What Pellet to buy??

[celticsgreen]

If you use 4 tons per season of cheap pellets @ $200/ton you spend $800. If you use super-premium pellets and achieve best case scenario 11% greater heat you would use 3.56 tons @$270 and you spend $961.20. So for a little extra cleaning you can save $161.20 on your heat bill by using cheap pellets.

 

[SmokeyTheBear]

If you use 4 tons per season of cheap pellets @ $200/ton you spend $800. If you use super-premium pellets and achieve best case scenario 11% greater heat you would use 3.56 tons @$270 and you spend $961.20. So for a little extra cleaning you can save $161.20 on your heat bill by using cheap pellets.

You are not down rating your cheap pellets usable output due to the additional ash build up.

 

[imacman]

If you use 4 tons per season of cheap pellets @ $200/ton you spend $800. If you use super-premium pellets and achieve best case scenario 11% greater heat you would use 3.56 tons @$270 and you spend $961.20. So for a little extra cleaning you can save $161.20 on your heat bill by using cheap pellets.

A lot of "ifs" and "best case scenarios" for that to be true. Every "cheap" pellet is different too. I'd like you to try your theory using Inferno's.

Unfortunately, if you're wrong, you'll have a long COLD winter ahead of you. :long:

 

[celticsgreen]

If you use 4 tons per season of cheap pellets @ $200/ton you spend $800. If you use super-premium pellets and achieve best case scenario 11% greater heat you would use 3.56 tons @$270 and you spend $961.20. So for a little extra cleaning you can save $161.20 on your heat bill by using cheap pellets.

You are not down rating your cheap pellets usable output due to the additional ash build up.

I mentioned the extra cleaning necessary with cheap pellets in my analysis.

 

[SmokeyTheBear]

If you use 4 tons per season of cheap pellets @ $200/ton you spend $800. If you use super-premium pellets and achieve best case scenario 11% greater heat you would use 3.56 tons @$270 and you spend $961.20. So for a little extra cleaning you can save $161.20 on your heat bill by using cheap pellets.

You are not down rating your cheap pellets usable output due to the additional ash build up.

I mentioned the extra cleaning necessary with cheap pellets in my analysis.

But you didn't calculate the BTU loss incurred and that loss starts earlier and gets worse faster with a cheap high ash pellet so that projected 3.56 tons is going to be less and the $ savings are going to be less.

I won't even mention time spent cleaning until we have the heat we need taken care of or the additional wear and tear on cleaning equipment and various parts like gaskets.

It isn't as simple as doing an input BTU equivalence because it is the output that matters.

 

[celticsgreen]

If you use 4 tons per season of cheap pellets @ $200/ton you spend $800. If you use super-premium pellets and achieve best case scenario 11% greater heat you would use 3.56 tons @$270 and you spend $961.20. So for a little extra cleaning you can save $161.20 on your heat bill by using cheap pellets.

You are not down rating your cheap pellets usable output due to the additional ash build up.

I mentioned the extra cleaning necessary with cheap pellets in my analysis.

But you didn't calculate the BTU loss incurred and that loss starts earlier and gets worse faster with a cheap high ash pellet so that projected 3.56 tons is going to be less and the $ savings are going to be less.

I won't even mention time spent cleaning until we have the heat we need taken care of or the additional wear and tear on cleaning equipment and various parts like gaskets.

It isn't as simple as doing an input BTU equivalence because it is the output that matters.

Since you are saying my analysis is wrong I ask you....If a cheap pellet is rated at 8000 BTU with .63 ash, and a super-premium pellet is rated at 8900 BTU with .27 ash, and it takes 4 tons of cheap pellets with more frequent cleanings to heat your house, how many tons of super premium would it take?

 

[SmokeyTheBear]

If you use 4 tons per season of cheap pellets @ $200/ton you spend $800. If you use super-premium pellets and achieve best case scenario 11% greater heat you would use 3.56 tons @$270 and you spend $961.20. So for a little extra cleaning you can save $161.20 on your heat bill by using cheap pellets.

You are not down rating your cheap pellets usable output due to the additional ash build up.

I mentioned the extra cleaning necessary with cheap pellets in my analysis.

But you didn't calculate the BTU loss incurred and that loss starts earlier and gets worse faster with a cheap high ash pellet so that projected 3.56 tons is going to be less and the $ savings are going to be less.

I won't even mention time spent cleaning until we have the heat we need taken care of or the additional wear and tear on cleaning equipment and various parts like gaskets.

It isn't as simple as doing an input BTU equivalence because it is the output that matters.

Since you are saying my analysis is wrong I ask you....If a cheap pellet is rated at 8000 BTU with .63 ash, and a super-premium pellet is rated at 8900 BTU with .27 ash, and it takes 4 tons of cheap pellets with more frequent cleanings to heat your house, how many tons of super premium would it take?

I don't think you are going to be able to calculate it and here is why: https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/60581/

You can only measure it.

 

[newf lover]

I don't think you can always go by how the pellets are rated, unfortunately. What the bag says and how the pellets perform are different. I have burned crappy pellets that actually weren't even that cheap. The buildup of ash was so great that a couple times it put the fire out. The difference between those pellets and the Turman I now burn are like night and day. I spend hours less time maintaining my stove, not just a little. My time is worth alot to me. However, if you don't mind the extra cleaning and don't feel you get your money's worth on the mosre expensive brands, then burn the lower end pellets. Someone has to buy all those Infernos.

 

[celticsgreen]

If you use 4 tons per season of cheap pellets @ $200/ton you spend $800. If you use super-premium pellets and achieve best case scenario 11% greater heat you would use 3.56 tons @$270 and you spend $961.20. So for a little extra cleaning you can save $161.20 on your heat bill by using cheap pellets.

You are not down rating your cheap pellets usable output due to the additional ash build up.

I mentioned the extra cleaning necessary with cheap pellets in my analysis.

But you didn't calculate the BTU loss incurred and that loss starts earlier and gets worse faster with a cheap high ash pellet so that projected 3.56 tons is going to be less and the $ savings are going to be less.

I won't even mention time spent cleaning until we have the heat we need taken care of or the additional wear and tear on cleaning equipment and various parts like gaskets.

It isn't as simple as doing an input BTU equivalence because it is the output that matters.

Since you are saying my analysis is wrong I ask you....If a cheap pellet is rated at 8000 BTU with .63 ash, and a super-premium pellet is rated at 8900 BTU with .27 ash, and it takes 4 tons of cheap pellets with more frequent cleanings to heat your house, how many tons of super premium would it take?

I don't think you are going to be able to calculate it and here is why: https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/60581/

You can only measure it.

I have a 13 year old Harman P61. I had it in the barn and was rarely used, so it has only burned 1 ton of pellets so far. Now it is in the house and our primary heat. In the owner's manual it states it can burn pellets with more than 3% ash with no problem. At the time when that stove was sold, today's cheap pellets would be considered super-premium....so I am confident your biggest bang for the buck heat-wise are cheap pellets.

 

[SmokeyTheBear]

If you use 4 tons per season of cheap pellets @ $200/ton you spend $800. If you use super-premium pellets and achieve best case scenario 11% greater heat you would use 3.56 tons @$270 and you spend $961.20. So for a little extra cleaning you can save $161.20 on your heat bill by using cheap pellets.

You are not down rating your cheap pellets usable output due to the additional ash build up.

I mentioned the extra cleaning necessary with cheap pellets in my analysis.

But you didn't calculate the BTU loss incurred and that loss starts earlier and gets worse faster with a cheap high ash pellet so that projected 3.56 tons is going to be less and the $ savings are going to be less.

I won't even mention time spent cleaning until we have the heat we need taken care of or the additional wear and tear on cleaning equipment and various parts like gaskets.

It isn't as simple as doing an input BTU equivalence because it is the output that matters.

Since you are saying my analysis is wrong I ask you....If a cheap pellet is rated at 8000 BTU with .63 ash, and a super-premium pellet is rated at 8900 BTU with .27 ash, and it takes 4 tons of cheap pellets with more frequent cleanings to heat your house, how many tons of super premium would it take?

I don't think you are going to be able to calculate it and here is why: https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/60581/

You can only measure it.

I have a 13 year old Harman P61. I had it in the barn and was rarely used, so it has only burned 1 ton of pellets so far. Now it is in the house and our primary heat. In the owner's manual it states it can burn pellets with more than 3% ash with no problem. At the time when that stove was sold, today's cheap pellets would be considered super-premium....so I am confident your biggest bang for the buck heat-wise are cheap pellets.

Yup, my stoves manual says the same thing and then proceeds to warn you that there will be more cleaning and more watching of the burn pot it is deafly silent on the question of how much heat it will extract and put in the room as opposed to going up the flue.

Like most manuals you only get told what the device can do, not what the results will be.

I likely could burn industrial pellets in mine, but I'd have to shut the stove down three times a day in oder to keep it safe.

 

[kykel]

I used some cheap pellets when I first lit my stove. I thought I bought a lousy stove, no heat and small flame. Put in my turmans and what a difference

 

[RiddleMasterMorgon]

Difference of 'heat output' between top pellet and box store brand is about 20 % for me (forget about the BTU number they give you on the bag) or equaling 1 step out of 5 on my auger speed.

If your stove is oversized for the house you have the lucky situation to choose, if undersized for your house you have to take the good stuff (lucky me :-

Aside from ash, BTU and heat, there is also stuff called sodium, that can help form clinkers and corrodes your stove away - so many more things than just heat to consider (or convenience of cleaning)

Having said that, 300 - 360 USD/ton is just outrages, period.

 

[jtakeman]

Cheap pellets have their place, But they are not for everyone! Anyone that thinks otherwise needs to try Inferno's or Nations Choice in the cold season. ;-)

A stove may be rated to handle 3% ash content fuel, But is the owner rated for all the extra work involved? I promise you, You will cry when you see what an absolute mess that's going on inside you stove! I really suggest you stick to the <1% stuff. Unless you have actually burned such fuels, Your imagination is far from reality.

 

[mazcrumple]

I am new to pellet stoves, I just recently installed my Quad MT Vernon 3 weeks ago. I am using Great American Pellets that I bought for $209/ton when I bought my stove. I figured it would be best to buy my pellets from the same place I got the stove, that way if I ran into any issues while the stove is still under warranty I dont have to hear them tell me that the problem was caused by cheap pellets. These are the only pellets I have used so I have nothing to compare them to, but as far as I can tell they work great. Considering I bought 4 tons, they better be good!

 

[IHATEPROPANE]

Cost alone does not make pellets good or bad. Try them all and see how you like them. I personnally will use a higher ash lower cost pellet during the shoulder seasons, where the burning is not 24/7 and cleaning is not an issue. But come the cold, I want a low ash pellet that will allow me more time between cleanings. The way i see it is pellets are saving me about $3,000 a year over propane. So an extra $100 or $200 on really good pellets is well worth it to me.

Especially after last year when I burned a bunch of Inferno's AND Nation's Choice not knowing any better at the time. Ugh it was brutal.

 

[Gabe]

WOW I learned so much from this post>
Thanks
and happy burning :coolsmile:

 

[celticsgreen]

Anecdotally I am reading that some people feel that super-premium pellets will do a better job on a cost per btu basis...however objectively there is no evidence....especially since the cost differential is not linear.

 

[jtakeman]

I think we kept things general, There are some pellets scored at the box stores prices that dust many of the pellet house brands. But you have to do your homework.

Many burners don't have the stoves optimized to there dwellings so you have some that will be overfired in cases with a lesser fuel. On the other side there are owners that can get by with about any fuel because they have a stove that has enough buffer to not only comp with the cold(heatloss), But comp for a lesser BTU pellet. Many variables heating with pellets and stoves.

 

[whit]

Anecdotally I am reading that some people feel that super-premium pellets will do a better job on a cost per btu basis...however objectively there is no evidence....especially since the cost differential is not linear.

Getting objective evidence is difficult, since that requires controlling a slew of variables. You'd need to have a number of different stove designs, arranged in an array of standardized buildings in the same climate, tended by people with about the same cleaning skills. Then you'd have to run studies over a long period, with different brands of pellets, while analyzing the pellets to be sure that each batch of a brand is consistent.

What's well-known for wood stoves is that any buildup on the interior will cut heat output. So what burns cleaner will result in the stove putting out more heat, if the cleaning interval remains the same. It's not the amount of ash you've got on the floor of the stove. It's the buildup of ash and whatever on the front and sides and top - especially the heat exchange tubs on a pellet stove. The BTU rating on the bag's contents doesn't tell you that. Neither does the ash content, strictly speaking, since some pellets proportionally leave more of that on the floor of the stove, while others dirty up the stove where it matters. So when folks report feeling a lot more heat from their stoves with good pellets, that's what's going on. It's not just how clean they burn, but whether it's the right kind of clean.

 

[celticsgreen]

Anecdotally I am reading that some people feel that super-premium pellets will do a better job on a cost per btu basis...however objectively there is no evidence....especially since the cost differential is not linear.

Getting objective evidence is difficult, since that requires controlling a slew of variables. You'd need to have a number of different stove designs, arranged in an array of standardized buildings in the same climate, tended by people with about the same cleaning skills. Then you'd have to run studies over a long period, with different brands of pellets, while analyzing the pellets to be sure that each batch of a brand is consistent.

What's well-known for wood stoves is that any buildup on the interior will cut heat output. So what burns cleaner will result in the stove putting out more heat, if the cleaning interval remains the same. It's not the amount of ash you've got on the floor of the stove. It's the buildup of ash and whatever on the front and sides and top - especially the heat exchange tubs on a pellet stove. The BTU rating on the bag's contents doesn't tell you that. Neither does the ash content, strictly speaking, since some pellets proportionally leave more of that on the floor of the stove, while others dirty up the stove where it matters. So when folks report feeling a lot more heat from their stoves with good pellets, that's what's going on. It's not just how clean they burn, but whether it's the right kind of clean.

Be that as it may, and I am sure what you are saying is true, the price differential between cheap pellets at say Tractor Supply and a typical super premium pellet at $279 per ton is 36% and i don't think the heat output differential is any where close to that. The super-premium pellet may be the right choice for situations where the stove is too small or borderline too small but other than that it is a waste of money.

 

[tumbles]

I bought super premium because it was only $15 more. Figured my time for cleaning was worth way more than 15. Time will tell if the super premium worth the extra $$$$$.

 

[celticsgreen]

I bought super premium because it was only $15 more. Figured my time for cleaning was worth way more than 15. Time will tell if the super premium worth the extra $$$$$.

That's great....tractor supply charges $179 per ton....if I could get super premium for $194 I would not waste any more electrons on this thread.

 

[Eatonpcat]

You guys will argue about anything....Burn what you want, But for me personally, I respect the findings of the people that have the experience and are willing to share their knowledge

 

[jtakeman]

You guys will argue about anything....Burn what you want, But for me personally, I respect the findings of the people that have the experience and are willing to share their knowledge

Some poeple still believe all pellets are the same. Think I busted that myth a long time ago! ;-)

 

[celticsgreen]

You guys will argue about anything....Burn what you want, But for me personally, I respect the findings of the people that have the experience and are willing to share their knowledge

Some poeple still believe all pellets are the same. Think I busted that myth a long time ago! ;-)

who said they were all the same.....I am just saying paying 35% more for an 11% increase in performance is not worth it unless your stove is under-powered for your house.