# Pellet boilers



## BrownianHeatingTech (Feb 7, 2008)

Well, I'm taking the plunge into pellet fuel.  I have too many potential customers who don't have their own woodlots.  And a number who live in areas where they simply do not have space for a wood pile of any size, so they would be relying on getting small (expensive-per-cord) deliveries all winter in order to heat with wood.

So, I'll be carrying the Pinnacle PB150 pellet boiler (and the pellet furnaces, for that matter).  I was always a bit leery of pellet systems due to the problems I've heard over the years.  But Mark from Evergreen Heat called me and wanted me to take a look at his setup in his shop.  I'll admit, I went there mostly to see how his Econoburn was running, and to look over the brand-shiny-new one he had in stock, which has a few upgrades over the ones that were produced a few months ago.  But we ended up spending just as much time talking about, operating, and dismantling his PB150 and the feed assembly/burner that he keeps on his workbench for demonstration purposes.

I'm still a big fan of wood, but I think that pellets really are going to end up being a large chunk of the central heating market, simply due to the fact that we _cannot_ put a wood gasifier in so many locations, due to space constraints or lack of sufficient basement access to get the thing in there, even if there is plenty of room.

Pellets aren't an "ideal" technology, but if they can bridge the gap for folks who want to heat with biomass, but simply cannot practically heat with cordwood, I'm for it.

I'm working out exact pricing for installed boilers, now, but even based upon the preliminary pricing I can see that the payback period is still reasonable, despite the higher cost of pellet fuel versus cordwood.  With oil going up every year, the payback is only getting better.

Joe


----------



## trehugr (Feb 7, 2008)

Care to find a buyer for our Harmon P68 ? Money will go towards a Econoburn or EKO.


----------



## webbie (Feb 7, 2008)

I think Pellet boilers would only have a "payback" in select circumstances - such as against LP. When the cost (very high) of a good pellet boiler and installation is figured in, plus the pellet handling, service, etc.......payback might be tough.

Exception would be in areas where bulk delivery right from the Pellet plant would be possible...and also where industrial or commercial grade pellets were available (at lower prices). Sure, oil might go up - but so can pellets. No one has a crystal ball, but I think you will actually see fuel oil come down in the next year.

NE Pellet has bulk delivery available from their truck into a storage silo or hopper. That is a different thing because you eliminate the handling of many tons of pellets. 

Some back of napkin calcs......
say 200 for pellets and 3.00 for fuel oil.
Same efficiency - but chances are that a good oil unit is more efficient!
Oil - 27.50 per million
pellets - 16.00 per million

Take a scenario where someone used 900 gallon of oil - $2700
The pellets would cost $1600.

That is a savings of $1100 a year. 

If the cost of a Pellet boiler is $10,000 installed (?? more or less??)......
figure $600 a year in interest lost from having to put that money up front.
figure $300 a year (minimum) for cleaning, parts, etc. long term - some can be DIY)

That is $900 a year. So the customer saves $200 a year. Yes, it is a savings, but given the variables it is a leap of faith. There are a lot more oil suppliers than pellet suppliers.....

Mind you, I'm not trying to spoil the party, just stating that there are qualifications and also MANY other reasons that someone might want to burn pellets....but price is not usually the main one. Obviously some of this stuff is regional in nature. 

Given the limited number of pellet boilers on the market and their relatively short time in the field, it is hard to really talk accurately about how long they will last and how much service they will require. 

I like the idea of automatic central heat. Using hard coal (stoker) in the example above would result in a savings of closer to $900-$1000 a year (after expenses and interest). It would be nice if local biomass could eventually be competitive with coal. 

Before I suggested such a setup to a family member or friend, I would want to know about multiple sources of pellets available in bulk. Tying a customer to one or two plants (when said plants have already shown that they sell to the highest bidder...often Europe!) just seems like a tough call.


----------



## Sting (Feb 7, 2008)

I am on my second season burning a PB150 

Several other friends are in their first and second season also

One on his fourth

Very robust appliances 

When corn was 70 a ton payback would have been one - 1/2 seasons - ethanol changed that

since January 15  i used the last of my corn and I now burn hi quality pellets - not the kind from the big box stores.

I bought a truck load. 21.6 ton - Storage is a 6 ton bin outdoors - augers feed in - no touch till ash.

If I could have afforded it - I would have bought a Baxi but Harmon just came out with a PB105 boiler that looks promising UL approved certified vessel. But so far it is only certified for wood pellet fuel - not corn barley wheat oats - all the things that if I can score cheep I can burn.


----------



## BrownianHeatingTech (Feb 7, 2008)

There are some other issues with the napkin math, but...



			
				Webmaster said:
			
		

> Take a scenario where someone used 900 gallon of oil...



I don't get many folks who burn such tiny amounts of oil calling me on these systems.  They usually burn twice that before they call me.

Joe


----------



## Sting (Feb 7, 2008)

I think you have hit an issue I live in - The Traeger and the Harmon have an alleged input similar to a traditional appliance for a modest sized house. There isn't a larger model until you step up to the potential and cost of the Tarm appliance. Tarm has several models - the big gun could carry a load that two Traegers might struggle at - and for almost the cost of two Traegers.


----------



## webbie (Feb 7, 2008)

Here is Tarms cost calculator - seems to be close to my figures above
http://www.pelletboiler.com/mh_fuel_price_calculator.asp

Stings experience underlines what I said about future fuel costs.....I'm certain that the wood pellets are costing 2 to 3x as much per BTU as the corn was. Stuff like that can quickly change the equation.

And, yes, if you are using 2,000 gallons ($6,000) worth of heating oil or LP to heat your house, the equation changes! In that case, however, you should start offering insulation contracting and replacement windows!


----------



## Sting (Feb 7, 2008)

yes I know - conservation not conversion - I preached it for 30 years Then I found myself living in a wonderful Victorian money pit - modern insulation is not always possible and modern windows will destroy the place. So alternative was the only choice when NG went over 1.00 a therm. And believe me solid fuel was not ez for me to pull the trigger on. Yes I was young then but I still remember how happy I was when the coal stoker under the boiler was replaced with an atmospheric NG gun set.


----------



## ssupercoolss (Feb 7, 2008)

i have always had to disagree with those cost calculators.  there are a few things they dont account for.  currently my pellet stove does about 90 percent of my heating.  thats 3 tons of pellets.  i do have to occasionally run my oil boiler when temps get down to about the 20 degree mark.  i have some pipes in an unheated crawlspace (not my doing) that will freeze under certain circumstances.  i looked back on my oil deliveries to find i was using upwards 800 gallons to heat my home.  the conversion charts say i should only use 300 some gals of oil for 3 tons of pellets.  

heres my take on my pellet stove.  its a great device, it works off of a thermostat, lights itself and can run for 20 hrs plus, and by plus i mean up to like 48 hrs depending on the temps.  but i think it is fairly inefficient when the temps get down towards 20.  it can burn 4lbs per hour max, which starts getting close to what it would cost me to run the oil.

that is why i am currently looking into a wood boiler as well.  i think every appliance has an efficiency curve associated with it.  my plan is to run the boiler in the colder temps, and run the pellet stove when temps are bit more mild.  

also, where my pellet stove is located is not the ideal location to be used for heating my whole house.  central heating is really nice.


----------



## BrownianHeatingTech (Feb 7, 2008)

futureboiler said:
			
		

> i have always had to disagree with those cost calculators.  there are a few things they dont account for.  currently my pellet stove does about 90 percent of my heating.  thats 3 tons of pellets.  i do have to occasionally run my oil boiler when temps get down to about the 20 degree mark.  i have some pipes in an unheated crawlspace (not my doing) that will freeze under certain circumstances.  i looked back on my oil deliveries to find i was using upwards 800 gallons to heat my home.  the conversion charts say i should only use 300 some gals of oil for 3 tons of pellets.



Bingo.  The "cost per million btu" of the fuel is only one factor.

The system efficiency of the existing equipment is a consideration, too.

There are brand-new oil boilers which have system efficiencies in the 55% range.  Older boilers can be even lower in many cases.

Do you replace that boiler with a new, efficient oil boiler?  Or do you spend 1/3 more (as a ballpark) to add a pellet or maybe 1/2 more to add a wood boiler?  That 1/3 or 1/2 extra is the real cost of the biomass boiler.

Let's ballpark some efficiency numbers... replacing your oil boiler with a more efficient model will raise your system efficiency by 30%, while installing a pellet boiler will raise it by 50% (since pellets are roughly half the cost of oil) and a wood gasifier will raise it by 70% (since wood is even less expensive).

There's your cost and benefits.  If X is the cost of the oil boiler, and Y is your current fuel bill...

Oil boiler costs X and returns 0.3*Y per year.

Pellets boiler costs 1.33*X and return 0.5*Y per year.

Wood boiler costs 1.5*X and returns 0.7*Y per year.

If we assume that your oil bill per year is roughly 1/3 of the cost of a new oil boiler (X = 3*Y), we can actually solve those out...
Oil - Spending 3Y returns 0.3Y per year - payoff is 10 years.
Pellets - Spending 4Y returns 0.5Y per year - payoff is 8 years.
Wood - Spending 4.5Y returns 0.7Y per year - payoff is 6.4 years.

If your yearly oil bill is half the cost of a new oil boiler (X = 2*Y), the payoff rates are...
Oil - 6.7 years
Pellets - 5.3 years
Wood - 4.25 years

If your yearly oil bill is 2/3 the cost of a new oil boiler (X = 1.5*Y), the payoff rates are...
Oil - 5 years
Pellets - 4 years
Wood - 3.2 years

I don't figure that there is a small interest rate that could be earned (or must be spent for a home equity loan) unless a customer really wants it done, since the improved efficiency will continue long after the unit pays off, returning a higher "dividend" than most other investments.

What it eventually boils down to is that if you are burning less than 1000 gallons of oil per year, and you are looking at this from a purely economic standpoint (eg, you don't care about using locally-produced fuel, or have environmental concerns about oil use), then your best bet is to either invest in something substantially-less-expensive than a central heating system (like a pellet stove), or start putting money aside (earning interest on it) for future replacement of your system (when it actually fails).

1000 gallons per years is one of my "guidelines" for recommending these sort of systems (along with btu demand and such).  If someone puts additional value on the self-sufficiency or environmental aspects of biomass, then the fuel usage guideline may be a bit lower for them, since the payoff is not the most critical a part of the equation.

When residential and light-commercial systems start getting up to the 2000-gallon-per-year mark, then it really gets to the "it would be insane not to use this technology" level.

Joe


----------



## webbie (Feb 7, 2008)

Each situation is different, of course, and must be addressed that way. However, "blue sky" theories are not my bag, since Murphy has always gotten in the way of those for me (that is my experience over 35 years of home heating and sales of appliances).

Not taking an initial investment into account does away with any fair comparison....when that investment can be $10,000 or more. Since many people do not have the cash sitting around, a 6% rate (home equity) would be MINIMUM. That is $600 a year. Many people buy on credit cards or at higher (prime plus) rates.

But as Joe points out, there is no magic in Pellets. It is all about BTU for the buck. In fact, I would venture to say that a Pellet boiler or furnace would not have the same system efficiency as a top-notch oil unit.....in the field. Until someone actually tests (AFUE) many of the pellet boilers on the market, I would take manufacturers ratings with a grain of salt. Tarm may be the exception.....it is engineered quite well.

As an example, during the first pellet boom stoves were claimed to be 80% efficient. So they finally did some field testing and guess what? They came in at 52% to 75%.  Furthermore, guess which pellet mechanism ended up with the lowest efficiency? ......... Traeger! (Earth Stove used this)....as I remember it was 42 to 52%. 

My point, as usual, is buyer beware and make certain of fuel costs, availability...and, if REALLY possible - system efficiencies. Using all the best advertised numbers (lowest pellet prices, highest oil prices, lowest yearly service costs) can result in a big change in the potential savings. While I am an optimist, I also tend to be very conservative when working with numbers. After all, you can read ads which show you how to save thousands with plug in electric heaters. Someone has to talk about the other side of the equation!


----------



## richg (Feb 7, 2008)

Uh, does anyone give any thought to considerations besides money when choosing a heating system? How about that heating with pellets does not contribute to global warming, but coal, natural gas, propane and oil do? How about that petroleum-based fuels put money into the pockets of tyrants like hugo chavez and mahmoud ahmadinejad?


----------



## BrownianHeatingTech (Feb 7, 2008)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> But as Joe points out, there is no magic in Pellets. It is all about BTU for the buck. In fact, I would venture to say that a Pellet boiler or furnace would not have the same system efficiency as a top-notch oil unit.....in the field. Until someone actually tests (AFUE) many of the pellet boilers on the market, I would take manufacturers ratings with a grain of salt. Tarm may be the exception.....it is engineered quite well.
> 
> As an example, during the first pellet boom stoves were claimed to be 80% efficient. So they finally did some field testing and guess what? They came in at 52% to 75%.  Furthermore, guess which pellet mechanism ended up with the lowest efficiency? ......... Traeger! (Earth Stove used this)....as I remember it was 42 to 52%.



The Pinnacle boiler actually matches its advertised efficiency.  As I've said, I've not been a fan of pellet fuel in the past.  Which is why seeing one in operation in an actual building, generating an actual efficiency within a couple percent of the advertised efficiency was important...

Not that I care overly much about AFUE, _per se_ - your AFUE goes up if you open all your windows in the dead of winter, even though your actual system efficiency (fuel efficiency) goes way down.

Joe


----------



## webbie (Feb 7, 2008)

richg said:
			
		

> Uh, does anyone give any thought to considerations besides money when choosing a heating system? How about that heating with pellets does not contribute to global warming, but coal, natural gas, propane and oil do? How about that petroleum-based fuels put money into the pockets of tyrants like hugo chavez and mahmoud ahmadinejad?



I think I addressed that above (and many other times) with this:
"Mind you, I’m not trying to spoil the party, just stating that there are qualifications and also MANY other reasons that someone might want to burn pellets..."

But that is a given. If someone wants to "go green", they will spend extra money on solar PV, hybrid cars, and perhaps pellet stoves and boilers. However, they should always go in with "eyes wide open", and using manufacturers and dealers claims is not the whole picture (of product shopping).

Joe, that is great that their products meet the advertised efficiencies. Maybe someday we will get a pellet boiler user who sets up the whole rigging like Nofossil!


----------



## BrownianHeatingTech (Feb 7, 2008)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> Joe, that is great that their products meet the advertised efficiencies. Maybe someday we will get a pellet boiler user who sets up the whole rigging like Nofossil!



Heh.  My planned heating system makes his look simple.  Two oil boilers, pellet boiler, wood boiler, solar for heat sources.  Radiant zones, radiator zones, fan coil zones, a detached greenhouse, a hot tub, and a snowmelt system in the driveway for loads.  Multiple storage tanks that will be staged in depending on the weather and the fuel availability.  All controlled by a networked computer system (which will also function as the room thermostats).  This will be done in phases over the coming years, unless I win the lottery (which isn't likely, since I don't play).

Joe


----------



## chiggins (Feb 7, 2008)

Joe,  I'd be curious what you plan to use to control your system.  I have been dreaming of a similar system and will be starting my install in a few weeks (minus the wood boiler).  (see https://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/forums/viewthread/14843/)

I am trying to decide what type of control system to use.  I love the stuff nofossil has done but time is always at a premium and trying to roll my own networked system might be a bit much.  I also looked at some tekmar controls but those prices add up real fast!   What do you plan to use as a platform for you thermostats and controllers?

-Chris


----------



## BrownianHeatingTech (Feb 7, 2008)

chiggins said:
			
		

> Joe,  I'd be curious what you plan to use to control your system.  I have been dreaming of a similar system and will be starting my install in a few weeks (minus the wood boiler).  (see https://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/forums/viewthread/14843/)
> 
> I am trying to decide what type of control system to use.  I love the stuff nofossil has done but time is always at a premium and trying to roll my own networked system might be a bit much.  I also looked at some tekmar controls but those prices add up real fast!   What do you plan to use as a platform for you thermostats and controllers?



Sorry, I'm planning to do what nofossil has, and then some.  I've chatted with him about the subject a bit.  The goal is a "smart" system that will actually monitor itself and "learn" the most efficient way to do things.  By monitoring actual btus, weather, etc, and having costs of different fuels programmed it, it will be able to choose which heat source to use, and whether to charge a tank (or two or three or four) versus heating directly.  It's not going to be a "practical" system, but rather an experimental platform.

I'll try to take a look at your thread, when I get a chance.  I still have limited time/energy available for Hearth.com due to family and business demands.  Email is probably the best way to get in touch with me.

Joe


----------



## Sting (Feb 7, 2008)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> Maybe someday we will get a pellet boiler user who sets up the whole rigging like Nofossil!



What would you like to see?


----------



## solarguy (Feb 8, 2008)

I think getting into pellets is a wise move. But the from a payback perspective, ton of pellets against the equivelent gallons of oil are pretty equal in price & BTU output. I'd venture out there to say the same holds true for propane if the client is using a condensing gas boiler. 

What I've found about the pellet crowd is they have made the decision not to burn fossil fuels & support opec. Unlike the wood burner crowd, which is basicly cheap, the pellet crowd doesn't really care about the payback.


----------



## Eric Johnson (Feb 8, 2008)

We had a thread awhile back where a pellet boiler (I think) owner was using more $ in pellets to heat his house than he would spend with his oil boiler, even though both appliances were in the mid 80s in efficiency and the amount of pellets he was burning actually had a higher btu content than the comparable amount of oil needed to do the job. I don't think we ever found out what the problem was, but I found it interesting to make that comparison in a real-world situation where he could do both, keep track of the results, and draw the conclusions from that. Unfortunately for pellets in that example, it didn't favor the wood option in his case.

My point, I guess, is that there are no guarantees.


----------



## Burn-1 (Feb 8, 2008)

Joe,

Are you aware of any US or North American firms doing something like this Swedish firm which makes pellet burners?

That would seem to be a great way to bridge the pellet technology conversion costs since according to the Varmebaronen website they can be adapted to many boilers so a homeowner might be able to replace the gun and install a feed mechanism but not the whole boiler.


----------



## Sleepy (Feb 8, 2008)

solarguy said:
			
		

> I think getting into pellets is a wise move. But the from a payback perspective, ton of pellets against the equivelent gallons of oil are pretty equal in price & BTU output. I'd venture out there to say the same holds true for propane if the client is using a condensing gas boiler.
> 
> What I've found about the pellet crowd is they have made the decision not to burn fossil fuels & support opec. Unlike the wood burner crowd, which is basicly cheap, the pellet crowd doesn't really care about the payback.



New guy here. I actually do fuel cost consulting for a living. I have considered installing a pellet stove several times in the last 15 years, but didn't when comparing the actual cost to use pellets vs my existing oil-fired system. 3 weeks ago after working on an energy audit for a customer, I discovered that I can now get twice as much heat (BTUs) per dollar with pellets than I can with oil.
That was a Wednesday. The following Saturday afternoon I was firing up my new Mt Vernon AE. Each dollar I feed into it ($180/ton) returns 70,000 BTU in heat, vs. 35,000 BTU in oil ($3.10/gallon). Its all about ROI. If I use my AE for primary heat, I should see a payback in 2-3 years.


----------



## webbie (Feb 8, 2008)

$180 is a lower price for pellets than most of our users are paying (delivered in place). In fact, quite a bit lower. 

Most forum members are reporting about 250 when delivery if figured in, or $220 to 240 picked up. 

A really rough guide is just to move a couple zeros. $180 a ton is equal to $1.80 oil. Again, rough, but good enough for some. So when the price starts getting over 250 delivered, it gets harder to get payback when the stove and other costs are figured in.

I agree that many pellet stove users do it for the green. A whole bunch of others do it because they think they are saving money....but whether they actually are is sometimes in question. At prices under $200 and current higher prices for oil and LP, it starts to get interesting. But it is important to look over the past 10-15 years when the difference was usually much less.


----------



## Sting (Feb 8, 2008)

Last year corn fuel was 70.00 a ton (now that was a payback engine) - this year its a bit more


----------



## jebatty (Feb 8, 2008)

Feeling a need to ramble a bit . . . .

Making an economic benefit decision on purchasing a durable appliance based upon the current price of a needed supply item (fuel) over which one has no control is very risky. The law of supply and demand will tend to equalize the price/total cost/benefit per btu of the various fuels. There will be new fuels and old fuels may phase out due to supply/cost issues. In the economic sense price/total cost/benefit of competitive goods will tend to equalize. Total cost includes price, storage, handling, maintenance, convenience, transportation, environmental considerations, etc. Benefit includes heat, ambiance, exercise, recreation, environmental, etc.

Corn -- a new fuel, posed an economic advantage because it was in over-supply as an ag commodity, not a fuel. As soon as the new fuel market gained acceptance, the price rose due to increasing demand and, unless a relative over-supply continues, the price will continue to rise until it approximates the price/btu of alternative fuels.

Pellets and other manufactured biofuels -- ditto, with the exception that pellet/bio material supply is likely to increase as additional bio sources become feasible, but again, over time price/total cost per btu will approximately equalize with alternative fuels.

Wood -- ditto here to, subject to the relative over-supply in some markets compared to demand, resulting in a lower price. Wood has big disadvantages on current technology for the average consumer (no light it and forget, not mostly maintenance free), and the lower cost may continue for a time, but as technology changes to accept manufactured wood fuel (pellets, etc.) and as prices of alternative current major fuels rise, the price of wood and wood products for fuel also will rise. The lower price of wood as a fuel reflects the other costs inherent in use of wood as a fuel (handling, storage, convenience, maintenance, convenience, etc.), and one can easily argue that the total cost of wood per btu also approximates that of other fuels.

Price/total cost of a good is an elusive concept and far more complex than the easily recognized components. For example, oil has been and remains relatively cheap in price due to direct subsidies, tax benefits for example, and indirect subsidies, no charge for adverse environmental consequences, for example. Similarly, the benefit of a good is elusive. For oil as a fuel, it may be little more than the energy derived. Ditto for wood as a fuel. But for one who owns his/her own woodlot, wood may be mostly a by-product of other highly valued benefits: shade, recreation, lumber, etc.

While other comments have touched on the fact that there are considerations other than price in $, ROI is a much bigger concept, and limiting discussion of ROI only to current price/benefit in $ barely touches the tip of the much bigger iceberg.

I would argue that living now in a very uncertain world (climate change, peak oil, water shortage, pandemic, pervasive world starvation and poverty and resulting terror threats), we need to be far more aware of our impact and the consequences of our behavior. Continuing as we have in the past offers a bleak future for our children, grandchildren, and successive generations, as well as all of the animals, plants and ecosystems which make up this place called earth. The earth is a system which we and natural forces are changing. The future is very uncertain based on our past and current behaviors.


----------



## Como (Feb 8, 2008)

Sounds like Solar would be the only solution, or nuclear.


----------



## Eric Johnson (Feb 8, 2008)

That's a nice summary and conclusion, Jim.

I think that in the future, as energy supplies of all kinds become depleted and expensive, we're going to be using them all, for better or worse. Unless we modify our behavior dramatically, I don't think we'll have the luxury, like we do now, of picking and choosing our poison. One of my main motivations in the direction of alternative energy is something my dad said several decades ago: "Oil is such a valuable substance that someday we're going to look at each other and say, 'I can't believe they _burned_ this stuff back in the 20th Century.'"

My current, modified take on that is that you won't find a better fuel than oil, so we should be conserving it for the things for which there is no replacement, and using viable alternatives for everything else. That's not a solution to our many problems, but a step in the right direction, I think. It's the best I can do on an individual level, in any event.

To put it another way, why should I, as an able-bodied person with access to wood fuel, burn gas or oil if I don't have to? The gas/oil I don't burn should be available to the little old lady across the street at a reasonable price and through a reliable supply line. To me, that's a sensible, socially-responsible way to approach the problem. On a purely selfish level, I stay in shape and save money.


----------



## Sting (Feb 8, 2008)

BrownianHeatingTech said:
			
		

> Well, I'm taking the plunge into pellet fuel.  I have too many potential customers who don't have their own woodlots.  And a number who live in areas where they simply do not have space for a wood pile of any size, so they would be relying on getting small (expensive-per-cord) deliveries all winter in order to heat with wood.
> 
> So, I'll be carrying the Pinnacle PB150 pellet boiler (and the pellet furnaces, for that matter).  I was always a bit leery of pellet systems due to the problems I've heard over the years.  But Mark from Evergreen Heat called me and wanted me to take a look at his setup in his shop.
> Joe



Are there other Traeger (Pinnacle)  boiler users here?


----------



## Nofossil (Feb 8, 2008)

Another dimension for me is the idea of self-sufficiency. I had enough time and money to put in my wood-based heating system. If really bad things happen to me or the world around me, I know that I can at least stay warm without depending on anyone else and without spending any more money - my fixed future costs for heat are pretty near zero.

I'm not being apocalyptic here, but my livelihood could easily disappear, for instance. I'd rather have the insurance of personal control over my heating destiny than the same amount of money in the bank.


----------



## Eric Johnson (Feb 8, 2008)

And you mock my 43 cords in the backyard?


----------



## Nofossil (Feb 8, 2008)

Eric Johnson said:
			
		

> And you mock my 43 cords in the backyard?



Of course. I prefer to store my wood standing up, except for the next two year's worth.

I have to say that I'd love to see a practical automatic chip feed system for residential boilers. In my mind that's more attractive than pellets, since I could make my own chips. There are days when I really like the idea of a system where the primary interaction point is the thermostat.

I wonder how small / cheap a wood pellet mill could be?


----------



## Eric Johnson (Feb 8, 2008)

Storing it in a standing (and growing) state makes sense in your case. My wood source is 60 miles away, however, so I feel more secure having it cut and stacked within reach of the boiler.

My impression is that making pellets isn't all that hard if you have dry, processed wood for feedstock. But I don't think anybody has figured out a good way to turn roundwood or green chips into pellets on a small scale.

I'm surprised that nobody markets a residential chip burner anymore (that I'm aware of). A guy in Vermont had one about 30 years ago that seemed to work really well. You need a special chipper (Valby) to make the kind of uniform chips that a burner like that required, but they're not expensive or hard to come by. I agree that would be the way to go.


----------



## Sting (Feb 8, 2008)

We have chatted to great length re home pellet making at another page - one user built a home press soybeans for the oil and the cake to burn or feed. Large pellet mills have issues with product consistency - how could a small operation be better? Two tried and never got it, but thats not a testimonial. 

Chips - again consistency due to variable sources of free or inexpensive stock will have issues that Stacked supplies do not. Cutting and stacking allows you to pick first the base stock - then the daily or semi daily choice of load to fire. Chips of pellets in bulk - well your sort of limited to what falls out the auger or is shoveled off the top. But the chips could be conditioned to a consistent quality with a hammer mill and a dryer similar to how grain is dried and cleaned for safe storage.

Maybe not in a residential setting but as Eric is 60 miles from his source maybe this could be done off site also - here is an example of one dryer  http://www.sarcornfurnace.com/Videopage.html as they use corn here to dry corn - wood chips could be used in the off season to dry fuel and fuel could be stored in silo as the family farm used to - heck Ill bet we could even adapt a silo unloader to feed bulk daily to the running applinace.

but its that feed system that needs to com back to the market - some cross between the Traeger feed cup delivery and the old brute force Iron Fireman Cole stokers
to shove a consistent sized chip on consistent moisture in to a stirred burn pot.

How do we do that?

then storage - now instead of a nice pile covered we need a farm silo and a tractor to blow the conditioned chips into the silo and some way to access it all year

oh the more I write this the more I like skids of pellets


----------



## leaddog (Feb 8, 2008)

Eric Johnson said:
			
		

> I'm surprised that nobody markets a residential chip burner anymore (that I'm aware of). A guy in Vermont had one about 30 years ago that seemed to work really well. You need a special chipper (Valby) to make the kind of uniform chips that a burner like that required, but they're not expensive or hard to come by. I agree that would be the way to go.



There are several chip burners sold over seas. The one that is talked about in that artical I posted sounds very interesting but I don't know anything else about it. Chip burners would be the ideal bio-mass boiler as it is avilable every where locally in many forms. That would help keep the cost down because it would eliminate alot of the transportation costs.
leaddog


----------



## jebatty (Feb 8, 2008)

I'm not hyping this product, but it is very interesting. Made by Woodmizer, to handle sawdust and all forms of biodust.
http://www.biomizer.com/Flash/index.htm
or
http://www.biomizer.com/Non_Flash/index.htm


----------



## Eric Johnson (Feb 8, 2008)

That's interesting, Jim. I've heard rumors, but that link is the first time I've seen anything official. Rest assured, next they'll be selling a hog.


----------



## drizler (Feb 9, 2008)

Sting said:
			
		

> Last year corn fuel was 70.00 a ton (now that was a payback engine) - this year its a bit more



A bit more is something of an understatement.    I heard it went over the 300/ton mark before falling back some  but not all that much.  Of course it won't stay there forever, it can't.  Once switchgrass catches on like it already is starting to then it will change.   Till then its still a good idea to have something capable of burning all of it in a pellet appliance.    Go multifuel and cover your bases!


----------



## Gooserider (Feb 12, 2008)

One of the key things that I think needs more consideration in deciding about the desirability of different fuels, and their costs is how much processing is needed to turn the raw material into fuel - The more processing, the less efficient the fuel is overall, regardless of how good it might be in your own stack...

As an example on one extreme, the big wood OWB's that take four foot logs w/ minimal splitting is probably about the lowest fuel processing requirement there is.  Cordwood takes a little more cutting, and needs to be split, but still there is not a lot of processing or expensive equipment needed between the tree and the fire.

OTOH, Pellets seem like they are automatically going to be much less efficient on an overall basis, and have much higher costs because there is so much processing and handling involved - the raw material has to be very finely ground (and the finer you grind the more energy it takes...) dried, compressed, etc. usually with some pretty extensive transport requirements along the way - cordwood tends to be very local...  The processing equipment is complex and expensive, adding to the costs as you need to amortize it....

The wood-mizer product just mentioned seems to split the difference in that it appears to not require as much processing since the grind may be coarser, and there is no pelletizing required.  However a fairly fine grind is still needed.

If I were trying to invent something these days, I'd look for something that could burn coarse chips, grass clippings, leaves, and other such coarse biomass with minimal processing - I think that would be the "sweet spot" of maximum local supply, and minimal processing requirements...

Random thought on drying - what about using a thermal storage tank as a drying heat source?  Build a fairly tall skinny tank (1 kGal LP tank on end?) with a second shell around it, say 6-12" away, with the insulation on the outside of this second shell - rig up some way to dump damp chips or other "not ready for prime time" material in the top of that space, and a way to remove material from the bottom and shovel it into the burner...  Would cost some efficiency in storage tank losses, but should be able to dry the chips very effectively with minimal handling, no fancy equipment, etc.

Gooserider


----------



## Eric Johnson (Feb 12, 2008)

Those are some good observations, Goose, as usual.

I can assure you that processing and drying are costs that pellet manufacturers are acutely aware of, for the reasons you mentioned. They would much rather get dried sawdust than roundwood, and the percentage of each (and all the gradations in between) is what determines their profit margin.

The Wood Mizer sawdust burner is designed, as I understand it, to burn sawdust produced by portable sawmills. So in that case, it's a byproduct with essentially no production costs. However, in an attempt to broaden the market for the boiler, they talk a lot about processing bigger stuff soley for use as fuel. As you noted, that adds considerable expense to the fuel, and you don't really have the option of burning unprocessed chunks. So it's a perfect appliance in the right application, but could be a millstone (so to speak) to somebody who can't get cheap or free sawdust.

The woodchip gasifiers I've seen all have big hoppers and rely to some extent upon the heat from the fire knocking down the moisture content of the fuel before it gets to the burner. With the right size hopper and fuel with the right starting mc, it works pretty well. In a sense, gasification boilers do something similar--you fill the firebox and by the time the wood on the top gets down to the nozzles, it's dried out to some extent. I've noticed that my boiler seems to be much more efficient when filled to the brim on very cold days, compared to warmer weather when I tend to make much smaller fires during the day. I guess that's another reason for me to get my tank going.


----------



## Gooserider (Feb 12, 2008)

I know that we're all waiting to see what happens with your tank adventure, but hopefully you'll get it done soon so we don't have to wait until next winter to find out how it works...

My thought on the "storage tank" type dryer setup I was mentioning is that what I see of chips, and what I've experienced with my "splitter trash" that I use for fire starting is that it gets a lot of dampness on the surface from rain and ground moisture, getting rid of that moisture so that what is going into the burner has about the same dryness (or better wouldn't hurt) as what comes out of the chipper seems a lot of the battle.  

I figure that working with that grade of material is also good because there seems to be a LOT of it - everything from municipalities and tree services to lawncare places generate large amounts of it as yard waste, and it's a sizeable disposal problem - it would benefit the taxpayers to get it out of the waste stream, and I suspect most of the generators would appreciate having a way to get rid of it that either didn't cost them anything or even made them a bit.

Gooserider


----------

