I can't make up my mind whether to heat water and power a few
radiators with a range cooker, or a stove. I'll be using wood when I
can, and coal when I have to. I prefer to use wood because it's
cleaner and getting rid of ash much less of an problem. I've got 2
chimneys, and a house with a tendency to be quite chilly.

I imagine the cooker would be on all the time, and could be used to
gently heat a (direct) thermal store throughout the day. A few
radiators could be powered from the store when required. I could get a
cooker with a boiler mode to provide a degree of responsiveness. The
stove would be dry, so within a few minutes of lighting, it could
start to produce enough heat to warm most of the house. I think the
main problems doing this will be keeping the cooker going so that it
will tick over for at least 12hrs a day without turning the chimney
into a fractional distillation column for tar. In reality I suspect
this will mean relying on coal. Another issue is the possibility of
boiling water in the store.

The other scenario is to leave the cooker to just cook. The stove
could then be used more intermittently to heat the store when
required, and there's no need to keep the fire going. This might be
more convenient when the cooker is off, and will probably cause fewer
chimney problems as the stove can be burned hotter. The downside is
that the stove won't provide the same intense immediate heat as a dry
stove, and I'll probably require more radiators.

Any/all opinions appreciated.

T.

You don't say whether you already have a stove or range, or whether
you're looking at an economy solution or how you're coping at the mo.

My experience is currently using a woodburner as my main heat source,
but shortly to be more or less displaced by a modern pressure jet oil-
fired Rayburn - which will do full time-clocked central heating.

Mine's a Jotul F600 - the side loading door is great for larger
timbers. Very little ash residue form wood, so rarely needs cleaning
out. Remember lining a chimney can be comparable to the cost of a
stove.

However a friend relies on a coal fired Rayburn as her primary heat
source for her home. It's ability to burn for many hours without
attention really surprised me. And if you're on a budget, old ones can
be picked up cheaply.

I found the info here on ranges very useful:
http://www.tradcookers.com/

On 10 Dec, 11:35, " wrote:
You don't say whether you already have a stove or range, or whether
you're looking at an economy solution or how you're coping at the mo.

My experience is currently using a woodburner as my main heat source,
but shortly to be more or less displaced by a modern pressure jet oil-
fired Rayburn - which will do full time-clocked central heating.

Mine's a Jotul F600 - the side loading door is great for larger
timbers. Very little ash residue form wood, so rarely needs cleaning
out. Remember lining a chimney can be comparable to the cost of a
stove.

However a friend relies on a coal fired Rayburn as her primary heat
source for her home. It's ability to burn for many hours without
attention really surprised me. And if you're on a budget, old ones can
be picked up cheaply.

I found the info here on ranges very useful:http://www.tradcookers.com/

Dom raises the question of how you are coping at the mo - for instance
do you have an existing CH system that the new heat source will just
supplement ? And then how big is the house ?

The reason we ask - and I don't know Dom but he has experience to give
like me - is that this situation does rely on experience rather than
an installer's knowledge.

For instance I have a 4 bedroom old stone single storey cottage. I
went down the road of limited CH off a multifuel stove some 25 years
ago, and found that in order to get acceptable heat out of the CH
system I had to run the stove sufficiently hard that it overheated the
room it was installed in. I did have thoughts about setting up some
sort of air-warming system to transfer this heat, but opted sometime
later for a full CH system from an oil burner, with the wood stove as
an ancillary source.

Do remember also that although wood has all sorts of attractions, you
do need to make sure you have a supply that will go on year after year
after year, that you do have the physical capability to process the
wood when it arrives at your front door year after ...etc, and you do
have the capacity to store a year's supply under cover - and that
should be near the front door too !

I'm not heading you off wood, but warning you that the investment you
make in the equipment to burn a cheap fuel, does commit you to life
long labour !

Rob

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 03:35:15 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

You don't say whether you already have a stove or range, or whether
you're looking at an economy solution or how you're coping at the mo.

My experience is currently using a woodburner as my main heat source,
but shortly to be more or less displaced by a modern pressure jet oil-
fired Rayburn - which will do full time-clocked central heating.

Mine's a Jotul F600 - the side loading door is great for larger
timbers. Very little ash residue form wood, so rarely needs cleaning
out. Remember lining a chimney can be comparable to the cost of a
stove.

However a friend relies on a coal fired Rayburn as her primary heat
source for her home. It's ability to burn for many hours without
attention really surprised me. And if you're on a budget, old ones can
be picked up cheaply.

I found the info here on ranges very useful:
http://www.tradcookers.com/

In terms of the cost of running a coal fired Rayburn you can reckon on
a minimum of 50Kg of coal per week if you're careful and never use the
range on anything but tickover. Boost it up to do cooking or for extra
hot water/heating a couple of times a week and you're easily into 75Kg
a week. Use it in anger daily and that's at least 100kg.
Bank on a cost of £8-9 per 25kg of suitable coal ( such as Phurnacite
).

If you're in a hard water area you should consider a secondary hot
water system for the Rayburn, or you'll be forever replacing the
boiler.

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

On 10 Dec, 13:15, robgraham wrote:
On 10 Dec, 11:35, " wrote:



You don't say whether you already have a stove or range, or whether
you're looking at an economy solution or how you're coping at the mo.

My experience is currently using a woodburner as my main heat source,
but shortly to be more or less displaced by a modern pressure jet oil-
fired Rayburn - which will do full time-clocked central heating.

Mine's a Jotul F600 - the side loading door is great for larger
timbers. Very little ash residue form wood, so rarely needs cleaning
out. Remember lining a chimney can be comparable to the cost of a
stove.

However a friend relies on a coal fired Rayburn as her primary heat
source for her home. It's ability to burn for many hours without
attention really surprised me. And if you're on a budget, old ones can
be picked up cheaply.

I found the info here on ranges very useful:http://www.tradcookers.com/

Dom raises the question of how you are coping at the mo - for instance
do you have an existing CH system that the new heat source will just
supplement ? And then how big is the house ?

The reason we ask - and I don't know Dom but he has experience to give
like me - is that this situation does rely on experience rather than
an installer's knowledge.

For instance I have a 4 bedroom old stone single storey cottage. I
went down the road of limited CH off a multifuel stove some 25 years
ago, and found that in order to get acceptable heat out of the CH
system I had to run the stove sufficiently hard that it overheated the
room it was installed in. I did have thoughts about setting up some
sort of air-warming system to transfer this heat, but opted sometime
later for a full CH system from an oil burner, with the wood stove as
an ancillary source.

Do remember also that although wood has all sorts of attractions, you
do need to make sure you have a supply that will go on year after year
after year, that you do have the physical capability to process the
wood when it arrives at your front door year after ...etc, and you do
have the capacity to store a year's supply under cover - and that
should be near the front door too !

I'm not heading you off wood, but warning you that the investment you
make in the equipment to burn a cheap fuel, does commit you to life
long labour !

Rob

Gents

I live in a stone cottage, dating from about 1650 which I'm
renovating. When finished it'll have 3 or 4 bedrooms. It takes a fair
bit of heat to get it comfortable as the walls are quite thick (some
are 29", others 24") and it's dominated internally by a hefty
inglenook fireplace. I'm sticking with solid fuel because I like it.
It would be far cheaper to have an oil combi boiler installed. I
reckon a Rayburn plus a stove plus a thermal store plus two chimneys
lined is going to set me back 10k at least. I'm beginning to think
that it might be a good idea to have the Rayburn heat the thermal
store, so will have to choose between the 345w and the 216sfw.

T

wrote in message
...
I can't make up my mind whether to heat water and power a few
radiators with a range cooker, or a stove. I'll be using wood when I
can, and coal when I have to. I prefer to use wood because it's
cleaner and getting rid of ash much less of an problem. I've got 2
chimneys, and a house with a tendency to be quite chilly.

I imagine the cooker would be on all the time, and could be used to
gently heat a (direct) thermal store throughout the day. A few
radiators could be powered from the store when required. I could get a
cooker with a boiler mode to provide a degree of responsiveness. The
stove would be dry, so within a few minutes of lighting, it could
start to produce enough heat to warm most of the house. I think the
main problems doing this will be keeping the cooker going so that it
will tick over for at least 12hrs a day without turning the chimney
into a fractional distillation column for tar. In reality I suspect
this will mean relying on coal. Another issue is the possibility of
boiling water in the store.

The other scenario is to leave the cooker to just cook. The stove
could then be used more intermittently to heat the store when
required, and there's no need to keep the fire going. This might be
more convenient when the cooker is off, and will probably cause fewer
chimney problems as the stove can be burned hotter. The downside is
that the stove won't provide the same intense immediate heat as a dry
stove, and I'll probably require more radiators.

You seem set on an either/or choice.

My first instinct would be to go for a cooker and a stove both with back
boilers, and both indirectly heating some kind of thermal store. This does
of course depend on the ability to plumb both into a single thermal store.

Having (quite a long time ago) had a solid fuel heated house with a Rayburn
in the kitchen, I would also have a 'summer' cooker for those years when we
have a hot summer and you don't want to cook in a thong ;-)

We had a small 3 ring electric cooker, and an immersion heater and an
electric shower. I assume you are on mains electricity.

With this kind of combination you can have several working combinations:

Summer - cooking and washing on electricity. No solid fuel heating

Spring/Autumn - cooker heating the kitchen and washing water.
Light the stove in the evenings if it gets chilly.

Winter - stove and cooker going most of the time; possibly keep the cooker
in overnight with coal/coke and burn wood during the day if it won't stay in
overnight on wood.

This is noting that you want wood fired although there are cheaper and
easier options.

We breathed a huge sigh of relief when we installed a Baxi room
heater/boiler which took anthracite beans and extended our central heating
to all the house.

Even then it was hard and dirty work keeping everything going, and
neighbours had to come in over the winter if we were away for a few days to
de-clinker and refuel the boiler. We did the same for them.

Gas fired central heating is a dream.

Currently both ourselves and the brother-in-law have gas combis and
multi-fuel stoves.

For a good part of the year we can warm the house using the wood burner
alone (which keeps the gas bills down) but we have a reliable backup system
should we need it. The wood burner also backs up the gas in the event of a
power cut.

Relying totally on solid fuel is O.K. - people have done this for
centuries - but you have to make a few sacrifices and work quite hard to
keep it all going.

HTH

Dave R

On 10 Dec, 14:57, Stephen Howard wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 03:35:15 -0800 (PST), "



wrote:
You don't say whether you already have a stove or range, or whether
you're looking at an economy solution or how you're coping at the mo.

My experience is currently using a woodburner as my main heat source,
but shortly to be more or less displaced by a modern pressure jet oil-
fired Rayburn - which will do full time-clocked central heating.

Mine's a Jotul F600 - the side loading door is great for larger
timbers. Very little ash residue form wood, so rarely needs cleaning
out. Remember lining a chimney can be comparable to the cost of a
stove.

However a friend relies on a coal fired Rayburn as her primary heat
source for her home. It's ability to burn for many hours without
attention really surprised me. And if you're on a budget, old ones can
be picked up cheaply.

I found the info here on ranges very useful:
http://www.tradcookers.com/

In terms of the cost of running a coal fired Rayburn you can reckon on
a minimum of 50Kg of coal per week if you're careful and never use the
range on anything but tickover. Boost it up to do cooking or for extra
hot water/heating a couple of times a week and you're easily into 75Kg
a week. Use it in anger daily and that's at least 100kg.
Bank on a cost of £8-9 per 25kg of suitable coal ( such as Phurnacite
).

If you're in a hard water area you should consider a secondary hot
water system for the Rayburn, or you'll be forever replacing the
boiler.

Regards,

--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorationswww.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

It's scary when you add it up! However, I don't think it's going to be
any worse than my neighbour's oil bills.

T

On 10 Dec, 16:34, "David W.E. Roberts" wrote:
wrote in message

...



I can't make up my mind whether to heat water and power a few
radiators with a range cooker, or a stove. I'll be using wood when I
can, and coal when I have to. I prefer to use wood because it's
cleaner and getting rid of ash much less of an problem. I've got 2
chimneys, and a house with a tendency to be quite chilly.

I imagine the cooker would be on all the time, and could be used to
gently heat a (direct) thermal store throughout the day. A few
radiators could be powered from the store when required. I could get a
cooker with a boiler mode to provide a degree of responsiveness. The
stove would be dry, so within a few minutes of lighting, it could
start to produce enough heat to warm most of the house. I think the
main problems doing this will be keeping the cooker going so that it
will tick over for at least 12hrs a day without turning the chimney
into a fractional distillation column for tar. In reality I suspect
this will mean relying on coal. Another issue is the possibility of
boiling water in the store.

The other scenario is to leave the cooker to just cook. The stove
could then be used more intermittently to heat the store when
required, and there's no need to keep the fire going. This might be
more convenient when the cooker is off, and will probably cause fewer
chimney problems as the stove can be burned hotter. The downside is
that the stove won't provide the same intense immediate heat as a dry
stove, and I'll probably require more radiators.

You seem set on an either/or choice.

My first instinct would be to go for a cooker and a stove both with back
boilers, and both indirectly heating some kind of thermal store. This does
of course depend on the ability to plumb both into a single thermal store.

Having (quite a long time ago) had a solid fuel heated house with a Rayburn
in the kitchen, I would also have a 'summer' cooker for those years when we
have a hot summer and you don't want to cook in a thong ;-)

We had a small 3 ring electric cooker, and an immersion heater and an
electric shower. I assume you are on mains electricity.

With this kind of combination you can have several working combinations:

Summer - cooking and washing on electricity. No solid fuel heating

Spring/Autumn - cooker heating the kitchen and washing water.
Light the stove in the evenings if it gets chilly.

Winter - stove and cooker going most of the time; possibly keep the cooker
in overnight with coal/coke and burn wood during the day if it won't stay in
overnight on wood.

This is noting that you want wood fired although there are cheaper and
easier options.

We breathed a huge sigh of relief when we installed a Baxi room
heater/boiler which took anthracite beans and extended our central heating
to all the house.

Even then it was hard and dirty work keeping everything going, and
neighbours had to come in over the winter if we were away for a few days to
de-clinker and refuel the boiler. We did the same for them.

Gas fired central heating is a dream.

Currently both ourselves and the brother-in-law have gas combis and
multi-fuel stoves.

For a good part of the year we can warm the house using the wood burner
alone (which keeps the gas bills down) but we have a reliable backup system
should we need it. The wood burner also backs up the gas in the event of a
power cut.

Relying totally on solid fuel is O.K. - people have done this for
centuries - but you have to make a few sacrifices and work quite hard to
keep it all going.

HTH

Dave R

It's an interesting point, Dave, that when you and I started out (and
I take it that your timescale was at least 20 years ago :) ), we did
not have the benefit of something like these forums to get the
opportunity to discuss these very points. One can only hope that the
consultees take on board what the consultants have to offer !!

I didn't go down the solid fuel cooker route, but a neighbour did and
had to write off quite a significant sum of money because it really
didn't come up to the salesman's patter of being capable of doing
everything.

Like you I was awfully glad when I found the funds to go to a reliable
and continuous source of heat which didn't require my physical input -
no gas here so it had to be oil.

I think the one thing that the OP has correct is the heat store,
particularly if he goes your suggested route of cooker and stove as
both can directly feed into it. But I would have wondered about the
electric shower as I would have thought the immersion heater would
have heated enough water for that if either a shower coil is used or
the system generally is mains pressure DHW.

Rob

On 10 Dec, 15:04, wrote:
On 10 Dec, 13:15, robgraham wrote:



On 10 Dec, 11:35, " wrote:

You don't say whether you already have a stove or range, or whether
you're looking at an economy solution or how you're coping at the mo.

My experience is currently using a woodburner as my main heat source,
but shortly to be more or less displaced by a modern pressure jet oil-
fired Rayburn - which will do full time-clocked central heating.

Mine's a Jotul F600 - the side loading door is great for larger
timbers. Very little ash residue form wood, so rarely needs cleaning
out. Remember lining a chimney can be comparable to the cost of a
stove.

However a friend relies on a coal fired Rayburn as her primary heat
source for her home. It's ability to burn for many hours without
attention really surprised me. And if you're on a budget, old ones can
be picked up cheaply.

I found the info here on ranges very useful:http://www.tradcookers.com/

Dom raises the question of how you are coping at the mo - for instance
do you have an existing CH system that the new heat source will just
supplement ? And then how big is the house ?

The reason we ask - and I don't know Dom but he has experience to give
like me - is that this situation does rely on experience rather than
an installer's knowledge.

For instance I have a 4 bedroom old stone single storey cottage. I
went down the road of limited CH off a multifuel stove some 25 years
ago, and found that in order to get acceptable heat out of the CH
system I had to run the stove sufficiently hard that it overheated the
room it was installed in. I did have thoughts about setting up some
sort of air-warming system to transfer this heat, but opted sometime
later for a full CH system from an oil burner, with the wood stove as
an ancillary source.

Do remember also that although wood has all sorts of attractions, you
do need to make sure you have a supply that will go on year after year
after year, that you do have the physical capability to process the
wood when it arrives at your front door year after ...etc, and you do
have the capacity to store a year's supply under cover - and that
should be near the front door too !

I'm not heading you off wood, but warning you that the investment you
make in the equipment to burn a cheap fuel, does commit you to life
long labour !

Rob

Gents

I live in a stone cottage, dating from about 1650 which I'm
renovating. When finished it'll have 3 or 4 bedrooms. It takes a fair
bit of heat to get it comfortable as the walls are quite thick (some
are 29", others 24") and it's dominated internally by a hefty
inglenook fireplace. I'm sticking with solid fuel because I like it.
It would be far cheaper to have an oil combi boiler installed. I
reckon a Rayburn plus a stove plus a thermal store plus two chimneys
lined is going to set me back 10k at least. I'm beginning to think
that it might be a good idea to have the Rayburn heat the thermal
store, so will have to choose between the 345w and the 216sfw.

T

Tom
It may well not be possible with a stone building of that age in that
you are requiring to preserve character, but my 1800's cottage in
Scotland was originally plastered on the hard; lath and plastered in
the late 1920's with a floor ventilated air gap behind this
plasterwork, so the insulation in the house in the winter particularly
was negligible. It was cold ! - and winter's *were* colder even 25
years ago.

We made the whole house liveable in by removing all the lath and
plaster and adding insulation before re-lining. It is now a warm
house; it probably has a higher carbon footprint that some modern
ones, but not as bad as it could be.

The other bonus of the wall insulation is that don't suffer from black
mould as we did when we started 30 years ago.

Rob

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:42:54 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On 10 Dec, 14:57, Stephen Howard wrote:

In terms of the cost of running a coal fired Rayburn you can reckon on
a minimum of 50Kg of coal per week if you're careful and never use the
range on anything but tickover. Boost it up to do cooking or for extra
hot water/heating a couple of times a week and you're easily into 75Kg
a week. Use it in anger daily and that's at least 100kg.
Bank on a cost of £8-9 per 25kg of suitable coal ( such as Phurnacite
).

If you're in a hard water area you should consider a secondary hot
water system for the Rayburn, or you'll be forever replacing the
boiler.

It's scary when you add it up! However, I don't think it's going to be
any worse than my neighbour's oil bills.

I always thought oil would be cheaper.
My neighbour's got the exact same setup as me, but he went over to oil
this summer...I'll ask him what his bills were like when Spring comes
around.

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

"robgraham" wrote in message
...
On 10 Dec, 16:34, "David W.E. Roberts" wrote:
wrote in message
massive snip
I think the one thing that the OP has correct is the heat store,
particularly if he goes your suggested route of cooker and stove as
both can directly feed into it. But I would have wondered about the
electric shower as I would have thought the immersion heater would
have heated enough water for that if either a shower coil is used or
the system generally is mains pressure DHW.

Showers need a decent head of water.
However, venturi shower or shower pump could be the way to go these days, or
as you say a pressurised hot water system or a heat exchanger in the thermal
store.
I guesss I was thinking back to when we were setting the house up - and it
was more like 30 years ago.
T'Internet? Nay lad..........

In our old house the hot water cylinder and header tank (IIRC) were both in
the airing cupboard in the bathroom.
Not having the option of a venturi shower, or having even heard of shower
pumps (as well as not having much money to spend) the only decent option for
a hot shower was an electric shower.

The Raeburn cooker we had came from a friend of my mother.
It had been converted to oil (very crude - it looked something like a small
greenhouse heater sitting where the ash pan would be) but I converted it
back to solid fuel (i.e put the grate and ash box in.).
I had to strip it down to move it, then rebuild it in the kitchen which was
an epic undertaking.

Hmmm....back to the electric shower.
I think an electric shower may be more cost effective than heating water
with an immersion heater and then pumping/heat exchanging/mixing it.
It is also more immediate.
So I would still consider an electric shower for the summer months.
[Assuming of course you like showers and don't hanker for a bath instead.]

Cheers

Dave R

wrote in message
...
I can't make up my mind whether to heat water and power a few
radiators with a range cooker, or a stove. I'll be using wood when I
can, and coal when I have to. I prefer to use wood because it's
cleaner and getting rid of ash much less of an problem. I've got 2
chimneys, and a house with a tendency to be quite chilly.

I imagine the cooker would be on all the time, and could be used to
gently heat a (direct) thermal store throughout the day. A few
radiators could be powered from the store when required. I could get a
cooker with a boiler mode to provide a degree of responsiveness. The
stove would be dry, so within a few minutes of lighting, it could
start to produce enough heat to warm most of the house. I think the
main problems doing this will be keeping the cooker going so that it
will tick over for at least 12hrs a day without turning the chimney
into a fractional distillation column for tar. In reality I suspect
this will mean relying on coal. Another issue is the possibility of
boiling water in the store.

The other scenario is to leave the cooker to just cook. The stove
could then be used more intermittently to heat the store when
required, and there's no need to keep the fire going. This might be
more convenient when the cooker is off, and will probably cause fewer
chimney problems as the stove can be burned hotter. The downside is
that the stove won't provide the same intense immediate heat as a dry
stove, and I'll probably require more radiators.

Any/all opinions appreciated.


The house I've just bought has two oil boilers (one for the new extension,
and one for some holiday lets) and an oil rayburn (for the old 250 yr old
original farmhouse).

The Rayburn is actually a solid fuel converted to an oil, and I'm toying
with the idea of converting it back. (A bit of physical exercise, and
storage of fuel doesn't bother me.) Neighbours tell us their solid fuel
Rayburn is much cheaper than oil. Not sure if I believe it, but oil is only
going to become more expensive (and I would expect at a faster rate than
wood/coal although that's speculation). Having just bought 3200 litres of
oil does smart a bit.

The concensus of opinion so far would suggest I'm mad.

"Piers Finlayson" wrote in message
...

snip


The house I've just bought has two oil boilers (one for the new extension,
and one for some holiday lets) and an oil rayburn (for the old 250 yr old
original farmhouse).

The Rayburn is actually a solid fuel converted to an oil, and I'm toying
with the idea of converting it back. (A bit of physical exercise, and
storage of fuel doesn't bother me.) Neighbours tell us their solid fuel
Rayburn is much cheaper than oil. Not sure if I believe it, but oil is
only
going to become more expensive (and I would expect at a faster rate than
wood/coal although that's speculation). Having just bought 3200 litres of
oil does smart a bit.

The concensus of opinion so far would suggest I'm mad.

How much land do you have, and how much time?

In the medium term you could grow your own trees and coppice/pollard them to
provide cost effective fuel.

Anything that takes you away from oil and coal (which are both finite
resources) can't be bad.

Cheers

Dave R

On 10 Dec, 18:13, Stephen Howard wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:42:54 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On 10 Dec, 14:57, Stephen Howard wrote:
In terms of the cost of running a coal fired Rayburn you can reckon on
a minimum of 50Kg of coal per week if you're careful and never use the
range on anything but tickover. Boost it up to do cooking or for extra
hot water/heating a couple of times a week and you're easily into 75Kg
a week. Use it in anger daily and that's at least 100kg.
Bank on a cost of £8-9 per 25kg of suitable coal ( such as Phurnacite
).

If you're in a hard water area you should consider a secondary hot
water system for the Rayburn, or you'll be forever replacing the
boiler.
It's scary when you add it up! However, I don't think it's going to be
any worse than my neighbour's oil bills.

I always thought oil would be cheaper.
My neighbour's got the exact same setup as me, but he went over to oil
this summer...I'll ask him what his bills were like when Spring comes
around.

Regards,

--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorationswww.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

I've got a fuel price comparison chart which is supposed to take
efficiencies into account. It indicates that oil at 42p/litre (average
price at the moment) is equivalent to about 4.75p/kWh electricity, and
400 pounds/tonne of anthracite. If I buy in bulk, I'm sure I can get
phurnacite for less than 400quid a tonne!

Regards

T

On 10 Dec, 18:36, "David W.E. Roberts" wrote:
"robgraham" wrote in message

...

On 10 Dec, 16:34, "David W.E. Roberts" wrote:
wrote in message
massive snip
I think the one thing that the OP has correct is the heat store,
particularly if he goes your suggested route of cooker and stove as
both can directly feed into it. But I would have wondered about the
electric shower as I would have thought the immersion heater would
have heated enough water for that if either a shower coil is used or
the system generally is mains pressure DHW.

Showers need a decent head of water.
However, venturi shower or shower pump could be the way to go these days, or
as you say a pressurised hot water system or a heat exchanger in the thermal
store.
I guesss I was thinking back to when we were setting the house up - and it
was more like 30 years ago.
T'Internet? Nay lad..........

In our old house the hot water cylinder and header tank (IIRC) were both in
the airing cupboard in the bathroom.
Not having the option of a venturi shower, or having even heard of shower
pumps (as well as not having much money to spend) the only decent option for
a hot shower was an electric shower.

The Raeburn cooker we had came from a friend of my mother.
It had been converted to oil (very crude - it looked something like a small
greenhouse heater sitting where the ash pan would be) but I converted it
back to solid fuel (i.e put the grate and ash box in.).
I had to strip it down to move it, then rebuild it in the kitchen which was
an epic undertaking.

Hmmm....back to the electric shower.
I think an electric shower may be more cost effective than heating water
with an immersion heater and then pumping/heat exchanging/mixing it.
It is also more immediate.
So I would still consider an electric shower for the summer months.
[Assuming of course you like showers and don't hanker for a bath instead.]

Cheers

Dave R

Being in exactly the same time frame re. house refurbishment and also
the lack of head for a shower, my reasoning for avoiding the electric
shower, having lived with them for some 25 years, is the hankering
after something that has decent flow. I don't want to be cut in half
by needles of water, but having several friends with mains pressure
showers, is encouraging me to consider going down the thermal store
route.

Rob

"David W.E. Roberts" wrote in message
...

"Piers Finlayson" wrote in message
...

snip


The house I've just bought has two oil boilers (one for the new
extension,
and one for some holiday lets) and an oil rayburn (for the old 250 yr old
original farmhouse).

The Rayburn is actually a solid fuel converted to an oil, and I'm toying
with the idea of converting it back. (A bit of physical exercise, and
storage of fuel doesn't bother me.) Neighbours tell us their solid fuel
Rayburn is much cheaper than oil. Not sure if I believe it, but oil is
only
going to become more expensive (and I would expect at a faster rate than
wood/coal although that's speculation). Having just bought 3200 litres
of
oil does smart a bit.

The concensus of opinion so far would suggest I'm mad.

How much land do you have, and how much time?


8 acres, but not enough time to be harvesting my own coppiced wood at the
moment (although not out of the question in future). Not sure 8 acres is
enough to be self-sufficient on wood.

In the medium term you could grow your own trees and coppice/pollard them
to
provide cost effective fuel.


I think I read here that SRWC was not a great idea because you have to chip
it before burning it, and even then it's not that efficient a fuel.

Perhaps there's other types of wood that would be a better bet.

Anything that takes you away from oil and coal (which are both finite
resources) can't be bad.

Cheers

Dave R

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:08:00 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On 10 Dec, 18:13, Stephen Howard wrote:
snip

I always thought oil would be cheaper.
My neighbour's got the exact same setup as me, but he went over to oil
this summer...I'll ask him what his bills were like when Spring comes
around.



I've got a fuel price comparison chart which is supposed to take
efficiencies into account. It indicates that oil at 42p/litre (average
price at the moment) is equivalent to about 4.75p/kWh electricity, and
400 pounds/tonne of anthracite. If I buy in bulk, I'm sure I can get
phurnacite for less than 400quid a tonne!


Corralls list Phurny at £359 a tonne - it gets slightly cheaper in the
summer.
Taybrite - similar to Phurny, not quite as long-lasting in my
experience, is £310 a tonne

Even buying Phurny by the 50kg bag only comes to £379.
If I remember rightly, our local village shop sells 25kg bags of
Phurny at £9 a pop...which works out at £360 a tonne. If that's right,
it's bloomin' cheap!

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{who is at}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

In article ,
Stephen Howard wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 03:35:15 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

You don't say whether you already have a stove or range, or whether
you're looking at an economy solution or how you're coping at the mo.

My experience is currently using a woodburner as my main heat source,
but shortly to be more or less displaced by a modern pressure jet oil-
fired Rayburn - which will do full time-clocked central heating.

Mine's a Jotul F600 - the side loading door is great for larger
timbers. Very little ash residue form wood, so rarely needs cleaning
out. Remember lining a chimney can be comparable to the cost of a
stove.

However a friend relies on a coal fired Rayburn as her primary heat
source for her home. It's ability to burn for many hours without
attention really surprised me. And if you're on a budget, old ones can
be picked up cheaply.

I found the info here on ranges very useful:
http://www.tradcookers.com/

In terms of the cost of running a coal fired Rayburn you can reckon on
a minimum of 50Kg of coal per week if you're careful and never use the
range on anything but tickover. Boost it up to do cooking or for extra
hot water/heating a couple of times a week and you're easily into 75Kg
a week. Use it in anger daily and that's at least 100kg.
Bank on a cost of £8-9 per 25kg of suitable coal ( such as Phurnacite
).

We used to have a very old coal-fired Rayburn... And your numbers seem
a little high from what I can recall (although it was nearly 5 years
ago). We used to spend about £35 a month on coal and I'm sure it was only
4-5 bags of the stuff we took. (25Kg a bag?) It didn't do the heating
though, just a small back boiler for hot water. (Which it could boil
easilly if we weren't carefull!)

We needed to stoke it up 2-3 times a day and last thing at night, when
we'd screw it down to real low tick-over and there was usually enough
embers left in it after riddling the next morning to get it going
again... But get the vents the wrong way round when re-fuelling it,
and it was kitchen full of smoke time ... (again!)

We cooked on it most days too.

PITA when both of us were out through the day though and it got a bit
cold and we wanted to cook late at night when we came in...

We now have a gas-fired Stanley.

Gordon

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:35:44 +0000 (UTC), Gordon Henderson
wrote:

In article ,
Stephen Howard wrote:
snip

In terms of the cost of running a coal fired Rayburn you can reckon on
a minimum of 50Kg of coal per week if you're careful and never use the
range on anything but tickover. Boost it up to do cooking or for extra
hot water/heating a couple of times a week and you're easily into 75Kg
a week. Use it in anger daily and that's at least 100kg.
Bank on a cost of £8-9 per 25kg of suitable coal ( such as Phurnacite
).

We used to have a very old coal-fired Rayburn... And your numbers seem
a little high from what I can recall (although it was nearly 5 years
ago). We used to spend about £35 a month on coal and I'm sure it was only
4-5 bags of the stuff we took. (25Kg a bag?) It didn't do the heating
though, just a small back boiler for hot water. (Which it could boil
easilly if we weren't carefull!)

Mine only does hot water too...but won't boil the water unless it's
been running on full throttle for the best part of half a day.
4-5 bags a month is an incredibly low consumption.

We needed to stoke it up 2-3 times a day and last thing at night, when
we'd screw it down to real low tick-over and there was usually enough
embers left in it after riddling the next morning to get it going
again... But get the vents the wrong way round when re-fuelling it,
and it was kitchen full of smoke time ... (again!)

We cooked on it most days too.

I'm wondering if yours was a small Rayburn....not that mine's that big
( just the basic main and lower oven job - and no hob cover ), what
with the fact that it boiled up so quickly and ran on so little coal.

PITA when both of us were out through the day though and it got a bit
cold and we wanted to cook late at night when we came in...

That, and the really annoying quirk that if you forget to close up the
bottom and leave it open juuuuust a smidgeon it'll burn a whole load
of coal in an hour and the oven will hit around 500 - and yet when
you're planning to have guests round for dinner you have to get the
thing going two days in advance.
Does lovely spuds tho'....

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{who is at}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

Piers Finlayson wrote:

The Rayburn is actually a solid fuel converted to an oil, and I'm toying
with the idea of converting it back. (A bit of physical exercise, and
storage of fuel doesn't bother me.) Neighbours tell us their solid fuel
Rayburn is much cheaper than oil. Not sure if I believe it, but oil is only
going to become more expensive (and I would expect at a faster rate than
wood/coal although that's speculation). Having just bought 3200 litres of
oil does smart a bit.



My Rayburn was converted to oil by the previous owners - it works quite
well, for cooking, baking, hot water and central heating. The fireplace
in the living room has a back boiler, which is also connected to the hot
water and central heating system. I find the combination works quite
well. We also have an immersion heater and an electric shower. (No
mains gas way out in the back-of-beyond.)

AJH wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:53:47 -0000, "Piers Finlayson"
wrote:

Not sure 8 acres is
enough to be self-sufficient on wood.

On average sort of ground this might get you 30tonnes of dry matter a
year if you are a good farmer. Say 150MWhr(t) gross.

I think you COULD get by with about an acre if done really well..8
sounds a fairly easy run for the money. Theres an 10 acre field out the
back here - the framer gets well over 50 tons of grain off that..never
mind the straw..

In the medium term you could grow your own trees and coppice/pollard them
to
provide cost effective fuel.

This depends on your definition of cost effective, I haven't come
across a grower receiving a stumpage payment for a woody biomass crop
yet.

Mmm..

I think I read here that SRWC was not a great idea because you have to chip
it before burning it,

Why?

and even then it's not that efficient a fuel.

I'll agree it's not as efficient as many fossil fuels in delivering
its potential calories into a home.
Perhaps there's other types of wood that would be a better bet.

I'd say some of the less marketable softwood roundwood from a large
scale harvesting operation.


The de facto biomass crop is willow if you have the water. Its extremely
rapid growing and can be coppiced to hell and back and still keep sprouting.

A lot depends on what soil and water you have available tho.

I have seen at country shows machinery designed to harvest and prep up
wood biomsss for stoves. Cannot remember who sells it though.







AJH

Piers Finlayson wrote:

Not sure 8 acres is
enough to be self-sufficient on wood.

It's plenty, I can personally use the wood from around 5 hectares (about
12 acres) per year, the rest of the wood I grow I sell to other people.
However the land is very sparsely planted with trees and I'm only taking
prunings from the trees as firewood, about 2-3 tonnes per annum.

I think I read here that SRWC was not a great idea because you have to
chip it before burning it,

Why?

and even then it's not that efficient a fuel.

I'll agree it's not as efficient as many fossil fuels in delivering
its potential calories into a home.
Perhaps there's other types of wood that would be a better bet.

I'd say some of the less marketable softwood roundwood from a large
scale harvesting operation.


The de facto biomass crop is willow if you have the water. Its extremely
rapid growing and can be coppiced to hell and back and still keep
sprouting.

A lot depends on what soil and water you have available tho.

I have seen at country shows machinery designed to harvest and prep up
wood biomsss for stoves. Cannot remember who sells it though.


Soil is clay. Water wouldn't be a problem unless too much is bad ... very
waterlogged at the mo. I have multiple streams from which I could abstract
(subject to 20m3 a day limit unless I got a license).

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The de facto biomass crop is willow if you have the water. Its extremely
rapid growing and can be coppiced to hell and back and still keep sprouting.

Hmmm, it's not that great a wood for burning, too spongy. Olive beats
the heck out of it because it regrows extremely quickly, grows well in
semi-arid conditions and has an incredible calorific value because of
the oil content. It's a non-starter in the Uk though.

Chestnut is a good traditional coppiced wood and it grows very well in
the UK. And I've been very impressed with yew both as a wood for burning
and for how quickly it grows once it is established. However the
reputation of yew is that it is a slow growing conifer. I just wish
someone would tell the monster growing in my garden that it is supposed
to be slow growing.

Piers Finlayson wrote:
I think I read here that SRWC was not a great idea because you have to
chip it before burning it,
Why?

and even then it's not that efficient a fuel.
I'll agree it's not as efficient as many fossil fuels in delivering
its potential calories into a home.
Perhaps there's other types of wood that would be a better bet.
I'd say some of the less marketable softwood roundwood from a large
scale harvesting operation.

The de facto biomass crop is willow if you have the water. Its extremely
rapid growing and can be coppiced to hell and back and still keep
sprouting.

A lot depends on what soil and water you have available tho.

I have seen at country shows machinery designed to harvest and prep up
wood biomsss for stoves. Cannot remember who sells it though.


Soil is clay. Water wouldn't be a problem unless too much is bad ... very
waterlogged at the mo. I have multiple streams from which I could abstract
(subject to 20m3 a day limit unless I got a license).


See if you can hit a country fair next year...or do some googling.
Willow is the thing for soggy clay. Alder also. And hazel and maple will
grow pretty fast too. Also poplar.

None are the best burning woods, but with a stove it all works.

The stoves and kit I remember worked on air blasted sawdust. Dries
pretty quickly!

They had saw stuff, chipper stuff and furnaces.

On 14 Dec 2007 08:44:41 GMT, Huge wrote:

However the reputation of yew is that it is a slow growing conifer.

The one I planted last year appears to be putting on 6" a year. Not what
I would call slow growing.

That is slow, even tha Ash's up here do better than that and they only
grow for about 4 months of the year. The Rowan do a good foot, the Silver
Birch a little less, the Larch about 2 feet, Scots Pine about 18".

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:02:02 GMT, wrote:

Ahh, you've never grown a Monkey Puzzle. Ours has put on about a foot
in 5 years.

I doubt they'd do that (or even survive) above arctic Alston.

Ah then you'd be wrong! There is quite a large example less than 400
horizontal metres away. How ever it is also 60m+ (200'+) down into the
valley, so it is much more sheltered than us. It is pretty much bang on
the 360m (1180') contor though.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail