Posted 15 November 2011 - 04:22 PM
Posted 15 November 2011 - 04:28 PM
I still have my Eco fan though.If you have not heard of Eco Fans they are a must for any wood stove owner.I have this exact model here.Place it on your stove and the heat creates electricity and spins the fan.
Posted 15 November 2011 - 04:35 PM
I miss my old wood stove. Im working with a pellet model that came with the house, and they wouldn't let me change it out with a Kodiak
Pellet stoves are for people too lazy to cut their own wood. $5 a bag of pellets gets me just under 2 days constant burn, yet I can pull a cord of pre-cut wood for $100.
That cord would get me a lot further, and I just like it better.
Posted 15 November 2011 - 05:20 PM
But honestly, its the way to go.
Not only does it feel right,
but its cheaper than electricity.
Its a win win...
I hope everything works out for you
and this is something you are able to do.
In divine friendship,
Posted 15 November 2011 - 08:07 PM
If you can get wood cheap or free, the price of the stove becomes moot, almost negligible.
Posted 15 November 2011 - 10:53 PM
This is the unit. http://www.rosecotta...thwoodstove.jpg
The unit was manufactured in 2005 and was used less then 10 times. I'll get a pic tomorrow in the light. I have unlimited cut and split wood. And if the power goes out again...I'm all set. I picked up a cast iron dutch oven and a couple frying pans. I have an electric stove so...I'm hoping to cut my electric bill to almost nada.
Posted 16 November 2011 - 01:19 AM
Pot of beans simmering on top of it all afternoon...
Posted 17 November 2011 - 04:29 PM
Oh, and unless you like breathing arsenic vapors, don't even think about burning pressure-treated wood.
Basically, just be safe and enjoy using a renewable resource for heating!
Posted 17 November 2011 - 04:38 PM
... I personally like to keep a kettle of water on it since it will dry out your air...
There's one of the advantages of an airtight stove, being able to keep the humidity up in the dry wintertime.
I used a version of that stove for at least 10 years and miss it now.
Posted 27 November 2011 - 03:26 PM
Posted 27 November 2011 - 05:54 PM
Id prefer to use wood...which is almost free
I love me some wood heat too, only heat I have. I know what you're saying about it being "almost free" but I have to disagree with this common saying. From my chainsaw, chains, sharpening, fuel, two-stroke, 4x4, felling, cutting, bucking, carrying, stacking, etc. I don't hand over as much cash to some fossil fuel cartel (as much) but it aint free...just sayin.
Glad you're enjoying your stove.
Posted 30 November 2011 - 07:54 AM
Posted 30 November 2011 - 10:46 AM
I'm not immediately saying that you're wrong. Like most "solutions" to the probable climate issue, wood burning is, at best, a local one. Each and every option has to be weighed locally. However, I'd like to see your, apparently obvious, mathematical breakdown. Does your math include the construction of the hydro-electric dam? The effect on salmon habitat of said dam. Of forest ecosystem that once lived around the damn? Does it reflect the energy of the generators? The trucks for the construction projects? The cement manufacture? The fossil fuels used to power the building project? The replanting of trees brought down to power a personal wood stove? Etc, ets. So many questions, so little detail.
ok let me preface this with a word about me.i grew up around wood stoves and enjoyed them a lot and the many things you can do with them versus an electric model but...in the name of ecofriendly how the hell is this justified ? ok yes you cut down on carbon emissions...slightly...seeing as when ever you burn ANYthing it creates co2 ...and to top it off you are burning wood...which is a once living tree correct? that when living had the ability to sequester carbon in the air and thus removing it from the chain of ecoharming gasses ....so how the hell does a wood stove beat electric? yes it can be used in places that electric wont go...and yes it can be used to cook with...but do this simple math folks...take 1 hardwood tree....the lifespan of said tree ...the amount of carbon it can/would sequester in it's life span...and weigh that versus electric that would have been used for those few weeks of heat you will get from it....hands down they lose...always...the math is solid ...so why would ANYone in the name of trying to be ecofriendly use one the damned thing? makes no sense to me but maybe i live with too much sense as it is...
- SilvrHairDevil likes this
Posted 05 December 2011 - 01:36 AM
there is a tree which cant be cut and burnt for mere hours...and if used correctly can show where and EXACTLY how this all adds up in the end run if left unchecked..... it all starts at home folks...
Posted 05 December 2011 - 01:57 AM
to answer your rather rudely phrased snarky reply
Interesting response though coming from:
makes no sense to me but maybe i live with too much sense as it is...
So, I guess, I'll take this:
i will simply let you ,a rational person with mathematical knowledge make your own chart and see what i said was true...is the sky blue?...not exactly...the question is what drives the mind to discover and learn...if that can not be incited even on such as this a small item of concern then how are to ever over come any of the larger ones?
as code for the fact that you don't have the answer to my response? It is, after all a response. Simply because you don't agree with it, does not make it snarky. You are the one who purports to know that the math is obvious. You made the claim, arrogantly I'll add. Therefor, the burden of proof is on you. I'll assume you have more than logical fallacies to prove your point.
Posted 05 December 2011 - 08:53 AM
If they are not end cuts they were trees of mid age cut down so smaller ones can grow up to be bigger that were growing around them selectively cut I live in Ontario we do not clear cut except for highway construction
We have many trees and they do grow babies and the babies need a space to grow up throught the forest
Trees are a renewable resource here oil is not gas is not renewable here
We run off a hydro dam and it was just fixed up costing millions and I think dams are more dangerous to the fish population than burning wood their migration routs are blocked and cannot reproduce in some spots where these dams are put up.
In other countries dams are put up and they flooded whole towns and ancient areas we can never get back
If wood is harvested properly not clear cut trees will grow back .... I also believe they should leave the old trees and just take some mature but not old trees they should be old enough to have seeds dropped already to set the next generation in growing mode..... some big old trees are being cut down tho due to greediness but most of them end up as wood for building with tho not for fire wood. I have wood heat but we also have electric looking at my hydro bill if it was all electric heat I wouldnt be able to pay my bill it would be too much money. I have had my hydro cut off one year that we only used electric heat it was cold with just the electric heat too and they cut it off for the summer and I caught the bill up b4 winter came again. Some people would not survive the price of electric alone.
I am in no way trying to argue just trying to help you understand trees can grow back and do if we cut them responsibly.
Posted 05 December 2011 - 11:29 AM
as for your absolute argument for electric, it is somewhat flawed. I do not argue that IF we could power everything with hydro generation than that would be the cleanest and best option, however in reality this can not happen. Here is a breakdown of "where" your electrical power comes from in the US http://www.eia.gov/e...e_united_states . Notice how only 10% is renewable and although not noted on this specific chart hydroelectric is a fraction of this, I believe roughly 70% of the 10% (I'm being generous with my estimate).
If you investigate further you will find that the projected energy needed to provide the world with power can not be generated with today's current renewable energy tech the argument over what energy source people should be using is slightly off center in the sense of being "eco friendly". One can use whatever source is currently readily available (i.e if the dams have already been built use them, if you have a forest use and manage it) as long as conservation is inacted. Heating a 2000 +square foot house for only 2 people is wasteful and is an example of the mentality and attitude that is forcing the world into a resource and energy crisis. Building a huge amount of "renewable energy plants" i.e wind, solar, hydro does not solve the underlying difficulty, that of misuse and wastefulness.
The lovely thing about trees is that they are self assembling, self repairing, useful, beautiful works of art. If one was truly going to use wood as a fuel and energy source, one would plant, care and manage his own forest. Being (hopefully) a locally sustainable industry one who is cutting wood for his own use would be unlikely to clear cut in his own backyard or his neighbors. the same can not be said for hydro, wind, or solar generators. If you are the unlucky person to be located in the "prime" real-estate you will have to bare the insult of having these things set up in your vicinity for the benefit of others that demand the energy, I don't think I have to explain why nuclear or fossil fuels can't be consider renewable or eco-friendly. Electric is great, it makes cooking much easier (cooking with a wood stove takes talent!) and possibly in places that need supplemental heat for only weeks out of the year it works but in counties that have winter for 5-6months of the year it does not make sense in either a ecological or economical sense.
nice find with the wood stove Murcury
Edited by dfar, 05 December 2011 - 11:41 AM.
Posted 05 December 2011 - 01:37 PM
quest to use less wood, less chopping, less carrying, less everything.. accomplished: re-plumb & work, so that 'winter house' includes a small but toasty core with 'normal facilities', other areas being drained get residual heat.
next years project: dumping the ~30%-efficient airtight wood stove in favour of a charcoal-making / wood-gasifying / space-heating / food-drying / stove & bread-oven. ~
charcoal used ala 'terra preta' for soil .. tooth paste (really whitens) .. filters .. ?substrate? water-retention-material? ..
(mm:space:mm) .. wonder how well exhaust gases(acidic) may be captured by a wood-ash-slurry (basic) .. mmmixing.. :puke:
Edited by Erkee, 05 December 2011 - 01:42 PM.
Posted 21 December 2011 - 02:32 PM
Once I get a fire going, I stand 2-3 thinly cut pieces on each side of the wood stove (inside the box), with the fire in the middle. By the time the middle fire needs wood, the wood on the side is dried out by being in the fire, but not touching it. After doing this the first 2-3 times you add new wood, the coals on the bottom become enough that putting the wood directly on top of the fire is enough to have it burn. Using this method I haven't had a single problem with the wood, figured i'd share for others in the same position. For now on I will be cutting my own wood and stacking as soon as the winter ends, so I know its seasoned. This is my first year, live and learn...
It is advised to clean a chimney a few times a season if you are forced to burn wood like this, as the build up adds up much quicker with green wood, or so I have read....
In divine friendship,
Edited by dpwishy, 21 December 2011 - 03:19 PM.