OWB's

[Tracker83]

How complicated was yours? What brand? What building(s) are you heating?

Complicated? Not at all. In fact, I was surprised at how simple of a system it is. The stove heats the water; the circulator pump distributes the hot water to the house; and heat exchangers in the house extract the heat from the water. Installation was a breeze. You'll have more work into burying the pipes than anything else.

The brand is Pacific Western made by Innotech Developments. Here is their homepage: http://www.outdoorfurnaces.com
I did not do any comparison shopping when I bought. A family member was a dealer at the time, so I went with him. I have the model 2 which is much bigger than what I need, but the advantage is that I can go every other day between fill-ups (this time of year), and once-a-day fill-ups when it gets colder (highs in the low 20's).

I am heating my house (1800 sq. ft), an attached 900 sq. ft. garage, and our domestic hot water. However, I have a family member with the exact same stove and he is heating a 2000 sq. ft. house, his domestic hot water, his driveway (only when he needs to melt snow/ice), and a 60x40 pole barn. He has to fill his once a day now and twice a day when it gets colder.

Other things to think about:

1. You really need to do financial analysis on how much you will be saving by buying an OWB. Factor in how much it would cost you to heat with conventional sources. In my opinion you need to save $2,000 a year for it to make sense. The initial investment is high, and it just doesn't make sense otherwise. Also determine how long you will be living at the house. You will want to stay there long enough to payback the investment plus enjoy a few years of "free heat".

2. Wood. Lots of wood. I burned 12 cords last winter. That's a lot of cutting, splitting, transporting, and stacking. You need to be healthy enough to process that much wood every year. You also need good equipment. A good saw (or 2), a good splitter, and something to transport the wood to the house. If you do not have the equipment now you will have to factor their purchase into the financial analysis.

3. Smoke. If you research on the web you will find both sides of this story. You will hear from one side that they never smoke, and the other side will say that they are nasty smoke-beltching hogs. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Obviously they don't smoke when the blower is off (or the damper is closed in the case of a Central Boiler) which is 90% of the time. However, mine does smoke pretty good for the first few cycles after a fill-up. After that the wood in stove is good and dried out, and a good layer of coals has formed. At that point you will see almost no smoke when it runs. If you have close neighbors you need to consider that because at times it will smoke.

For me it made sense. I have access to free wood. I plan on staying at the house for 10+ years. I already owned all the wood processing equipment. I estimated that I would save $2500 over heating with LP (which was my only other option). And I am in a rural setting with no neighbors close by. But when asked I am very honest that they are not for everyone.

[jimbo]

OK, I see where the logic is that the CO2 released by burning wood is only equal to the CO2 it sucked up while it was alive. I view this as a loophole, a technicality to make an excuse for an otherwise unhealthy situation. The smog and smoke still make even the most efficient wood furnace a bad idea. This might be ok in rural areas where the net impact per square mile is minimum. It simply is not a viable solution for urban areas. Also, there is no way we could grow trees fast enough to replace all the coal, oil, and natural gas heat with wood burners!'

Oil is running out, and the sooner we all accept the fact that the solution is Nuclear, the better!

[Tracker83]

Jimbo,

The "carbon neutral" comment was in reference to the Al Gore discussion which involves greenhouse gas emissions (mainly CO2) and the whole carbon neutral lifestyle debate (carbon offsets/credits, quotas, etc.). In that case burning wood is considered carbon neutral. I do agree, however, that the particulate emissions are a bad part of burning wood and every effort should be made to limit them to a reasonable level (which the new EPA regulations on conventional wood stoves address).

I also agree with you that the use should be limited to rural areas (as least as far as OWBs are concerned). As I said they are not for everyone. But there are clearly instances where their use is acceptable.

I also agree that the faster we expand nuclear power the better!

[tinner666]

Rural here. 1/2 mile to nearest downwind neighbor. Plan on dying there someday. Plenty of wood. Easy access. I have several cords cut that would otherwise go to waste. And more needs cutting.

If I went with an indoor unit, I'd need to add the cost of another garage/utility room to the furnace cost.
I've been curious about setting the damp to burn some continously to eleminate some smoke problems.

[BigLou]

2. Wood. Lots of wood. I burned 12 cords last winter. That's a lot of cutting, splitting, transporting, and stacking. You need to be healthy enough to process that much wood every year. You also need good equipment. A good saw (or 2), a good splitter, and something to transport the wood to the house. If you do not have the equipment now you will have to factor their purchase into the financial analysis.

12 cord holy crap those things are way more inefficint then I thought

[tinner666]

A Minnasota friend says he only burns about 8 cords. Which seems to be the average. I have a relative with one burns about 7-8 cords. Which unit do you have. The 2 I'm talking about are Central and Taylor.

[Tracker83]

12 cord holy crap those things are way more inefficint then I thought

Minnasota friend says he only burns about 8 cords. Which seems to be the average. I have a relative with one burns about 7-8 cords. Which unit do you have. The 2 I'm talking about are Central and Taylor.

The 12 cord that I burned last winter contained a lot of green wood and a lot of "trash" wood (poplar, box alder, etc.). I don't expect to have to burn that much every year. I cut 10 cord for this winter and it's mostly hardwood that has had almost a year to age/dry. 1/3 of the way into heating season and I don't think I have burned 1/3 of the pile. Therefore 8-10 cord will probably be the normal for my situation. The 12 cord comment was intended to warn potential buyers about what they may have to burn. Mileage may vary...

My stove is a Pacific Western. Part of the reason why I may burn more wood than other OWB owners is because I bought a unit much larger than what I need. But the advantage is that I can go 2 days between fill-ups if I have to. That way I can leave for the weekend and not have to find a woodstove "baby-sitter". The extra wood required isn't a big deal for me as I have an unlimited supply of free wood.

I think that OWB's get an unfair rap when it comes to criticisms about wood consumption. Some things to consider when comparing the wood usage to a standard indoor woodstove:
1) Most OWB's are not only heating the primary structure, but are also heating domestic hot water and often times auxiliary structures. In my case I am heating my domestic hot water and keeping a 900 sq.ft. garage at 55F. The additional heating requirements will require the combustion of additional wood.
2) My woodstove burns for 6 months straight without stopping. Those with indoor stoves can let the fire go out during warm spells early and late in the heating season, and thus reduce their total annual consumption. It is slightly more difficult with an OWB to simply let the fire go out and then re-light a week later.