ᐅ Is having a fireplace still practical in new construction homes today – any experiences?
Created on: 20 Mar 2018 23:34
P
PSK
Hello!
My wife and I are currently in the planning phase for our single-family home and are wondering whether a fireplace still makes sense today, although we would like to have one.
To give some background: we both grew up with a fireplace and have always found it very appealing. There is just something special about a fire, and the “pleasant warmth” is great. For that reason, we always intended to install a traditional wood-burning fireplace with an open flame in our house. Specifically, we would like a real eye-catcher integrated into a wall, visible from two or three sides.
Almost every homebuilder we spoke to said that this no longer makes economic sense in modern houses and is more likely to cause overheating. However, it would be possible with all of them. Even a fireplace installation company advised against it. We are currently planning a system with an air-to-water heat pump and underfloor heating throughout the house (about 155m² (1,670 sq ft)), built to KFW55 standard (timber frame). A wall-integrated fireplace would have around 8 kW output, which is far too much. If at all, they recommend installing only a small freestanding fireplace with a maximum of 2-3 kW if we absolutely want one. But we don’t like those due to their size.
Thinking it over, I see the point of these arguments. In this setup, you have a consistent indoor temperature of about 21°C (70°F). You don’t really need a fireplace anymore. The companies estimate heating costs of around 500 euros. A cubic meter of firewood costs roughly 80 euros if you buy it prepared. So, potential cost savings are almost zero. And the chimney along with the fireplace and all the accessories would cost about 8,000 to 10,000 euros. Visually, it would also never quite look how we imagine it. Without a fireplace, we wouldn’t have an intrusive edge in the rooms and could position the doors more freely.
We also had a striking experience: about a year ago, we visited friends who had recently built a house and also have a fireplace. They proudly lit it even though it was already 22°C (72°F) inside, thanks to house automation and pellet heating. Although they barely put any wood in—so the fire was mostly smoldering—the fireplace kept running at full power. After two hours, the temperature reached around 26°C (79°F), and we were sitting in T-shirts (with -10°C (14°F) outside) in the living room. Another hour later, at 29°C (84°F), just before overheating, the friends opened the windows. The takeaway: expensive heat, a poor fire that I then effectively blew out the window!
What are your experiences with or opinions on fireplaces in modern homes?
Thanks in advance!
Best regards
Steffen
My wife and I are currently in the planning phase for our single-family home and are wondering whether a fireplace still makes sense today, although we would like to have one.
To give some background: we both grew up with a fireplace and have always found it very appealing. There is just something special about a fire, and the “pleasant warmth” is great. For that reason, we always intended to install a traditional wood-burning fireplace with an open flame in our house. Specifically, we would like a real eye-catcher integrated into a wall, visible from two or three sides.
Almost every homebuilder we spoke to said that this no longer makes economic sense in modern houses and is more likely to cause overheating. However, it would be possible with all of them. Even a fireplace installation company advised against it. We are currently planning a system with an air-to-water heat pump and underfloor heating throughout the house (about 155m² (1,670 sq ft)), built to KFW55 standard (timber frame). A wall-integrated fireplace would have around 8 kW output, which is far too much. If at all, they recommend installing only a small freestanding fireplace with a maximum of 2-3 kW if we absolutely want one. But we don’t like those due to their size.
Thinking it over, I see the point of these arguments. In this setup, you have a consistent indoor temperature of about 21°C (70°F). You don’t really need a fireplace anymore. The companies estimate heating costs of around 500 euros. A cubic meter of firewood costs roughly 80 euros if you buy it prepared. So, potential cost savings are almost zero. And the chimney along with the fireplace and all the accessories would cost about 8,000 to 10,000 euros. Visually, it would also never quite look how we imagine it. Without a fireplace, we wouldn’t have an intrusive edge in the rooms and could position the doors more freely.
We also had a striking experience: about a year ago, we visited friends who had recently built a house and also have a fireplace. They proudly lit it even though it was already 22°C (72°F) inside, thanks to house automation and pellet heating. Although they barely put any wood in—so the fire was mostly smoldering—the fireplace kept running at full power. After two hours, the temperature reached around 26°C (79°F), and we were sitting in T-shirts (with -10°C (14°F) outside) in the living room. Another hour later, at 29°C (84°F), just before overheating, the friends opened the windows. The takeaway: expensive heat, a poor fire that I then effectively blew out the window!
What are your experiences with or opinions on fireplaces in modern homes?
Thanks in advance!
Best regards
Steffen
G
garfunkel11 Jun 2018 14:49You can only really consider the stones as a heat buffer. If you load too much wood and it gets too hot, the buffer has a negative effect because it releases too much heat into the room over a long period.
7-8 kW is quite a lot for a new house... I could imagine that it might be too much!
If I remember correctly, my stove fitter recommended a 5 kW stove for a renovated old building with a 55 m² (590 sq ft) room.
A stove that is too large and only occasionally loaded works only to a limited extent, and the same goes for a small stove with too much wood.
In a 55 m² (590 sq ft) room, I generally don’t heat above level 3 in winter (no underfloor heating). This is a relative indication, but the room temperature remains around 20°-22°C (68°-72°F).
I suspect that with a wood stove, I would rather overheat the room regularly.
I can only recommend having everything carefully planned; installing on a whim can become an expensive mistake.
If it’s “just” about the fire and the crackling wood, and heating is secondary, you can choose a small stove and enjoy it. At least then you won’t risk the room getting too hot.
If I upgrade in the future, I will definitely opt for a smaller stove rather than a larger one.
In a new building, a classic wood stove is usually not cost-effective in terms of heating and energy costs.
7-8 kW is quite a lot for a new house... I could imagine that it might be too much!
If I remember correctly, my stove fitter recommended a 5 kW stove for a renovated old building with a 55 m² (590 sq ft) room.
A stove that is too large and only occasionally loaded works only to a limited extent, and the same goes for a small stove with too much wood.
In a 55 m² (590 sq ft) room, I generally don’t heat above level 3 in winter (no underfloor heating). This is a relative indication, but the room temperature remains around 20°-22°C (68°-72°F).
I suspect that with a wood stove, I would rather overheat the room regularly.
I can only recommend having everything carefully planned; installing on a whim can become an expensive mistake.
If it’s “just” about the fire and the crackling wood, and heating is secondary, you can choose a small stove and enjoy it. At least then you won’t risk the room getting too hot.
If I upgrade in the future, I will definitely opt for a smaller stove rather than a larger one.
In a new building, a classic wood stove is usually not cost-effective in terms of heating and energy costs.
H
Hausbauer111 Jun 2018 15:51A pellet stove can be easily turned down, and those with a water jacket sometimes only release 10-20% of the heat directly into the room. This results in just 0.3–0.5 kW being emitted directly into the living space.
My point is not that I want the stove to pay for itself in that sense.
In the rental apartment, we have the package you suggested, and unfortunately, we don’t like it at all.
We stoke the stove, but it only releases about 10% of the heat into the room; almost all of it goes into heating the water.
I do want to use the stove during the transitional period when the heat pump is mostly maintaining the house temperature rather than warming it up, and does so very slowly, so that I can quickly warm up the space whenever I want.
But I also don’t want to have to sit there in just my underwear...
I had it carefully planned by two stove builders, but each recommends something different, as mentioned above.
In the rental apartment, we have the package you suggested, and unfortunately, we don’t like it at all.
We stoke the stove, but it only releases about 10% of the heat into the room; almost all of it goes into heating the water.
I do want to use the stove during the transitional period when the heat pump is mostly maintaining the house temperature rather than warming it up, and does so very slowly, so that I can quickly warm up the space whenever I want.
But I also don’t want to have to sit there in just my underwear...
I had it carefully planned by two stove builders, but each recommends something different, as mentioned above.
I have a masonry heater with a water jacket AND ceramic flue channels (7m) that can be switched between the water jacket and the flue channels. The firebox is designed for up to 10 kg (22 lbs) of wood, and depending on how I operate it (water jacket or ceramic), more or less heat is released into the room. About 20-25% of the heat definitely reaches the room through the glass.
My stove is positioned as a room divider between the living room and dining/kitchen area. So far, it hasn’t overheated the room. It takes about 2 hours for the surface of the stove (which is roughly 4 m² (43 sq ft)) to reach 45°C (113°F). After 24 hours, the surface temperature is still 20-25°C (68-77°F). When the stove is completely cold, it takes about 20-30 minutes before the glass starts radiating heat. After about an hour (a full burn with 10 kg (22 lbs) of wood lasts around 2-2.5 hours), you can feel the surface (fireclay bricks of the outer shell) warming up. If I only want to “temper” the stove, I do just one burn. Then I close the dampers, which slowly allows the heat to transfer from the inner shell to the outer shell.
I think it’s brilliant. Especially in winter, when you add more wood around 8 PM, you have a nicely warm stove behind you the next morning!
My stove is positioned as a room divider between the living room and dining/kitchen area. So far, it hasn’t overheated the room. It takes about 2 hours for the surface of the stove (which is roughly 4 m² (43 sq ft)) to reach 45°C (113°F). After 24 hours, the surface temperature is still 20-25°C (68-77°F). When the stove is completely cold, it takes about 20-30 minutes before the glass starts radiating heat. After about an hour (a full burn with 10 kg (22 lbs) of wood lasts around 2-2.5 hours), you can feel the surface (fireclay bricks of the outer shell) warming up. If I only want to “temper” the stove, I do just one burn. Then I close the dampers, which slowly allows the heat to transfer from the inner shell to the outer shell.
I think it’s brilliant. Especially in winter, when you add more wood around 8 PM, you have a nicely warm stove behind you the next morning!
Similar topics