemented by fires in the evening as opposed to needing to light that heat source and then go to work our choice might be different.

An efficient woodburner is only wfficient if it heats the space while using less fuel, ours is a fail in its situation for that reason.


We are also installing a pellet boiler, not a pretty woodburner type thing, but rather something designed purely for efficiency.