Buyng a new woodstove

[TnAndy]

None of the non catalyst stoves are in the 80% and above certified (actual) efficiencies.

What is the source of your information ? The EPA list referenced above only lists efficiencies for about 1/2 the stoves on the list, and almost none of the non-cat stoves.

The manufacturer on mine lists it at 84.9

 

[barko1]

Great info all. Someone mention just using an electric heater which I'm sure probably would be the cost effective option, easier as well, but we really like the feel and ambiance or burning wood. I'm not an ambiance sort of guy but I do like a little smell of wood, the sounds as opposed to our heat pump and blower, and the steady warm temps. I moved into the house last April and shortly after had the Buck Stove put in, really to be a supplement to the heat pump which I believe lose efficiency when the temps get falling below freezing and I have ended up using the heat pump only when it is too warm to make a fire. Think I'm going to end up with the little Jotul.

 

[sd455dan]

What is the source of your information ? The EPA list referenced above only lists efficiencies for about 1/2 the stoves on the list, and almost none of the non-cat stoves.

The manufacturer on mine lists it at 84.9

-(Optimum Efficiency 84.90%) What test procedure did Regency use???
Looking at Regencys site- there appears to be no disclosure ( HOW the # was arrived at. )

That's just it - to be apples to apples a recognized test is required -and the EPA test Is the only one I am aware of.

Companies brochures advertise the LHV efficiency (Low Heat Efficiency) according to manufacturers that have submitted their stoves for the HHV testing it is a much more representative rating than LHV.

Here is some more info concerning (Efficiencies)




The Alliance cautions consumers against relying on stove efficiency claims posted on manufacturers websites. Most manufacturers post efficiencies numbers using a variety of non-standardized calculations. Virtually all post efficiencies using the European lower heating value (LHV) standard, which has been used by industry for the federal wood and pellet stove tax credit, as opposed to the higher American heating value (HHV) standard used by the EPA. A 75% efficient stove using LHV would be about a 66% efficient stove using HHV if the wood was at 20% moisture content. (See this Wikipedia page for more about the difference between LHV and HHV.)
- See more at: Heated Up!: A Review of Wood and Pellet Stove Efficiency Ratings; More Manufacturers Posting Verified Efficiencies



This was also very interesting

Even if a company has an verified, third party efficiency value on the list of EPA certified wood stoves, many companies will continue to list efficiency values far higher on their websites, where most consumers get their information. The Enviro EF2 is listed by the EPA at only 58% efficiency, though Enviro's website claims that the stove 87% efficiency. The Hearth & Home Technologies company Pel Pro claims "EPA certified 89.5 efficiency" for its PP60 pellet stove, but the EPA only certified the stove for emissions, not for their exaggerated efficiency. The Little Rascal pellet stove claims an absurd 99%, but was third party tested at 71% efficiency.



Only a handful of companies, including Blaze King, Kuma, Seraph, Travis and Woodstock Soapstone provide the same efficiency number on their website as the independent lab reported to the EPA.






Hope this clears things up a little, but until all manufacturers go thru the most commonly accepted testing procedure, companies will keep using the the testing that gives them a better looking score than they can achieve in the tougher test.

 

[PhysAssist]

That's just it - to be apples to apples a recognized test is required -and the EPA test Is the only one I am aware of.
companies brochures advertise the LHV efficiency (Low Heat Efficiency) according to manufacturers that have submitted their stoves for the HHV testing it is a much more representative rating than LHV.

Here is some more info concerning (Efficiencies)




The Alliance cautions consumers against relying on stove efficiency claims posted on manufacturers websites. Most manufacturers post efficiencies numbers using a variety of non-standardized calculations. Virtually all post efficiencies using the European lower heating value (LHV) standard, which has been used by industry for the federal wood and pellet stove tax credit, as opposed to the higher American heating value (HHV) standard used by the EPA. A 75% efficient stove using LHV would be about a 66% efficient stove using HHV if the wood was at 20% moisture content. (See this Wikipedia page for more about the difference between LHV and HHV.)
- See more at: Heated Up!: A Review of Wood and Pellet Stove Efficiency Ratings; More Manufacturers Posting Verified Efficiencies



This was also very interesting

Even if a company has an verified, third party efficiency value on the list of EPA certified wood stoves, many companies will continue to list efficiency values far higher on their websites, where most consumers get their information. The Enviro EF2 is listed by the EPA at only 58% efficiency, though Enviro's website claims that the stove 87% efficiency. The Hearth & Home Technologies company Pel Pro claims "EPA certified 89.5 efficiency" for its PP60 pellet stove, but the EPA only certified the stove for emissions, not for their exaggerated efficiency. The Little Rascal pellet stove claims an absurd 99%, but was third party tested at 71% efficiency. Only a handful of companies, including Blaze King, Kuma, Seraph, Travis and Woodstock Soapstone provide the same efficiency number on their website as the independent lab reported to the EPA.

Hope this clears things up a little, but until all manufacturers go thru the most commonly accepted testing procedure, companies will keep using the the testing that gives them a better looking score than they can achieve in the tougher test.

Sort of like tractor manufacturers posting Horse Power clains?

 

[CurlyDave]

Great info all. Someone mention just using an electric heater which I'm sure probably would be the cost effective option, easier as well, but we really like the feel and ambiance or burning wood. I'm not an ambiance sort of guy but I do like a little smell of wood, the sounds as opposed to our heat pump and blower, and the steady warm temps. I moved into the house last April and shortly after had the Buck Stove put in, really to be a supplement to the heat pump which I believe lose efficiency when the temps get falling below freezing and I have ended up using the heat pump only when it is too warm to make a fire. Think I'm going to end up with the little Jotul.

When I heated exclusively with wood I had a bathroom that was always cold. I solved the problem with an electric wall heater with a timer switch and one of those padded, cushiony toilet seats. The heater provided instant heat and the timer kept it from being extremely expensive. As instant as the heater was, the padded seat was a lot less "brisk" to sit on and made life tolerable for the minute or so it took the heater to warm up.

If you want a small stove in the bedroom, go for it, but you really want instant heat in the bath.

 

[TnAndy]

-(Optimum Efficiency 84.90%) What test procedure did Regency use???
Looking at Regencys site- there appears to be no disclosure ( HOW the # was arrived at. )

That's just it - to be apples to apples a recognized test is required -and the EPA test Is the only one I am aware of.

Sure.....I got it, that manufacturers are gonna fudge as much as possible....but in the absence of any number on the EPA list, how can you say, or how can I know, that any particular stove does, or does not, get above 80% ?

Are we just to assume the manufacturer is lying ?

 

[sd455dan]

Sure.....I got it, that manufacturers are gonna fudge as much as possible....but in the absence of any number on the EPA list, how can you say, or how can I know, that any particular stove does, or does not, get above 80% ?

Are we just to assume the manufacturer is lying ?

I would not say lying - but intentionally Blocking disclosure?

l from what I understand, the submission to the HHV test is voluntary,
I think it is possible the manufacturers HAVE the independently tested and verified data but because submission is ( voluntary) (possibly) they do not disclose it if there stove did poorly...


Some more from the Alliance for green heat- this has more to with boilers but wood stoves are mentioned.


The posting of these efficiency numbers was welcomed by the Alliance for Green Heat who has long advocated for consumers having access to reliable efficiency data. The listing of reliable efficiencies makes hydronic heaters the first class of wood heating appliances to provide efficiencies to the general public.


It may take years for the public to get reliable efficiencies on most wood and pellet stoves, as most manufacturers have been unwilling to share that information with the public until it is required by law to do so.


To date, only 10 stove manufacturers have provided third party efficiency numbers for 27 stoves for the EPA to publicly post.
- See more at: Heated Up!: EPA Lists Efficiencies of Qualified Outdoor Boilers from 39% to 78%

The statement that the information is provided by the manufacturer to EPA for publication sure sounds like the companies have the HHV test info but have chosen not to have it publicly posted.

Maybe another poster has the skinny on this

 

[sd455dan]

Sort of like tractor manufacturers posting Horse Power clains?

does seem similar,

the LHV value in place of the HHV without reference- does give the appearance of about a 10 point advantage, that does not exist.

This must get real old for the companies that post only the HHV results. Almost like being penalized for being more up front about the products actual performance.

Kuma Stoves had some info about the testing differences between LHV and HHV and posts both tests #s

Both HHV and LHV are references to the Heating Value of a particular fuel, specifically firewood in the case of wood stoves. They are abbreviations for "Higher Heating Value" and "Lower Heating Value". The Higher Heating Value regards all of the BTU's in the wood as usable input into the stove, while the Lower Heating Value only regards most of the BTU's in the wood as usable input into the stove. All is higher than most, thus the higher value, and most is lower than all, thus the lower value. Why does the LHV only regard most of the BTU's as input? It has everything to do with moisture in the wood, and the evaporation of that moisture during combustion. Evaporating the moisture requires some of the BTU's from the wood. Here's a simple equation that illustrates the relationship between HHV and LHV...

All of the BTU's (HHV) - Some of the BTU's (used for moisture evaporation) = Most of the BTU's (LHV)

So, how does this affect wood stove efficiencies? It's simple mathematics, BTU's out divided by BTU's in. The dividend (BTU's out) is the same in both HHV and LHV calculations. It's the divisor that changes, a lower number for LHV, or the higher number for HHV. A lower divisor (LHV) will always produce a higher quotient (in this case, efficiency %).