Dear Umbra,
I am a policy analyst with Californians Against Waste, a recycling advocacy group. Just wondering why pellet stoves were not considered in your wood stove analysis. I have one and feel that overall they rate well compared to other heating options.
Thanks,
Scott Smithline
Sacramento, Calif.
Dearest Scott,
Omitting pellet stoves from my analysis was just a plain old oversight. Only honesty between us, my friends. Let's talk about pellet stoves this week to make up for lost time, because they are dandy.
Waste not, shiver not.
Pellet stoves are similar to modern wood stoves in aspect: they are metal boxes with a window showing the toasty fire inside. Reminiscent of a giant welding helmet. But they have three main differences: their toastiness is regulated by an electronic gizmo, they burn pellets instead of logs, and they burn more cleanly and efficiently than most modern wood stoves. Any pellet-stove proponent will point out that the EPA doesn't even bother to certify pellet stoves, since they burn very little waste ash and release relatively few particulate emissions.
How do they work? A hopper at the back of the stove holds the eponymous pellets and regularly feeds them through a little auger chute into the burn chamber, where a blower blows the perfect amount of air across the pellets, the pellets burn very hot and clean, another blower blows the heat out to the room, and the exhaust vents out a small pipe to the outdoors. The vent doesn't require a chimney, and the stove is not hot to the touch.
The pellets themselves are small pieces of compressed biomass, usually wood but sometimes crop or paper waste, which are described as looking "like rabbit food." They come in 40-pound bags, like rabbit food, and are easily, tidily stored until the moment when one tips them into the hopper. One reason these stoves burn so cleanly is because the fuel has low moisture content: 5 to 10 percent, compared to firewood's 20 percent. Remember we talked about moisture during our wood fuel discussion, and the less the better.
The hopper needs to be filled daily when the stove is used regularly; the stoves generally use one to three tons of pellets a year. You'd have to check with your supplier about the provenance of their pellets, but in theory you could get a clean burn and divert solid waste in one fell swoop. The Royal We previously noted that wood burned from sustainably harvested sources is carbon-neutral, and this would apply to pellets as well.
The stoves do have a few drawbacks, such as requiring regular maintenance and a dependable pellet supplier. Also, as mentioned, they rely on electricity so they may be an ineffective way to take your heating needs off the grid unless you have an off-the-grid power source such as solar, wind, etc. Normal usage will see your stove consuming 100 kilowatt-hours per month.
Pellet stoves are more expensive than traditional wood stoves, but they are easier to install and may be cheaper to operate, depending on your fuel source. But remember, these factors are all in comparison to traditional wood stoves, to which their resemblance is mostly visual. All heat sources have their drawbacks and advantages, and pellet stoves will be perfect for some applications.
Correctively,
Umbra
This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!
Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots
Slideshow: Reinventing the JP Green House
Comments
View as Threaded
talterman Posted 4:02 am
05 Feb 2007
Thanks for the opportunity to comment!
-----------------
Tabitha Alterman
Associate Editor, Mother Earth News
Permalink
espo53 Posted 5:59 am
05 Feb 2007
Tony Esposito
Permalink
danallen Posted 6:31 am
05 Feb 2007
Five or so years ago, where I previously worked, I did a proposal for a project for what was called the Western Regional Biomass Energy Program. We won a contract for designing and building a self-powered pellet stove. This was not just a thermoelectric fan to go on the stovetop, but a fully autonomous unit. We partnered with a stove manufacturer. It seemed like a winning idea for locations off the electric grid or strung out on an unreliable line. Here is a reference, and you will note that the prototype won a prize at the 2002 Hearth Products Association trade show:
http://www.hi-z.com/websit11.htm
I guess there was not sufficient capital or market incentive to go ahead, but I still like the idea.
Permalink
baiss Posted 8:14 am
05 Feb 2007
I call it a bio-fuel stove to try to accelerate the meme.
It is much cheaper and a more pleasing heat than forced air electric.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:36 am
06 Feb 2007
Ok, here it is in all its glory. Gristers who daily bemoan the "big industrialists" who pollute -- meanwhile these bearded hippies are choking us to death with wood stoves.
Really. Read all about it in Seattle -- during a recent cold snap the air was UNBREATHABLE in a swath across half the Olympic peninsula, all of Puget Sound and some eastward. I live in Kent East Hill and I was feeling asphyxiated.
Permalink
satjiwan Posted 7:16 am
06 Feb 2007
I am one of almost 60 households in the DC area (and one of thousands of others mostly from Mid-Western states) who have corn burning pellet stoves to get even more eco- (and financial) efficiency from buying a home-grown fuel, than from using fossil fuels, and also better than wood.
And for those who believe corn is a hugely unsustainable crop... I do too, if it is CONVENTIONAL corn. But we source our sustainable corn from a small family farm in MD, using organic, local fertilizer, low/no-till agriculture practices and non-GMO corn seeds.
For more visit our website at: www.SaveOurSky.com
Warmly,
Sat Jiwan Ikle-Khalsa
president, Save Our Sky Home Heating Cooperative
Permalink