Fireplace vs Wood Stove?

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Fireplace vs Wood Stove?

Posted: 8/23/2010 11:03:00 AM EDT

Going to start work on an addition to the shack/cabin this fall and would like one or the other. Planning a dining/living area in one big open room with lots of insulated windows to deer- watch through. The fireplace would hands down look nicer and have that cozy feel, however the wood stove would be cheaper, much, much cheaper. Guess I could compromise and get a wood stove that would allow you to see the flames but I dunno.

I'm running gas heaters now so it would be used as a secondary heat source in optional conditions. Thoughts?
Thanks

Posted: 8/23/2010 3:08:58 PM EDT

[#1]

how about a fireplace with an iron insert that functions similar to a wood stove?

i have a fireplace that isn't used for whole-house heating and love the ambiance. a wood stove or pellet stove would obviously produce more heat.

Posted: 8/23/2010 4:27:09 PM EDT

[#2]

I too love the looks of the fireplace but the functionality of the wood stove are more important to me. You can always leave the door open to see the flames but you can't as easily make a pot of coffee to drink while you deer watch with the fireplace.

Posted: 8/23/2010 5:10:49 PM EDT

[#3]

What about a nice wood burning stove like this.

http://www.vermontcastings.com/products.asp?model=resolute

Posted: 8/24/2010 8:13:51 AM EDT

[#4]

i went with a coal stove and have 3 years of heat stored in the yard. no rot or bug worries. if i remove the hopper my coal stove becomes a wood stove.

Posted: 8/24/2010 5:49:08 PM EDT

[#5]

Wood stove. Get one with a glass door so you can watch it.

Fireplaces put more heat up the chimney than they put into the room. They're great for ambiance though.

Posted: 8/24/2010 6:28:32 PM EDT

[#6]

Depending on size of area to be heated.
Try a Quadrafire.
Look at the 2100,,3100,,or the 5700.
Good think you coud cook on them,or at leaset boil water for coffe or tea.
American made in Washington.

Posted: 8/24/2010 6:31:34 PM EDT

[#7]

How about biomass?

Posted: 8/25/2010 6:02:32 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
How about biomass?

Huh? Last time I checked wood is biomass... was there a point to your post?

To the OP, if you like the ambiance of seeing the flame look at a stove with a glass door or a zero-clearance fireplace. The high-efficiency ones will have doors to control the air better, but still give the appearance of a fireplace.

Posted: 8/25/2010 6:17:53 AM EDT

[#9]

Looks like a wood stove. Think I'll get more bang for the buck and I can install it and the pipes myself so I'll save a bit there. Thanks for the suggestions.

Posted: 8/25/2010 11:40:57 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted:
How about biomass?

Huh? Last time I checked wood is biomass... was there a point to your post?

To the OP, if you like the ambiance of seeing the flame look at a stove with a glass door or a zero-clearance fireplace. The high-efficiency ones will have doors to control the air better, but still give the appearance of a fireplace.

So let me get this, Wood stove = Biomass stove. Try burning corn in a "wood stove". What's your point?

Posted: 8/25/2010 1:27:54 PM EDT

[#11]

I had this decision to make a few years back and went with a pellet stove. They are very efficient, a 40# of pellets produces about a cupful of ash. And the venting requirements are more like a heavy duty dryer vent than the expensive stove pipe that a wood stove requires.

Fireplaces are so inefficient that I never even considered one.

If I could cut my own wood supply, I would probably go with a wood stove. If I had to buy the wood, I would go with a pellet stove instead.

I had a Whitefield pellet stove. As it turned out I never lived in the house we installed it in (sold the house) but I was good friends with the folks who bought it and they loved it. He bought pellets by the pallet and even though it was a small pellet stove, they used it for their primary heat, in Kansas.

Posted: 8/25/2010 1:40:16 PM EDT

[#12]

Wood supply wouldn't be an issue. The effort it would take to get up off the couch and chop it might be a different story

but it'll be good for me. Like I mentioned earlier, this would be secondary heat source with gas being the main. I recently connected the garage, which is more like a small shop, to the house and a pellet stove might fit the bill there.

Posted: 8/25/2010 2:26:16 PM EDT

[#13]

i bought a pellet stove last year and use it as the primary heating source for my house (1600 SF +/-). its nice in the fact that i can fill the hopper in the morning and it'll run for 12-14 hours straight depending on the speed setting. got a model with a front viewing pane, a flat top that can be used to heat water if needed, and has auto-ignition. it runs very clean and is easy to clean. the only kicker is the power requirement, if the power goes out you're screwed. although i've heard of models that will run off of a marine battery....

...probably a bit pricey for a cabin/shack though

Posted: 8/26/2010 2:37:55 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:
How about biomass?

Huh? Last time I checked wood is biomass... was there a point to your post?

To the OP, if you like the ambiance of seeing the flame look at a stove with a glass door or a zero-clearance fireplace. The high-efficiency ones will have doors to control the air better, but still give the appearance of a fireplace.

So let me get this, Wood stove = Biomass stove. Try burning corn in a "wood stove". What's your point?

Well technically yes, a wood stove is a biomass stove because it burns biomass. Whats your point?

And just what exactly is the stove you pictured? A pellet/corn stove? We call those pellet/corn stoves, not biomass (it's confusing/misleading which is exactly why we're having this conversation).

Posted: 8/26/2010 11:08:37 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Wood supply wouldn't be an issue. The effort it would take to get up off the couch and chop it might be a different story

but it'll be good for me.

You'll probably have a good time dealing with firewood burning it as a secondary source of heat. It's nice being outside, swinging an axe, stacking some wood. Beats playing golf, IMO.

You're making the right choice going with a freestanding stove no matter what it burns. Might as well get a little useful heat for your trouble.

Posted: 8/26/2010 11:48:39 AM EDT

[#16]

When we build our cabin I want a wood stove that hopefully can burn coal too. I have not looked at my options a lot as they are expensive and it is not an expense I need until I get the land and cabin

I did purchase a smal pot belly coal stove however (it was only $100).

I honestly want wood stove over coal as I can renew that supply on my own on my own land. Coal on the other hand provides a lot more heat per volume so I can put the cheap coal stove away and buy a ton of coal and have a heat source that would last a long time that will never go bad and is easily stored.

I would not want a fireplace, too much heat loss.

Posted: 8/26/2010 3:05:51 PM EDT

[#17]

I love my Drolet "Savannah," Glass insert door, free-standing heater!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted: 12/7/2010 7:50:16 PM EDT

[#18]

When we built our house 2 yrs ago I put in an epa fireplace.Very effecient and puts out a ton of heat with the blower.If I had it to do over again,I would go with a freestanding wood stove,puts off more heat without a fan and can cook on it..Check out hearth.com,but ignore their liberal leanings.

Posted: 12/8/2010 9:50:56 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
i bought a pellet stove last year and use it as the primary heating source for my house (1600 SF +/-). its nice in the fact that i can fill the hopper in the morning and it'll run for 12-14 hours straight depending on the speed setting. got a model with a front viewing pane, a flat top that can be used to heat water if needed, and has auto-ignition. it runs very clean and is easy to clean. the only kicker is the power requirement, if the power goes out you're screwed. although i've heard of models that will run off of a marine battery....

...probably a bit pricey for a cabin/shack though

you are from pennsylvania and got a pellet stove? never heard of anthracite?

Posted: 12/8/2010 1:26:42 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:
i bought a pellet stove last year and use it as the primary heating source for my house (1600 SF +/-). its nice in the fact that i can fill the hopper in the morning and it'll run for 12-14 hours straight depending on the speed setting. got a model with a front viewing pane, a flat top that can be used to heat water if needed, and has auto-ignition. it runs very clean and is easy to clean. the only kicker is the power requirement, if the power goes out you're screwed. although i've heard of models that will run off of a marine battery....

...probably a bit pricey for a cabin/shack though

you are from pennsylvania and got a pellet stove? never heard of anthracite?

You don't have to go too far south of the coal country before pellets are cheaper than coal. I'm an hour south of coal country and pellets and coal are about equal in terms of cost. I'm 90 minutes north of the PA border, so there a lot of folks in PA who look at pellets as a more economical alternative than coal simply because they're cheaper. Even if they aren't as good.

Posted: 12/8/2010 5:28:52 PM EDT

[#21]

I have been looking into a fireplace insert in my current fireplace. Buck makes em along with abunch of others. I already know the heat output is way more. My question is how hard to install? Paying someone is not an option, anybody ever do it?

Posted: 12/10/2010 5:38:35 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:
i bought a pellet stove last year and use it as the primary heating source for my house (1600 SF +/-). its nice in the fact that i can fill the hopper in the morning and it'll run for 12-14 hours straight depending on the speed setting. got a model with a front viewing pane, a flat top that can be used to heat water if needed, and has auto-ignition. it runs very clean and is easy to clean. the only kicker is the power requirement, if the power goes out you're screwed. although i've heard of models that will run off of a marine battery....

...probably a bit pricey for a cabin/shack though

you are from pennsylvania and got a pellet stove? never heard of anthracite?

You don't have to go too far south of the coal country before pellets are cheaper than coal. I'm an hour south of coal country and pellets and coal are about equal in terms of cost. I'm 90 minutes north of the PA border, so there a lot of folks in PA who look at pellets as a more economical alternative than coal simply because they're cheaper. Even if they aren't as good.

i have a hard time believing that. i'm on long island and coal is cheaper here. also remember you need to price by btu not / ton cost. twice as many btu's / ton of coal compared to pellets. pellet stoves also need power.

Posted: 12/10/2010 7:03:44 AM EDT

[#23]

I have this Jotl - use it almost exclusively for heating whole house,
I season firewood about 2-4 years before burning.

Posted: 12/15/2010 8:15:18 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Wood stove. Get one with a glass door so you can watch it.

Fireplaces put more heat up the chimney than they put into the room. They're great for ambiance though.

Probably any free-standing stove will be more efficient than any fireplace. However, the modern, fire place inserts (I think they're called...not talking about a stove insert) that use those thin, white sheets of whatever that insulation is made of, are IMO far-far better than old-timey brick fireplaces. We have one in our living room and if the doors are left open an amazing amout of radient heat goes into the room; its warming rays can be felt 25 feet across the room. If it has just two pieces of wood in it, about 20 inches long and about 4x4 thick, and if those pieces are heated to be chunks red-glowing coals (or if the wood is still intact but glowing red) one cannot stand in front of it within 5 feet for more than a few seconds if the doors are open.

I prefer a fireplace because they're out of the way when in use or not in use, but I'm not considering ours to be a long-term survival tool. Also, IMO, I don't want a fireplace insert (stove) because I suspect they're not much more effecient than a modern fireplace insert and they're not as aesthetically pleasing as an open fireplace.

Posted: 12/15/2010 9:46:10 AM EDT

[#25]

The pioneers used fire places because they could make them from material on hand and fuel was abundant. Free standing stoves are a whole lot more efficient with a lot less heat loss.

I grew up around both. You would freeze in houses with fireplaces and typically in the larger older homes had to have more than one fire place going. Stoves were a single heat source, much like the later floor furnaces, that you had to keep doors open, but it would heat much more of the house.

The usual was stoke that sucker up before bed. It would make the room its in unbearably hot, but heat the entire house for the night. In the fireplace houses, it was run the one fireplace heating the one or two rooms then light another fireplace before you went to bed.

The old English homes were a variation of both, little stoves in different rooms of the house, where they would do the heat the one room move to another.

Tj

Posted: 12/15/2010 10:33:21 AM EDT

[#26]

There are a lot of woodburning fireplace inserts with a secondary combustion chamber (catalytic convertor) that will heat a fairly large house.

I am looking at one of these, since I already have a fireplace. It is more of a novelty for this area, since I only need it for a few days a year.

Posted: 12/15/2010 11:21:44 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
There are a lot of woodburning fireplace inserts with a secondary combustion chamber (catalytic convertor) that will heat a fairly large house.

I am looking at one of these, since I already have a fireplace. It is more of a novelty for this area, since I only need it for a few days a year.

Not all secondary combustion units are of the catalytic type.

Just wanted to point that out.

The main difference between a cat vs. non-cat secondary combustion unit is the burn style. A cat will get you a more efficient low and slow burn at the risk of burning the cat out if the fire gets really hot. Cats aren't the best option for heating large spaces with big, hot fires. A non-cat is better are faster, hotter fires, but they don't do very well with low and slow fires. Non-cats aren't the best at heating small spaces for long periods of time.

I have a non-cat, I can normally get a good 4 hours of flames out of it (if I'm burning good wood) and another 2-3 hours of good, hot coals. Remaining coals can last up to 24 hours after the last fire.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Fireplace vs Wood Stove?

Outdoors » General Outdoor Discussions

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us