What a Gyp!!!!

Grizzly 45

I am intrested in heating my old house with a solid fuel wood burner.seeing that the green way of doing things is all the buzz.I have numerous trees on my property,which nature kindly fells for me at least once a year the old or weak ones.Soo plenty of solid eco fuel.
However there are NO grants going for a solid fuel burner,just these con jobs of solid fuel pellet burners.A ton of these pellets cost as much if not more than a tank full of oil.Go green ,but for Heavens sake dont let it be a cheaper option than oil.What a gyp this is turning out to be.:mad:

ircoha

Why should the green option be cheaper?

Given that your heating requirement could be 20mWh of energy, have you 'done the math' to see how much felled and dried timber you need on an annual basis to match a fill of oil.
You then need to consider the energy consumed in 'preping' the timber.

Then finally will your 'forest' support your 20mWh pa given that it will take 12 to 15 years for a tree to grow, longer once the average wind speed pick up as the global wrming takes effect

Grizzly 45

Er...Yeah!!! we have been doing this for the last 30 years,father & son.[Looong before all this green stuff became trendy...]
Mount required 4 cords of seasoned firewood. For those who dont know what a cord is ;it is i 4 ftx 4ftx 8ft appx. Do the math yourselves to figure that out in oil volume. Seeing that you didnt read the previus post,we are harvesting over mature /dying trees that are felled by storms. IE 130 + years. So we are talking appx 5 plus metric tons of timber.

Why should it be cheaper??Simple you want people to adapt all this stuff dont ya?? Show somone a cost effective benefit for going and ripping out an efficent oil heater to replace it with a wood burner that burns cheaper fuel and heats as well as their oil fired one and the savings they get by doing so and you will have them queing up to do so. Not some rubbish about saving the enviroment,Co2 emissions or other green propaganda ...Show us Euros and cents and the benefits .If it is cheaper and the Govt is grant aiding it no problem.But dont try and get somone who has a green fuel supply monopolised onto an approved expensive green fuel that isnt a great shake up to a well kept oil burner,that costs a small fortune to buy install,and is reliant on one pretty IMO unreliable delivery system and only this type of fuel is offically green approved.Kind of like a fishmonger living by the coast,being only allowed to sell week old fish that was brought from a inland fish market,caught in the bay overlooking his shop.
Either we want green alternative soild wood fuel burners of any type pellet or hunks of timber ,or none at all.
As I said A GYP!!

Oldtree

The grant aid is being used to set up 2 new industries, the pellet burner and the pellets themselves. Not a bad thing, until you realise that once there is a suitably sized and captive market, taxes galore will appear on the pellets. Pellet prices are being falsely held down for the time being.

Solid fuel burners allow any type of fuel to be used (more or less) which allows for easy black markets to develop with timber and other combustables.

The grant is a short term con and I am going for a solid fuel back boiler.

bonkey

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

I am intrested in heating my old house with a solid fuel wood burner.seeing that the green way of doing things is all the buzz.I have numerous trees on my property,which nature kindly fells for me at least once a year the old or weak ones.Soo plenty of solid eco fuel.

Free fuel...nice one.

However there are NO grants going for a solid fuel burner,just these con jobs of solid fuel pellet burners.

Surely the freeness of your fuel makes it worthwhile for you even without a grant?

A ton of these pellets cost as much if not more than a tank full of oil.

But a ton of these pellets doesn't cost as much, if not more, than your free fuel which nature supplies to you, so the comparison doesn't really apply here.

Go green ,but for Heavens sake dont let it be a cheaper option than oil.What a gyp this is turning out to be.:mad:

I'm not sure I see the problem here. For Joe Q Public, a wood pellet burner is a greener option than oil and is generally more effective than a solid fuel burner where you have to pay for your fuel.

You are not in Joe Q Public's situation. You have free fuel, making a solid fuel burner a more attractive option for you. If, having said that, the one-off cost of a non-subsidised burner still doesn't make it more cost effective than a pellet-burner, then its even harder to argue that you should receive subsidisation...as you're asking that a less effective option be funded anyway.

Unfortunate though it may be, government grant schemes are not set up in order to evaluate on a case-by-case basis what the best option is for each individual and to fund that option.

Why should it be cheaper??Simple you want people to adapt all this stuff dont ya?? Show somone a cost effective benefit for going and ripping out an efficent oil heater to replace it with a wood burner that burns cheaper fuel and heats as well as their oil fired one and the savings they get by doing so and you will have them queing up to do so.

But if that person has to buy their wood (unlike you), then is it still cheaper to have a wood-burning system than a pellet-burning one?

BendiBus

Oldtree wrote: »

Solid fuel burners allow any type of fuel to be used (more or less) which allows for easy black markets to develop with timber and other combustables.

Which from an environmental point of view may not be desirable. Why grant aid something that can be used to burn any old toxic crap?

Grizzly 45

bonkey wrote: »

Free fuel...nice one.


Surely the freeness of your fuel makes it worthwhile for you even without a grant?

No my arguement is this.A solid wood fuel burning burner is still a green option.Still so considerd in Europe despite the idea that it will be used for burning any toxic crap.No one seems to do that in Europe anyway.
But the point is it is only aimed at a specific type of boiler,that is dependant on a processed manufactured fuel.There doubtless plenty of other folks that could use such a boiler to heat their places,with EG pallets,wood waste from industry etc. This cuts out an unecessary three stages of producing a fuel.Dragging the waste wood to a processing plant,processing the wood to pellets,delivering the wood. A solid fuel burner is cut wood ,split wood. stack wood under cover,allow to dry naturally within a season,use.


But a ton of these pellets doesn't cost as much, if not more, than your free fuel which nature supplies to you, so the comparison doesn't really apply here.

Wait until you are all hooked on them,then see what it costs.!!! You can be sure there will be taxes slapped on that as well.

I'm not sure I see the problem here. For Joe Q Public, a wood pellet burner is a greener option than oil and is generally more effective than a solid fuel burner where you have to pay for your fuel.

It is,up to a point!!You have to install this,then get your pellets,and be assured you will get them all the time from a local supplier.And you are then stuck with that type of fuel for ever!!! Solid fuel you can scrounge up wood in some shape somwhere. Oil burners with a little messing about the fuel can be cut with veg oils,etc.The other thing is;most people are not really intrested in doing any life changes to save the enviroment.BUT they are if it saves money!!

You are not in Joe Q Public's situation. You have free fuel, making a solid fuel burner a more attractive option for you. If, having said that, the one-off cost of a non-subsidised burner still doesn't make it more cost effective than a pellet-burner, then its even harder to argue that you should receive subsidisation...as you're asking that a less effective option be funded anyway.

Well considering that an outdoor weather proof German made wood gasifier costs over 14k that will outlast a wood pellet burner.That is in anyones book a hunk of change.It is cost effective if it reduces my useage on oil.But what gets me is this use only a PC green option that alot of industries & govt soon will be coining in on. And somthing more cost effective for larger buildings is ignored.I'm talking about heating a 15 room Gerogeian house,that at the mo has open fireplaces to heat it. How much wood pellet loads will that take PA.It takes one metric tonne of coal PA as well as four metric tonnes of wood.which is being burned inefficently to heat the sky mostly.
Also the fact that if you say wood burner in germany or the EU you get granted irrespective of solid orpellet.WHy does Ireland have to be different as per usual????

Unfortunate though it may be, government grant schemes are not set up in order to evaluate on a case-by-case basis what the best option is for each individual and to fund that option.

As I said see my previous point.I am not alone in this.


But if that person has to buy their wood (unlike you), then is it still cheaper to have a wood-burning system than a pellet-burning one

Still have to buy fuel either which way.But as I said with the pellet stove you are stuck with it.

blackbox

"Free fuel" may grow on trees for Grizzly, but I bet he puts in a lot of hours sawing and spliting it.

I have some trees of my own, and I can tell you there is a lot of work involved. Being green takes a bit of effort.

bonkey

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

[
No my arguement is this.A solid wood fuel burning burner is still a green option.

I've never argued that it isn't. I've questioned whether or not it not being subsidised is really a problem.

Wait until you are all hooked on them,then see what it costs.!!!

Its not about me. You are complaining that you don't get a subsidy to buy the burner of your choice, to make use of your free fuel. I don't have free fuel. I don't have a 15-room Georgian house to heat.

It is,up to a point!!You have to install this,then get your pellets,and be assured you will get them all the time from a local supplier.

You have to install whatever you buy. Why do you mention this as a cost of one option over another?

You have to get fuel for whatever you buy, dependant on a supplier, unless you're in that rare minority who has enough trees falling on their land each year to meet their fuel costs.

And you are then stuck with that type of fuel for ever!!!

And if I had an oil-, gas-, or electricity-based solution....I'd be no different. Given that these three comprise the vast majority of systems already installed today, I don't see this as a major stopping point for anyone.

Solid fuel you can scrounge up wood in some shape somwhere.

You want me to worry that we can't be sure that wood-pellet suppliers will be able to find enough wood to supply me with wood pellets, but at the same time want me to believe that I can always get my hands on wood??? If I can get wood, then so can wood-pellet manufacturers, and therefore there shouldn't be a problem.

Well considering that an outdoor weather proof German made wood gasifier costs over 14k that will outlast a wood pellet burner.That is in anyones book a hunk of change.

Its not about what any individual option costs. Its about the comparison of costs of all available options....purchase, installation and running. So far, you haven't done this on this thread. Indeed, you've asked what some of those costs will be....presumably rhetorically, but still...if you want to argue that a solution is better, then surely you can show that its better.

Also the fact that if you say wood burner in germany or the EU you get granted irrespective of solid orpellet.WHy does Ireland have to be different as per usual????

Hmmm... If you say "wood burner" in the EU you get granted, eh?

I've good news for you. Ireland is in the EU, so your problems are solved!!!

Well, either that, or what you're saying isn't entirely accurate.

As I said see my previous point.I am not alone in this.

Like you said yourself - its about Euro and Cents. Either your (unsibsidised) wood-gasifier option is cheaper than a (subsidised) wood-pellet solution, or it isn't. If it is, then I don't know what your complaints are...go save yourself money. Do what you say others would do, and queue up to save yourself those Euros.

If its not cheaper, then your complaint seems to be that the government isn't paying you to select a more expensive option.

Ultimately, though, I think your complaint is that the government are willing to subsidise people to move off oil, and you want that money as well as the savings that you think a solid-fuel burner will give you. So your basic complaint is that the system is a cheat, because you don't get to win twice.

The reason you won't get that double-win is because you don't get to have an individual assessment - one that will conclude that in your particular, atypical case, a pellet-based solution isn't the best way to do. So the whole system must be wrong, right? Because your 15-room Georgian house is an exceptional case, it should be treated exceptionally, and the whole system is a gyp because it has instead focussed on the typical house, with typical heating requirements.

Cuauhtemoc

There are a few combination boilers on the grant list from the sei. They'll burn both pellets and logs. I'll see if i can dig them up.



C.

boomshackala

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

I am intrested in heating my old house with a solid fuel wood burner.seeing that the green way of doing things is all the buzz.I have numerous trees on my property,which nature kindly fells for me at least once a year the old or weak ones.Soo plenty of solid eco fuel.
However there are NO grants going for a solid fuel burner,just these con jobs of solid fuel pellet burners.A ton of these pellets cost as much if not more than a tank full of oil.Go green ,but for Heavens sake dont let it be a cheaper option than oil.What a gyp this is turning out to be.:mad:

You need a wood chip boiler mate. Chip your wood once per annum. SEI will support this for you