GVA said:
As far as NG Does this calculate all the other charges per therm like temp compensated volume, delivery per therm, and all those others that add up to make your bill more than twice your therm rate...
Now I know I compared them all at the same price but after all I wanted to know what the BTU's were for each.....
Now as far as my post several pages ago.
How fast are those BTU's released in a wood stove?
What happens to those BTU's when you open the damper a bit? Where is that heat going?
I remember someone saying here "Efficiency is in fact accounted for in the calculator, and you can even adjust the numbers if you don’t believe the defaults. Heck, you can even make the pellet stove 50% more efficient than a woodstove and you still can’t get the same heat into your house out of a $250 ton of pellets as you can out of a $150 cord of hardwood. "
Maybe I should say this you will never get heat out of a house like you will with a guy burning wood who has his windows open. :coolgrin: Sorry couldn't help myself there...
The same heat is there Just how quick is is used up? And how fast do you want to make your wife's plants wilt.
Remember this debate did start off the fuel comparison Which is not just cost....... but also on BTU's
[/quote]jimkelt said:
Actually, to me, that is very easy to do and I don't even have to "guess"/adjust the efficiencies. Cordwood is still going for about $225 here, so using PFI AND their default efficiencies (even though I agree that it is ridiculous to think of a wood stove in a real world situation getting 75% efficiency!) and IMO the efficiency for pellet stoves is pretty accurate, at least for our brands, Harman and Dell Point...NY Soapstone said:jimkelt said:
Well, let's be careful... not sure that I'd believe that number any more than the Wood Stove Manufacturers Association number for their stove, anymore than I'd believe the American Automobile Manufacturers Association's numbers for how reliable their cars
EPA tests claim 78% for modern wood stoves, and I would question those numbers just as much in "real world" applications, and that was also cut to 70 in the calculator.
My understanding is that Craig puts slightly pessimistic numbers into these defaults to reflect the fact that these are rarely observed in real applications over time.
By the way, in the last post, I tried hard to manipulate the numbers to make pellets look better than wood on the east coast, even using an imaginary 100% efficient pellet stove that doesn't exist. But I still can't make it look better in this east coast market! Pretty compelling IMHO. We're not talking about 10% differences... we're talking huge 2X factors that have to be overcome in making favorable assumptions for pellets on efficiency, cost of wood has to be much higher, cost of pellets has to fall just to get these things close.
-Colin
jimkelt said:Actually, to me, that is very easy to do and I don't even have to "guess"/adjust the efficiencies. Cordwood is still going for about $225 here, so using PFI AND their default efficiencies (even though I agree that it is ridiculous to think of a wood stove in a real world situation getting 75% efficiency!) and IMO the efficiency for pellet stoves is pretty accurate, at least for our brands, Harman and Dell Point...NY Soapstone said:jimkelt said:
Well, let's be careful... not sure that I'd believe that number any more than the Wood Stove Manufacturers Association number for their stove, anymore than I'd believe the American Automobile Manufacturers Association's numbers for how reliable their cars
EPA tests claim 78% for modern wood stoves, and I would question those numbers just as much in "real world" applications, and that was also cut to 70 in the calculator.
My understanding is that Craig puts slightly pessimistic numbers into these defaults to reflect the fact that these are rarely observed in real applications over time.
By the way, in the last post, I tried hard to manipulate the numbers to make pellets look better than wood on the east coast, even using an imaginary 100% efficient pellet stove that doesn't exist. But I still can't make it look better in this east coast market! Pretty compelling IMHO. We're not talking about 10% differences... we're talking huge 2X factors that have to be overcome in making favorable assumptions for pellets on efficiency, cost of wood has to be much higher, cost of pellets has to fall just to get these things close.
-Colin
Wood Pellets
Cost per ton in dollars
$213 (least expensive I have in my area)
Appliance Efficiency 87%
Cost per million BTU=$14.93
Hardwood (air dried)
Cost per cord in dollars
$225
Appliance Efficiency 75%
Cost per million BTU=$15.00
I stand by my point. The calculators (anyone's) are essentially worthless for the my fuel is better than your fuel argument.
Sure, no problem - as you as you calculate based on the $8.90/bag that started the threadGVA said:
Both are ridiculous, and everyone knows it.
Right - I agree - 25 mil BTU is a more typical average among hardwoods, and that is what is in the calculator per your note. Just like it doesn't use the highest or lowest pellet value, it doesn't use highest or lowest hardwood value.
Again, you are only partially correct... If you read the university extension site carefully, you'll see that when they say 25 million BTUs per cord, that is at 20% moisture content which means they have accounted for that evaporation in the number. What is not accounted for in this discussion is the residual moisture in the pellets, so that kind of works against your argument here, but I agree it is relatively small.
I agree, based on my local market conditions at the moment. (although I cut my own, I can buy for $150/cord...)
Depends on your oil price relative to pellets.
Depends on how much of each you burn, but sure, burn enough of either and you'll do fine.
Maybe if you can only buy wood at $300+/cord, but that is highway robbery around here, and I live less than 100 miles from Manhattan - not exactly cheap country. Again, in your local market in the Northeast, at $250/ton for pellets, you can't make the case unless you have exorbitant wood prices. Remember - the $300+ you quote for wood is the highest example you can find. The $250/ton I quote for pellets is an average from a website designed to help people track the pellet market in MA. Not exactly apples-to-apples - you are trying to make a loaded comparison that is rather silly.
NY Soapstone said:Sure, no problem - as you as you calculate based on the $8.90/bag that started the threadGVA said:Right - I agree - 25 mil BTU is a more typical average among hardwoods, and that is what is in the calculator per your note. Just like it doesn't use the highest or lowest pellet value, it doesn't use highest or lowest hardwood value.Again, you are only partially correct... If you read the university extension site carefully, you'll see that when they say 25 million BTUs per cord, that is at 20% moisture content which means they have accounted for that evaporation in the number. What is not accounted for in this discussion is the residual moisture in the pellets, so that kind of works against your argument here, but I agree it is relatively small.I agree, based on my local market conditions at the moment. (although I cut my own, I can buy for $150/cord...)Depends on your oil price relative to pellets.Depends on how much of each you burn, but sure, burn enough of either and you'll do fine.Maybe if you can only buy wood at $300+/cord, but that is highway robbery around here, and I live less than 100 miles from Manhattan - not exactly cheap country. Again, in your local market in the Northeast, at $250/ton for pellets, you can't make the case unless you have exorbitant wood prices. Remember - the $300+ you quote for wood is the highest example you can find. The $250/ton I quote for pellets is an average from a website designed to help people track the pellet market in MA. Not exactly apples-to-apples - you are trying to make a loaded comparison that is rather silly.
My main concern is that you have tried to find flaws in the calculator repeatedly, and your analysis was wrong every time, so it needs to be pointed out. Otherwise, users read this and walk away with false information. In this post, you again said something very misleading - you implied that the cordwood BTU values have to be derated for water. That is not correct. It is net available heat after accounting for 20% moisture. Important point.
The calculator will tell some users that pellets are a great deal depending on their local market, and a poor choice in others. And that is what it all comes down to - in some markets, pellet stoves are not very cost effective. And if cost is a major concern, hardwood holds compelling price advantages that rarely tilt to favor pellets. Too many people want to put their head in the sand and believe that is not the case and that pellets always save money. It's not that simple.
If pellets get to $150/cord on the east coast, it'll be a whole new ballgame... and the calculator will confirm it for you.
-Colin
....... COAL IS $8.99 a bag WTF! Maybe we can all catch a bargain at their "GOING OUT OF BUSINESS SALE"!
jimkelt said:
Craig I don't think it's efficiencies that are being put in question but rather the BTU values that are skewed.Webmaster said:
Still not sure what I am supposed to do with those #s above and how I'm supposed to calculate these, but it looks like the lower the # the better you are I don't know if this is input or output BTU, But pellets are tied with softwood whatever the case....Webmaster said:
