On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 22:00:31 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, John
quickly quoth:

Believe it or not a couple of corn stoves I looked at required at least
a 15 % moisture content to function properly. It was right in the
brochure. ?? Doesn't really make sense but...

Perhaps it's a requirement so the fuel doesn't consume itself too
quickly. That would reduce its efficiency.

--
Don't forget the 7 P's:
Proper Prior Planning Prevents ****-Poor Performance
----------------------------------------------------
http://diversify.com Website Application Programming

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 16:45:47 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, "Tom
Wait" quickly quoth:


"Hitch" wrote in message
. 136...
Joseph Gwinn wrote in news:JoeGwinn-
:

There was an article on page B1 of the 12 December 2005 issue of The
Wall Street Journal, "Demand Pops for Furnaces That Burn Corn". Basic
SNIP

And how
much fossil fuel and fossil fertilizer goes into corn versus other enery-
producing crops, e.g. rapeseed or hemp? I don't know, just asking.

A bunch of my aqaintances burned a lot of hemp back in the 60's, and I have
to say it didn't produce much energy at all. Quite the opposite effect
really. It produced an abundance of lethargy.

One of my vendors has to import hemp fabric as all hemp is illegal to
grow in the USA, even the non-lethargic stuff. It triples the price
for him and he just loves that.

--
Don't forget the 7 P's:
Proper Prior Planning Prevents ****-Poor Performance
----------------------------------------------------
http://diversify.com Website Application Programming

I've always thought the numbers used to defeat corn as a fuel were bunk, but
I haven't had the personal experience to prove it. Thanks for your post.

Many times when I see an article claiming a net energy loss, they are using
figures required to make ethanol from corn. Those figures will include the
fuel cost to transport the corn to the elevator, the cost to auger it to a
train, dry the corn, then add water cause it's too dry, ship it off by
train, heat it to produce ethanol, make tires for the trucks and tractors,
asphalt for the roads, and let's not forget the petroleum based soap the
farmer used last week to wash the corn dust from his face.

Exactly. But try to use the same argument for/against
oil/wood/whatever. "Oh, well that isn't relevant/important". ?????
Interesting double standard.

The reports for ethanol are generally based on old data and skew
towards the bottom of the effeciency scales. There have been major
advancements in the yields of ethanol per bushel. There has also been
development in "producer" variants of field corn that are higher in
starch so yield higher levels of fermentables and accordingly higher
yields of ethanol.

This is an area I've got a significant interest in. I unfortunately
don't have the time to do real research into the area, but alternative
uses for field corn are something that the US needs to research. The
US used to have over 80% of the world export market. That has shrunk
to 61%, and will continue to shrink as South America continues to
develop it's ag industry and China begins to develop it's. We need to
either quit growing it or find another use for it. Those that say quit
growing it have no idea the implications of doing so.

I won't say that corn is the BEST alternative fuel source, but it
certainly has a lot of points in it's favor.

Of course I do have a bias on this topic and will openly admit it, but
I think I have an opinion based in more fact than most "media
educated".

JW

I can not comment on most of what has been said here. But I'll add
something that I believe is true.

Last year the US has a bumper corn crop. When I visited a friend in
Iowa last November (2004) I remember seeing piles of corn next to silos
that were as big as the silos. My friend said they had run out of room
to store it.

Corn for burning might be cost effective because of all of the corn
"lost" (piled on the ground).

Vince (who wishes he had a fireplace or wood stove)

"Vince Iorio" wrote in message
...
I can not comment on most of what has been said here. But I'll add
something that I believe is true.

Last year the US has a bumper corn crop. When I visited a friend in
Iowa last November (2004) I remember seeing piles of corn next to silos
that were as big as the silos. My friend said they had run out of room
to store it.

Corn for burning might be cost effective because of all of the corn
"lost" (piled on the ground).

Vince (who wishes he had a fireplace or wood stove)


That's not really that uncommon. Most of the crops that we use for the rest
of the year are harvested in a pretty short period of time. Many small town
elevators are over capacity until the next train comes through.

Another thing to consider is all the CRP ground. The government actually
pays farmers to NOT raise crops. That land could be growing corn or soy
beans for energy.

Vince Iorio wrote:
I can not comment on most of what has been said here. But I'll add
something that I believe is true.

Last year the US has a bumper corn crop. When I visited a friend in
Iowa last November (2004) I remember seeing piles of corn next to silos
that were as big as the silos. My friend said they had run out of room
to store it.

Corn for burning might be cost effective because of all of the corn
"lost" (piled on the ground).

Vince (who wishes he had a fireplace or wood stove)

Part of that it is due to depressed pricing. There has been little
motivation to sell corn at a loss and prices never reached an
attractive point. This year due to Katrina, transportation become an
issue so "old" corn never moved. With old crop still in the bin, new
crop had to go somewhere.

You are right that it would definitely be more cost effective to burn
than to watch it go to waste in piles. It varies on size of the pile
and location etc, but it not unheard of to have 10% shrinkage(term for
lost grain for whatever reason), on outdoor piles.

Another thing to consider is all the CRP ground. The government actually
pays farmers to NOT raise crops. That land could be growing corn or soy
beans for energy.

You are right. Generally it is ground that is of little use to
actually be farmed anyways, but it is still done. The theory is/was to
limit production to help increase the price. With ever improving
genetics this has not really worked out that well. I really don't
agree with it. Many of those I know that have ground in CRP are not
farmers. They are city people that own really rough ground(ie scenic),
but somehow qualifies for CRP. They collect the check with no
intention of ever growing a crop regardless.

JW

Dave Lyon wrote:
Some coal gen plants are burning corn as a secondary fuel.
It works out to be cheaper than coal.

John


Really?

Where?



http://www.cwlp.com/electric_divisio...nting_coal.htm

"john" wrote in message
...


Dave Lyon wrote:
Some coal gen plants are burning corn as a secondary fuel.
It works out to be cheaper than coal.

John


Really?

Where?



http://www.cwlp.com/electric_divisio...nting_coal.htm


Thanks.

I wonder how they get around the dangers of using seed corn. It's got
pesticides and stuff sprayed on it. Suppose the existing scrubbers take care
of the problem? Or, are they just not burning enough of it to be a problem?

Joseph Gwinn wrote:
There was an article on page B1 of the 12 December 2005 issue of The
Wall Street Journal, "Demand Pops for Furnaces That Burn Corn". Basic
point is that corn costs less than ordinary fuels (which has to be a
consequence of farm subsidies, one would think). They also tell of
discouraging someone living in an apartment on the 33rd floor of a
Manhattan apartment building from getting a corn furnace, if for no
other reason that cheap corn isn't exactly common outside of the corn
belt.

Joe Gwinn
That last part about discouraging use in Manhattan high rise apartments
is humorous. I could be wrong but I think it's doubtful that anyone, in
any high rise Manhattan apartment building, has any choice, say, or care
about the source of heat for their apartment, regardless of the
availability of corn in NYC.

Maybe a solar array!
Martin
Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH & Endowment Member
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder



Steve wrote:
You should remember, you need to run a combustion blow as well and with a
third hand (spouse) you crank the convection blower.

My stove has two combustion blowers, one blowing air through the fire pot
and another to draw a vacuum on the whole combustion chamber and draft up
the flue.

The reality is, for the automatic combustion pellet stove, it will take a
good size battery to keep the controls and blowers going, not to mention the
igniter.

Steve

"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
...

Generally I like those in concept. Chip type anyway - corn is fine also.

I'd have an inverter on a battery on a charger - or a UPS large enough to
last
blackouts...

Hard to turn the screw to crank fiber to the fire. Wish there were thermo
couples
on the stack to generate the power to turn the screw! That might be an
idea.
Then a small startup battery would do it in a blackout.

Martin
Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH & Endowment Member
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder



Steve wrote:

I have been burning wood fiber pellets for 3 years and it sure beat the
labor involved in cutting/splitting wood (which is available on my
property or near by)..

The efficiency of a modern pellet/corn stove are up around 85%. If you
don't believe the literature, just place your had on the unjacketed flue
pipe of a well tuned pellet stove.

My present stove (Quadri-Fire) is capable of burning corn but will not
ignite automatically unless there is about 25% mix of pellets. Once lite,
it will burn until the thermostat turns it off. On pellets, it will run
on automatic continuously, as long as there is a thermostat demand and
fuel in the hopper. It will re-ignite automatically on pellets.

The only other maintenance is a weekly clean of the small amount of fine
ash and an annual cleaning of the heat exchanger. Good quality pellets
only have about 1% ash.

Not sure of these figures for corn but have heard they are similar.

If I had a good supply of corn in my Pac. NW area, I would give it a
try.. Pellets presently cost me $139 a ton or about.

I can heat my very old mfg home (1152 sq/ft) on about 3 ton a year.

The stove is of marginal size, 40,000 btus but provides as much heat as I
need.

I consider corn a renewable energy source while wood pellets are
presently a wood by-product. The local demand for wood fiber for paper
and partial board may soon drive the price of wood pellet high enough
that corn my be the next alternative.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Hmm! how well will a solar array work during a "Blackout"??

Seriously. Anytime I have experienced a prolonged loss of power, it has been
at night and/or stormy weather.

I thing the best source of back up power for any heating system, requiring
power, is a generator. Batteries and invertors can only last a very limited
period of time with a pellet stove because of the blowers and igniter. True,
a very basic stove will operate with out the igniter but you still need at
least two blowers (one combustion and the other for heat distribution or you
risk burning up your heat exchanger.)

I don't have a home generator but I do have an old (broken down) motor home
with a very good generator. Starts everytime and I just run an extension
cord directly to the frig and stove.

Steve

I've been using my fireplace latley just to take the chill off and I
know about 75% 0f the heat is just going up the chimney.
Part of the main double walled stack is exposed near the raised ceiling
for abot 3 feet. Is there a safe way to tap into the galvanized stack
and install some sort of heat exchanger with a blower to improve
efficiency? I've done some web searching but found nothing for a double
wall stack.
Thanks
dan

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 19:29:38 -0800, daniel peterman wrote:
I've been using my fireplace latley just to take the chill off and I
know about 75% 0f the heat is just going up the chimney.
Part of the main double walled stack is exposed near the raised ceiling
for abot 3 feet. Is there a safe way to tap into the galvanized stack
and install some sort of heat exchanger with a blower to improve
efficiency?

Well, yes, but. The cooler you make your chimney, the faster the
creosote will build up. So you can extract heat from the exhaust gas
(well, that's what it is) just by adding fins and a fan to the outside
of the galvanized chimney inside the house, but get it too cold and the
creosote will condense and stick, rather than go up and out. I'm sure
someone here can give you that temperature off the top of their heads,
otherwise google knows.