Question:

My wife and I are planning on building a passive solar home in Raleigh, NC and are considering a masonry heater as a backup source of heat (we’ll also have a heat pump…) I’d rather not spend $18,000 on a tulikivi.  Even a temp cast 2000 will cost me $6,000-7,000. Are there any less expensive alternatives to these heaters? Thank you in advance. Sincerely yours, John Argentati

Response:

My wife and I are planning on building a passive solar home in Raleigh, NC and are considering a masonry heater as a backup source of heat (we’ll also have a heat pump…) I’d rather not spend $18,000 on a tulikivi.  Even a temp cast 2000 will cost me $6,000-7,000. Are there any less expensive alternatives to these heaters?

First, visit http://mha-net.org/ I also considered masonry heaters, though I built a passive solar modular home that did not have the complete flexibility of design that would have been needed to gracefully incorporate a masonry heater. Cost was also an issue, and Tulikivi was the most available complete stove.  I didn’t have the time or money to design one around a kit and have it constructed onsite. Efficiency was another issue. From memory, masonry heaters seemed to average around 55% efficiency, while other stoves were much higher.  My present stove is 78%. Emissions were yet another issue, with masonry heater Grams/hr being higher than most good stoves. Viewability was still another consideration, with many masonry heaters having a tiny (or no) window into the fire. Other esthetical issues were viewing the fireplace’s cheery glow on a rainy or cold day. I finally settled on a Vermont Castings Winter Warm Large Fireplace System, which I installed in a zero clearance layout.   Pros – I don’t have the info here, but with the catalyst and the high burn rate, emmissions are very low.  The complete fireplace system, not counting chimney, were around $3000.  The chimney was non-masonry, so costs were low and thermal losses minimal (the draft starts effortlessly).  Again, the efficiency is rated around 78%.  The large window gives ample viewing of a dreamy fire.  It can heat most of the 2500 sq. ft. house comfortably on days in the 20 degree high range.  I haven’t had anything colder yet, so no data on lower extremes.  I don’t dare light it up on sunny days, due to the more than sufficient heat energy input I get from the passive solar capability (I don’t have thermal storage installed yet). Cons – The fire needs to be fed, with anywhere from once a half hour to once every few hours.  I have not tried to pack it for a full overnight burn, but have come back down after 6 hours to find hot coals that started a new fire. Most efficient use of the fireplace requires use of the circulating fans, so a power outage would reduce the heat output.  They are fairly quiet, so far. Starting the fire requires some temperature management, as the catalyst shouldn’t be engaged at temperatures lower than 375 F.  Once it’s going, it only requires feeding to keep it going optimally. If you have any questions about my choice or consequences thereof, just repost here. — Will

Response:

Related Posts