New Stove with existing back boiler.

Noggle

In my home there's a fireplace and back boiler. The back boiler heats 7 rads but not very well. Have to turn some off or get the oil in to really warm the place.

I was thinking of getting a Nestor Martin S13 which should be adequate for a 3 bed detached house.i saw it in a friends house and if anything it's too warm in their living room.

Can this or another type of stove be linked to the back boiler to heat the rads as well.

listermint

Noggle wrote: »

In my home there's a fireplace and back boiler. The back boiler heats 7 rads but not very well. Have to turn some off or get the oil in to really warm the place.

I was thinking of getting a Nestor Martin S13 which should be adequate for a 3 bed detached house.i saw it in a friends house and if anything it's too warm in their living room.

Can this or another type of stove be linked to the back boiler to heat the rads as well.

You are aware that back boiler stoves by their nature simply aren't efficient.

It doesn't really matter what stove you put in the back boiler will bleed the heat out of the system. It sucks the energy out for the water for the rest of the house and leaves the existing room lacking . No matter what stove you'll have to feed it up for a good while to build up the heat to heat the room and water.

This is the case with stoves. They eat fuel no way around it bar not plugging them into back boilers and using an better energy source for the radiators.

That's what I would do.

Noggle

listermint wrote: »

You are aware that back boiler stoves by their nature simply aren't efficient.

It doesn't really matter what stove you put in the back boiler will bleed the heat out of the system. It sucks the energy out for the water for the rest of the house and leaves the existing room lacking . No matter what stove you'll have to feed it up for a good while to build up the heat to heat the room and water.

This is the case with stoves. They eat fuel no way around it bar not plugging them into back boilers and using an better energy source for the radiators.

That's what I would do.

Oil would be more efficient?

seamus

Used correctly, yes.

Back boilers are a decent selection in certain circumstances - usually those where a fire is lighting from morning to night and the fuel is cheap and plentiful - for example someone who has access to a good supply of turf, or who has the space to get wood pellets delivered in tonne bags.

Outside of those circumstances then sticking with the oil for central heating and getting a smaller stove for ambience is the way to go.

cranefly

As far as i am aware, you can not use a back boiler from an old fireplace, and a stove to make use of that back boiler, the usual thing to do, is to rip out the old back boiler, and insert a boiler stove connected to the pipework that is already installed. The best way to use a boiler stove in conjunction with oil, is to get the rads piping hot with oil, and then let the stove take over, that way, the boiler stove does not need to work as hard at getting the rads hot, and if you are lucky with the way that everything was installed in the first place, one bucket of coal will keep the rads good and hot for most of the night.

We have 13 rads 4 of them are doubles, in a 2400sq ft dormer bungalow, normally we just let the stove heat the rads, but on colder evenings, we turn the oil on for an hour or so, until the stove is really blasting away, then turn the oil off, and the stove will keep all the rads hot, not roasting hot but good enough, we have an esse 350gs an insert stove, we put a full bucket of smokeless ovoids in, and that will usually last the night, unless we light it earlier than 4pm, then an extra half bucket will be needed. The one thing that people do not realize with a boiler stove is, that it needs to be nearly filled with coal, coal is really the only way to get the boiler working properly, wood does not really work as well, anthracite burns too hot for a stove, the grate will burn out very quickly, and sometimes even normal household coal can burn to hot as well, we find the smokeless ovoids burn just right, and mostly keep the glass clear as well.

We were lucky that all the pipework for our stove was done over 20 years ago, by a plumber who knew what he was doing, as most plumbers did back then, that knowhow for solid fuel installs has mostly been forgotten by some of todays plumbers, who rarely need that knowledge for the modern builds of today. the old fireplace with the back boiler worked fine just to keep the hot water tank hot, but it was really useless for the rads. Before we would use nearly a bucket of coal, just to heat the sitting room, while the rest of the house was cold, now with one hour of oil, to kickstart the stove, we have the whole house warm, even on the coldest of evenings.

M.T.D

I'll concur with cranefly. This is a few years ago when coal was still in widespread use. Original was a "back boiler" and no other heating.
Replaced with a wraparound boiler and radiators. Even burning high energy fuel (pet coke) this took quite a while to heat the house.
Then added Oil fired boiler minimising changes to existing pipe work. Oil boiler on timer would fire up before I got home from work, so rads and water warm.
Then I would light the fire, or poke it back to life, with the air control off , and slacked up, it would stay lit 16 hours. I had thermostats on the pipes from the back boiler, hot tank etc. so that once the fire was hot it automatically took over from the oil.
As the whole system was interconnected and grew "organically" it did have heat loss through the back boiler which was in circuit, like a radiator, when the oil burner was running. Depending on which switch was on in Autumn and Spring when "heating" was not really required the thermostats meant that the water heated first, and once warm excess went to the rads.
In the event of a power failure, (they were more frequent then), as it was initially an open fire system, even after the additions of oil boilers and pumps it still functioned with gravity. Hot water worked well, upstairs rads worked nicely, although downstairs rads were sluggish.
For the safety aware, stoking up the fire, opening the dampers fully, and turning on the air could over heat the system but the kettleing noises from the boiler were usually adequate warning.

_Brian

listermint wrote: »

You are aware that back boiler stoves by their nature simply aren't efficient.

It doesn't really matter what stove you put in the back boiler will bleed the heat out of the system. It sucks the energy out for the water for the rest of the house and leaves the existing room lacking . No matter what stove you'll have to feed it up for a good while to build up the heat to heat the room and water.

This is the case with stoves. They eat fuel no way around it bar not plugging them into back boilers and using an better energy source for the radiators.

That's what I would do.

This simply isn’t true.
We have a stove with back boiler. Our room is reasonable sized at 9m by 4.5m, we light the fire say 5pm, rads warm nicely and stove is hopping, if we don’t open a door it’s above 24c in the room.
One fire Keeps the radss warm and the room hot until maybe 10-11pm depending on the weather, maybe a few smaller logs if we were staying up late. A dire wound consist of maybe 4-5 logs and half skuttle of coal.

listermint

_Brian wrote: »

This simply isn’t true.
We have a stove with back boiler. Our room is reasonable sized at 9m by 4.5m, we light the fire say 5pm, rads warm nicely and stove is hopping, if we don’t open a door it’s above 24c in the room.
One fire Keeps the radss warm and the room hot until maybe 10-11pm depending on the weather, maybe a few smaller logs if we were staying up late. A dire wound consist of maybe 4-5 logs and half skuttle of coal.

Simply not true ?

Its an accepted fact that back boilers are not efficient they are actually banned in some European countries.

So I'm sorry if you disagree with the experts but that's the fact of the matter.

You saying it simply isn't true doesn't make it so.

dendof

I have a stove with boiler. I would agree it takes a lot of fuel to get decent heat.

Back boiler in fireplace was removed and stove installed.
Stove is 4kw room and 11kw rest of house. Can stove be disconnected from heating rest of rads?
I also have oil heating. I probably would have been better off putting in stove without back boiler.

I could change stove, but it's a cassette insert surrounded by stone cladding.
I imagine changing it would be a big job due to this?

_Brian

No you cannot have the back boiler not connected to radiators, there would be safety issues with that.

listermint

_Brian wrote: »

No you cannot have the back boiler not connected to radiators, there would be safety issues with that.

You can, but it would require connection to some form of heat sink and safety release valves

listermint

dendof wrote: »

I have a stove with boiler. I would agree it takes a lot of fuel to get decent heat.

Back boiler in fireplace was removed and stove installed.
Stove is 4kw room and 11kw rest of house. Can stove be disconnected from heating rest of rads?
I also have oil heating. I probably would have been better off putting in stove without back boiler.

I could change stove, but it's a cassette insert surrounded by stone cladding.
I imagine changing it would be a big job due to this?

For this sort of job common fix is to disconnect from heating system entirely (i.e no pipes in or out of back boiler) Then literally have holes drilled through the back boiler walls. Multiple holes.

This would be fairly common when decommissioning the back boiler out of the system.

cranefly

listermint wrote: »

Simply not true ?

Its an accepted fact that back boilers are not efficient they are actually banned in some European countries.

So I'm sorry if you disagree with the experts but that's the fact of the matter.

You saying it simply isn't true doesn't make it so.

A boiler stove and a back boiler, their is a world of difference between the two, no one is saying a back boiler is efficient. A boiler stove on the other hand can be very efficient if used in the right way. Efficient or not, their is nothing wrong with a back boiler, it meant hot water in generations of households for many years, when oil and gas were considered a luxury for most.

listermint

cranefly wrote: »

A boiler stove and a back boiler, their is a world of difference between the two, no one is saying a back boiler is efficient. A boiler stove on the other hand can be very efficient if used in the right way. Efficient or not, their is nothing wrong with a back boiler, it meant hot water in generations of households for many years, when oil and gas were considered a luxury for most.

Generations.
.it's 2018 they are not efficient. They are pulled out in their droves there is threads daily on here complaining about them and how much fuel they use.

Stop propagating a lie. They are not efficient and no one is arguing that they don't work, they just don't work well and cost a fortune to run unless you have your own free timber supply.

_Brian

listermint wrote: »

Generations.
.it's 2018 they are not efficient. They are pulled out in their droves there is threads daily on here complaining about them and how much fuel they use.

Stop propagating a lie. They are not efficient and no one is arguing that they don't work, they just don't work well and cost a fortune to run unless you have your own free timber supply.

Open fires are somewhere like 45/50% efficient.
Stoves are in the region of 70-80% efficient

A condescending oil burner is maybe 90-95% efficient

So saying anstove isn’t efficient isn’t true, compared to a 90% appliance it’s less but compared to say an open fireplace stoves are extremely efficient.

There is the added bonus that when not in use the air vents can be closed thus stopping heat being drawn up the chimney as it is on an open fire.

A properly sized stove (boiler or non boiler), burning appropriate fuel is a good heating source for many people, it’s a plus to have your own fuel, but even without they are a decent option as heat sources.

seamus

_Brian wrote: »

A properly sized stove (boiler or non boiler), burning appropriate fuel is a good heating source for many people, it’s a plus to have your own fuel, but even without they are a decent option as heat sources.

You're overselling boiler stoves.

For the vast, vast majority of people whose lives do not support having a fire lit all day, a boiler stove is a terrible option. An oil or gas boiler will fire up and heat the house in an hour. A "properly sized" boiler stove will only be getting up to a decent heat at that stage. And then you have to keep feeding it, for 1.5-2 hours, to get the house heated up.

If you live in a world where you can get out of bed, light up the stove and keep her lit until bedtime, adjusting the amount of fuel based on what you need, then sure, it's an option. In some scenarios, such as very remote buildings, it may even be preferable to oil or gas, which can leave you stuck without heating in times of bad weather.

But outside of that; for your typical 3 bed semi-D in a city, or even your decent rural house on a main road, a boiler stove is an absolute waste. You'll get a standard stove for a third of the price and a fraction of the install cost.

_Brian

seamus wrote: »

You're overselling boiler stoves.

For the vast, vast majority of people whose lives do not support having a fire lit all day, a boiler stove is a terrible option. An oil or gas boiler will fire up and heat the house in an hour. A "properly sized" boiler stove will only be getting up to a decent heat at that stage. And then you have to keep feeding it, for 1.5-2 hours, to get the house heated up.

If you live in a world where you can get out of bed, light up the stove and keep her lit until bedtime, adjusting the amount of fuel based on what you need, then sure, it's an option. In some scenarios, such as very remote buildings, it may even be preferable to oil or gas, which can leave you stuck without heating in times of bad weather.

But outside of that; for your typical 3 bed semi-D in a city, or even your decent rural house on a main road, a boiler stove is an absolute waste. You'll get a standard stove for a third of the price and a fraction of the install cost.

I said boiler or non boiler.

I never said it should be the sole heat source same as I’d never advise and open fire as the sole heat source. We have a condensing oil boiler for regular automated heat and the multi fuel stove for additional heat.

There’s no way a stove needs fuel every 1.5-2 hours, that’s madness, ours was lit at 4pm yesterday, refilled at 9pm amd still hot at midnight.
When it runs and heats the house the oil doesn’t come on amd so it saves oil.

I’m not selling or overselling anything, I’m giving my experience of our set up, some are portraying stoves as some sort of useless heat source when that’s simply untrue.

At 70-80% efficiency they are a reasonable option, particularly for those of us who like a fire anyway. Combined as we have with oil it’s a very reliable useable system.

dendof

_Brian wrote: »

I said boiler or non boiler.

I never said it should be the sole heat source same as I’d never advise and open fire as the sole heat source. We have a condensing oil boiler for regular automated heat and the multi fuel stove for additional heat.

There’s no way a stove needs fuel every 1.5-2 hours, that’s madness, ours was lit at 4pm yesterday, refilled at 9pm amd still hot at midnight.
When it runs and heats the house the oil doesn’t come on amd so it saves oil.

I’m not selling or overselling anything, I’m giving my experience of our set up, some are portraying stoves as some sort of useless heat source when that’s simply untrue.

At 70-80% efficiency they are a reasonable option, particularly for those of us who like a fire anyway. Combined as we have with oil it’s a very reliable useable system.

The boiler stove I have is 4kw to room and 11kw to rads.
I would say that it takes loads of fuel to heat, and no way would it not need to be re-filled afternoon to night.

Compared to others here, mine does not seem to be performing well. Where do I start to ensure that stove was even installed correctly?
It's an inset cassette so probably difficult if it was installed incorrectly

_Brian

dendof wrote: »

The boiler stove I have is 4kw to room and 11kw to rads.
I would say that it takes loads of fuel to heat, and no way would it not need to be re-filled afternoon to night.

Compared to others here, mine does not seem to be performing well. Where do I start to ensure that stove was even installed correctly?
It's an inset cassette so probably difficult if it was installed incorrectly

House detailing is key too.
Insulation levels and air tightness.

Then stove sizing, is 4/11 kw suitable for your requirements

What fuels are you using, poorly seasoned wood actually lowers stove heat as it burns as moisture is released.

seamus

_Brian wrote: »

I never said it should be the sole heat source same as I’d never advise and open fire as the sole heat source. We have a condensing oil boiler for regular automated heat and the multi fuel stove for additional heat.

OK. So if someone was asking whether they should fit one, the obvious answer seems to be "No". Consider a halfway useful boiler stove with 6KW to room costs €1,200 and a 6.5KW non-boiler stove costs €500, that alone should tell you that €700 for a secondary boiler is a waste of money.

That's before you consider the labour costs of hooking up a boiler stove to an existing heating system. What would that be? €4,000?

If you buy a house with a boiler stove installed, then I wouldn't pull it out. But no way in hell you'd find me putting one in.

There’s no way a stove needs fuel every 1.5-2 hours, that’s madness, ours was lit at 4pm yesterday, refilled at 9pm amd still hot at midnight.
When it runs and heats the house the oil doesn’t come on amd so it saves oil.

I can only go on my own experience with a standard 6KW stove. It'll take about 30 minutes to get up to full burn, about an hour to get to full heat and will burn through a full complement of fuel (i.e down to the embers) in just over 2 hours.

Of course a 20/30KW stove will have a larger chamber, but the physics aren't any different. You're going to need to keep it stocked and stoked to maintain the 16/24 KW you need to heat the whole house.

_Brian

Our home is highly spec’d for insulation. The stove was installed at build so minnimal install cost.

At 30kw it’s capable of heating the house but zoning and thermostatic rads help direct the heat where we want it.

We love a fire so having the stove was a no brainier and a boiler to have the option to heat the house was obviously handy.

Yes it uses fuel but we don’t find it excessive, literally yesterday between lighting at 4pm and midnight it was topped up once, and at midnight it was too hot to rest a hand on.

We buy coal but grow our own wood in a copice, another reason the stove was an obvious choice as much of the fuel is from a renewable source. We can heat all 2800sq ft with just the stove and it provides hot water too.

listermint

Its madness installing a stove to heat your rads

The only folks advocating for that are stove salesmen or someone with their own timber supply and plenty of time on their hands.

They are more expensive less efficient and more time consuming than alternative options on any level they are a bad idea short of really enjoying a fire to look at through glass

Who's at home at 4pm to light a fire .....

dendof

listermint wrote: »

Its madness installing a stove to heat your rads

The only folks advocating for that are stove salesmen or someone with their own timber supply and plenty of time on their hands.

They are more expensive less efficient and more time consuming than alternative options on any level they are a bad idea short of really enjoying a fire to look at through glass

Who's at home at 4pm to light a fire .....

Wish I had known this before buying my boiler stove 4 years ago!

So my best bet would have been to remove back boiler like I did, but instead of boiler stove use a normal room stove and oil for rest of house?

The insulation on my house is up to scratch now, and I'm looking and getting all the other parts right now.
So stove and heating is important - I guess I should really get the rads balanced and start using TRVs.
Maybe like has been said, oil on to heat rads initially, then fire up stove.
Yes it's nice to look at alright, but disappointed that I could have got a non-boiler and been better off with that.
Trouble is the stone cladding around stove I have now which I guess would make it a messy replacement.

_Brian

Balancing rads and thermostat valves really add to any system no matter the heat source, the valves help concentrate the heat where you want it without freezing some rooms.

Maybe some of your rads need flushing, im renting out and older house and definitely some rads are loosing efficiency at this stage with a cool spot in the centre at the bottom.

All I can say is ours is a great success and we wouldn’t be without it.

cranefly

listermint wrote: »

Generations.
.it's 2018 they are not efficient. They are pulled out in their droves there is threads daily on here complaining about them and how much fuel they use.

Stop propagating a lie. They are not efficient and no one is arguing that they don't work, they just don't work well and cost a fortune to run unless you have your own free timber supply.

Where do you get off mate, call me a liar again you wassack, any mods reading this, this guy needs a good reprimand.

recedite

seamus wrote: »

OK. So if someone was asking whether they should fit one, the obvious answer seems to be "No". Consider a halfway useful boiler stove with 6KW to room costs €1,200 and a 6.5KW non-boiler stove costs €500, that alone should tell you that €700 for a secondary boiler is a waste of money.

Apples and oranges there...one of those is a huge stove and one is their smallest.
Compare the Waterford Stanley Tara stove on the same website. Non-boiler version is €999 and boiler version is €1099. So €100 extra.

recedite

seamus wrote: »

I can only go on my own experience with a standard 6KW stove. It'll take about 30 minutes to get up to full burn, about an hour to get to full heat and will burn through a full complement of fuel (i.e down to the embers) in just over 2 hours.

Its probably least efficient for the first hour or two. After about an hour you can close down the vents to a minimum, and keep a stove stonking hot by adding small amounts of fuel every 45 mins or so.


Probably the best system is one where a condensing boiler heats the water in a large buffer tank, and that water is pumped out to the rads. But if the stove is lit, it can also heat a separate coil in the same buffer tank. Its a bit complicated, but it allows for other bolt-on options such as solar (thermal or PV) each can heat the same buffer tank.

_Brian

recedite wrote: »

Its probably least efficient for the first hour or two. After about an hour you can close down the vents to a minimum, and keep a stove stonking hot by adding small amounts of fuel every 45 mins or so.


Probably the best system is one where a condensing boiler heats the water in a large buffer tank, and that water is pumped out to the rads. But if the stove is lit, it can also heat a separate coil in the same buffer tank. Its a bit complicated, but it allows for other bolt-on options such as solar (thermal or PV) each can heat the same buffer tank.

We have solar, boiler stove and condensing boiler, not a buffer tank though, 300l stainless glass lines triple coil tank.

Lumen

cranefly wrote: »

Where do you get off mate, call me a liar again you wassack, any mods reading this, this guy needs a good reprimand.

There's a report post button if that's what butters your muffin.

dathi

_Brian wrote: »

Open fires are somewhere like 45/50% efficient.
Stoves are in the region of 70-80% efficient

A condescending oil burner is maybe 90-95% efficient

So saying anstove isn’t efficient isn’t true, compared to a 90% appliance it’s less but compared to say an open fireplace stoves are extremely efficient.

]There is the added bonus that when not in use the air vents can be closed thus stopping heat being drawn up the chimney as it is on an open fire.

A properly sized stove (boiler or non boiler), burning appropriate fuel is a good heating source for many people, it’s a plus to have your own fuel, but even without they are a decent option as heat sources.

open fires are generally taken to be 20% efficient
under the building regs TGDs part J a room with stove or fireplace must have an non closing air vent to the outside

Rows Grower

_Brian wrote: »

We have solar, boiler stove and condensing boiler, not a buffer tank though, 300l stainless glass lines triple coil tank.

We have the same, the condenser boiler does the underfloor heating. It takes about two to three hours to heat up properly but then stays hot for a long time, as in like about 12 hours heat for 3 hours oil burning. Thanks to the lads doing the foundation we used 100mm kingspan under the pipes instead of the 50mm that was recommended at the time and it was the best advice ever.


The stove heats up four 7 foot double rads upstairs and the towel rads in the bathroom and ensuites as well as heating the room it is in.

We find the stove very efficient and easy to control, we use a mix of ovoids, coal, slack, timber and turf. I can't understand how people can say a boiler stove is a waste of time, we think it's a great job.

If someone is having a problem heating rads off a boiler stove the issue could be with the pump, a lot of them have three different settings and it might be a simple thing like increasing the setting that will solve the issue.

Lumen

Rows Grower wrote: »

We have the same, the condenser boiler does the underfloor heating. It takes about two to three hours to heat up properly but then stays hot for a long time, as in like about 12 hours heat for 3 hours oil burning. Thanks to the lads doing the foundation we used 100mm kingspan under the pipes instead of the 50mm that was recommended at the time and it was the best advice ever.


The stove heats up four 7 foot double rads upstairs and the towel rads in the bathroom and ensuites as well as heating the room it is in.

We find the stove very efficient and easy to control, we use a mix of ovoids, coal, slack, timber and turf. I can't understand how people can say a boiler stove is a waste of time, we think it's a great job.

If someone is having a problem heating rads off a boiler stove the issue could be with the pump, a lot of them have three different settings and it might be a simple thing like increasing the setting that will solve the issue.

What's the advantage over just running both systems off the boiler?

Rows Grower

Lumen wrote: »

What's the advantage over just running both systems off the boiler?

We are not totally dependent on oil.

We like looking at a fire.

In case of a power cut we still have heat and the ability to cook too.

cranefly

Lumen wrote: »

There's a report post button if that's what butters your muffin.

No thanks mate, its not my style, i am too busy warming my muffin on my lovely stove, ready for buttering. Just another advantage of this type of heating, that other types cannot reach.

Water John

Brian just because oil burner is the most efficient, it has no need to be condescending, (post 15)

recedite

Oh Lord it's hard to be humble, When you're perfect in every way...

melsmum

I have to admit, I know nothing about the technicalities of boiler stoves, but I had one installed about four years ago. The guys that installed it took out the old back boiler, and did a lot of re-jigging with the pipework, that much I do know. The stove is a Stratford Ecoboiler, running six radiators. It's an insert stove and the installers packed a huge amount of some sort of insulating material around it as they were putting it in. I find it very effecient. Not, obviously, as fast to heat the rads as flipping the switch on the oil boiler, but effecient enough that tbh, in the mild spell we are having at the moment, I haven't lit it for the last few days. I've just had the oil on for a couple of hours in the morning, and a couple of hours in the evening. Because, I find with the stove, that once it's lit and going, it's going for a long time.
When I have used it for all day heat, it's used about 1 1/2 buckets of "ecobrite stove coal" per day, which I think is pretty good going. Normally, I put some on (and I never build a huge fire in the stove) at about 5.30 or 6 in the evening, and it would be still going at around 11pm.

Markcheese

Rows Grower wrote: »

We are not totally dependent on oil.

We like looking at a fire.

In case of a power cut we still have heat and the ability to cook too.

I thought that you shouldn't really use a boiler stove if the powers out... Because the pump won't work... I suppose if the systems designed to work without a pump..

Rows Grower

Markcheese wrote: »

I thought that you shouldn't really use a boiler stove if the powers out... Because the pump won't work... I suppose if the systems designed to work without a pump..

You don't have to use the boiler pump in the stove every time you light it.

There is a switch installed to power on/off the pump.

_Brian

Markcheese wrote: »

I thought that you shouldn't really use a boiler stove if the powers out... Because the pump won't work... I suppose if the systems designed to work without a pump..

Definitely something to be aware of.

We’ve only had one power outage in the 11 years since we built and installed he stove but it was over a very cold spell. 36hrs with no power.

Was able to light a moderate fire in the stove which warmed the room well without boiling the water in the stove, the firebox is large giving room to position it away from the boiler itself.

melsmum

_Brian wrote: »

Definitely something to be aware of.

We’ve only had one power outage in the 11 years since we built and installed he stove but it was over a very cold spell. 36hrs with no power.

Was able to light a moderate fire in the stove which warmed the room well without boiling the water in the stove, the firebox is large giving room to position it away from the boiler itself.

That's something I'm always nervous of. I live in a very stormy area, and although the power doesn't often go off, because the stove stays hot (and the heating stays on) for hours and hours after I last put fuel on, I tend not to light it if we're in for a storm. I have oil heating and electric radiant panels on the ceiling as well, AND a portable gas heater! There's also an unused, open fire in the living room. I keep thinking I should get the chimney covered at the top, or close up the fireplace, but then, in case of power being out, it would be handy to have.

Noggle

I've decided to dispense with the back boiler completely and have it removed, also have the pipes crimped. Is it necessary to line the flue for the new stove which is now there to provide ambience and heat the downstairs space only.

recedite

Noggle wrote: »

I've decided to dispense with the back boiler completely and have it removed, also have the pipes crimped. Is it necessary to line the flue for the new stove which is now there to provide ambience and heat the downstairs space only.

If the chimney is working now with an open fire, then it would also work with a stove.
Its not necessary to line it, and if you do line it, its not necessary to insulate around the liner.

However, a lined chimney with insulation only at the top 2 metres or so is a warmer chimney, which is a slightly better thing to have.