MyFox
 

johnhenrehan's Blog

by johnhenrehan from Fox Five

Last Post 49 days, 19 hours Ago


In December I did a story about pellet stoves.  Pellets are made of wood waste products, and the stoves offer a controlled burn (pellets drop slowly from a hopper into the fire).  Anyway, the vendor and customers swore to me that they save money over conventional fuels.

After the story aired, a man approached me about his pellet stove story.  He owns one of those glass-on-three-sides homes in Hollin Hills, Va.  The home was built in 1950 when all hydrocarbon fuels were dirt cheap.

Using a pellet stove for 85% of his heating, the man estimated his winter fuel bills at about $1,500 a month.  Using the natural gas heating only, he estimates his winter fuel bills would be about $3,000 a month.  Ouch!

He bought a top-of-the-line pellet stove ($3,000), and has no regrets whatever.

CAVEAT:  pellet stoves do require cleaning every couple of days.

15 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 15
Page 1 of 1
Y3Y3 read my blog view my photos
Jan 1, 2008 | 6:31 PM

John, I HAVE a pellet stove too. They take a little time to understand the settings and how to get one going really well, but WELL WORTH IT.

I live in Sterling, in an otherwise 'all electric' house. I've swapped out most of the light bulbs in the house with new Fluorescent bulbs, and clean my pellet stove every day. I only run it in the evening.

I have an automatic thermostat than turns the heat up and down, and I drop it to 60 degrees during the day, but bring it back up to 68 at 530PM. I run the stove from 6 til 10 If it's cold outside.

Its about 9-11 cents a pound, so a 40 Lbs bag will be $3.50 to $4.00 bag. On 'low' my stove takes 9-13 hours to burn up a 40 pound bag of pellets. I bought 50 bags this year. I'll run it 4-7 nights a week. I can do that until April or early may.

caffeinated-cow read my blog
Jan 2, 2008 | 9:56 AM

When I was a child in the 70s-80s, the environmentalists/conservationists of that era didn't want people to burn things like wood in fireplaces or burn leaves in the autumn because they said that the smoke contributed to air pollution. Not to mention that the use of wood and other natural products were depleting the country's reserviors. So using natural fibers, like wood pulp for paper grocery bags, was discouraged in order for conservation.

It's kind of ironic that the efforts to "save the planet" by conserving natural products has contributed to its environmental deterioration. And that we are once again being asked to use the natural products we were encouraged to conserve about 30 years ago.

Starrman1 read my blog view my photos
Jan 2, 2008 | 11:17 AM

caffeinated-cow, the never ending circle.

caffeinated-cow read my blog
Jan 2, 2008 | 1:19 PM

Starr, I'm sure you remember that. Don't use paper bags because we need to save the trees, so use plastic instead. Don't burn trash because it contributes to air pollution. Don't burn leaves in the fall because it contributes to air pollution.

So everyone switched to plastic, stopped burning trash and leaves, and the landfills began to fill up.

Even more ironic, I was thumbing through a magazine like Ladies Home Journal or Better Homes over the weekend. There was a feature article in it on how to be more environmentally friendly by re-using items for other things. Their example was to use empty cans or glass jars as pencil holders or holders for small items like paper clips, etc. rather than buying those items.

I wonder when we'll be able to incinerate leaves and trash again?

Starrman1 read my blog view my photos
Jan 2, 2008 | 1:45 PM

caffeinated-cow, I sure do remember all of those things. I religously recycle and try to do my part, yet almost everyday my wife has to pick up considerable amounts of litter from the front and side yards, thrown out by passing AH's.
I remember growing up we had a small cinderblock incinerator used for burning our paper trash. Spent many a Fall burning leaves too!

TomW read my blog
Jan 2, 2008 | 4:32 PM

Don't worry, they will find a way to outlaw them or charge an arm and a leg to get the pellets. We will have to learn that the free market is not beneficial to the consumer.

johnhenrehan read my blog
Jan 2, 2008 | 4:44 PM

I know (now) that it's eco-bad, but I sure MISS the aroma of burning leaves in the autumn.

Starrman1 read my blog view my photos
Jan 2, 2008 | 5:23 PM

I am with you there John, also loved to go up to Christmas tree bonfires.

Mountaineerfan read my blog view my photos
Jan 2, 2008 | 6:18 PM

"I know (now) that it's eco-bad, but I sure MISS the aroma of burning leaves in the autumn"

Exactly why is it "eco bad"?

Mountaineerfan read my blog view my photos
Jan 2, 2008 | 6:27 PM

"Not to mention that the use of wood and other natural products were depleting the country's reserviors"

Wood is a renewable resourse.What part of renewable is it that these stupid hippie freaks just don't get?
I've told this before and it deserves telling again.I once knew a fellow who worked for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and traveled all over the country telling young school kids all about how natural resources were used.
Once is a school in NJ he was explaining to the kids how lumber companies replant more trees than they cut.Of course in the usually liberal Nazi modus they asked him to leave the school.Apparently cutting wood and anyone who does it is evil train of thought prevails and offering evidence to the contrary is met with the usual Nazi style censorship.

Mountaineerfan read my blog view my photos
Jan 2, 2008 | 6:30 PM

BTW,I wasn't refering to you CC when I said "stupid hippie freaks" even though I used your quote.

Starrman1 read my blog view my photos
Jan 2, 2008 | 7:02 PM

Mountaineerfan, you forgot to mention how the lumber companies use selective cutting as well.
Instead of the old level the forest mind set.

Mountaineerfan read my blog view my photos
Jan 2, 2008 | 10:18 PM

"you forgot to mention how the lumber companies use selective cutting as well.
Instead of the old level the forest mind set"

Good point Starrman.Lumber companies have a lot of "eco-friendly" tricks in their bag these days.
Plus not to mention that clear cutting can actually be good for the overall health of the forest due to the establishment of edge habitat,a subject which I've discussed here before.Most tree hugger freaks are like so called animal rights advocates in that they don't really know much or care much about forest ecology but rather use is as venue to anti-human sentiment.
When it comes to knowledge of forest ecology I'll stack the wit of the average hunter against the average tree hugger any day.Ditto for animal activists vs. fishermen.

bootsykowan read my blog view my photos
Jan 3, 2008 | 3:19 AM

Just yesterday, another fuel, ethanol, well they now say the nitrogen in the fertilizer is killing the waterlife, dead zones, IIRC, oxygen-depletion. We all need to consult the Periodic Table of Elements?

About trees, I don't know what's so great about old trees. I thought they cause lots of wild fires. They just rreplaced old trees where I live and it's wonderful. I can see more of the area and what's going on. After all corn grows on stalks and we cut them down for food and fuel.

Starrman1 read my blog view my photos
Jan 3, 2008 | 10:03 AM

Mountaineerfan, I agree sometimes the clear cut is the best answer. When my parents still owned the farm during the Gypsy moth years, welost a lot of very old and large hardwood trees. The recommendation and the final action for about 30 to 40 acres was clear cut. Looked terrible, but was the best solution.

Page 1 of 1


Write your comment below:




johnhenrehan

I am a general assignment reporter at Fox Five, and very much enjoy getting to know the different neighborhoods and personalities in our metropolitan area.

Member Since: 4/20/2007