ᐅ New Construction, Wood-Burning Stove, Nominal Heat Output—What Now?
Created on: 8 Nov 2017 10:08
O
onyx.dop
Hello everyone,
We are currently planning a new build and would like to include a wood-burning stove (a heating insert built with firebrick) in the open living/dining/kitchen area. The goal is to slightly reduce the load on the air-to-water heat pump and create a cozy atmosphere.
My heat load calculation based on the U-value shows that for 64m² (living/dining/kitchen + hallway connected by two doors) we need a maximum heating capacity of about 2.3 kW. This includes all external walls (approximately U-value 0.19) and floor construction (0.16).
If I install a stove with a nominal heat output of 9 kW and an output range of 3.2 to 10.9 kW, won’t I overheat the space even at the minimum wood feed rate (3.2 kW)? According to the stove fitter, this is not a problem because the heat output can be controlled by adjusting the amount of wood.
The 2.3 kW figure also refers to the worst-case scenario of -16°C (3°F) outside and +23°C (73°F) inside, without any other heat sources. So, in reality, the required heating capacity will likely be much lower than 2.3 kW.
What is the best approach? Should I choose a stove insert with the lowest possible heat output range?
Best regards.
We are currently planning a new build and would like to include a wood-burning stove (a heating insert built with firebrick) in the open living/dining/kitchen area. The goal is to slightly reduce the load on the air-to-water heat pump and create a cozy atmosphere.
My heat load calculation based on the U-value shows that for 64m² (living/dining/kitchen + hallway connected by two doors) we need a maximum heating capacity of about 2.3 kW. This includes all external walls (approximately U-value 0.19) and floor construction (0.16).
If I install a stove with a nominal heat output of 9 kW and an output range of 3.2 to 10.9 kW, won’t I overheat the space even at the minimum wood feed rate (3.2 kW)? According to the stove fitter, this is not a problem because the heat output can be controlled by adjusting the amount of wood.
The 2.3 kW figure also refers to the worst-case scenario of -16°C (3°F) outside and +23°C (73°F) inside, without any other heat sources. So, in reality, the required heating capacity will likely be much lower than 2.3 kW.
What is the best approach? Should I choose a stove insert with the lowest possible heat output range?
Best regards.
onyx.dop schrieb:
We are currently planning a new build and would like to include a wood stove (a heating insert built with fireclay) in the open-plan living/dining/kitchen area. The goal is to slightly reduce the load on the air-to-water heat pump and create a cozy atmosphere.Again: You are planning a new build according to current energy-saving regulations and a modern heating system. Before you can influence the heating behavior in any meaningful way, you will either be sitting barefoot on your tiled floor or have the windows wide open. The house will be well insulated and retain heat effectively. Just let the heating system be properly adjusted and do its job—your stove will provide some cozy hours but does not have to or realistically can support a modern heating system.
K
Karlstraße8 Nov 2017 21:25I’m interested in hearing your opinions on the topic of heat-retaining bricks.
Two options:
1) Fireplace lined with fireclay bricks but without heat-retaining bricks, allowing occasional open operation (glass stays closed, chimney designed for this)
2) Fireplace with heat-retaining bricks for heat storage (often said to store heat for about 6 hours), but cannot be used in open mode
We plan to build according to the energy-saving regulations, probably without a ventilation system, and want the fireplace mainly for ambiance and occasional weekend use. Therefore, we tend toward option 1). It’s not energy-efficient, but with option 2), I wonder what benefit it really brings to store the heat after a few hours for the night in a well-insulated house where I’m in the bedroom anyway and the house doesn’t really cool down. The question is also whether the heat storage even receives enough heat after 2-3 hours.
Additionally, it’s often said that a solid new build also stores heat, which should apply to both options, right?
Of course, we would open the window if it gets too hot, so sitting together in front of the open fireplace would not only have the effect of watching the fire but also allow some heat regulation (significantly less heat released into the room).
What do you think? I’d appreciate your opinions and experiences, and please, no “that’s just how it’s done.” What everyone does isn’t always suitable or sensible for every situation.
Two options:
1) Fireplace lined with fireclay bricks but without heat-retaining bricks, allowing occasional open operation (glass stays closed, chimney designed for this)
2) Fireplace with heat-retaining bricks for heat storage (often said to store heat for about 6 hours), but cannot be used in open mode
We plan to build according to the energy-saving regulations, probably without a ventilation system, and want the fireplace mainly for ambiance and occasional weekend use. Therefore, we tend toward option 1). It’s not energy-efficient, but with option 2), I wonder what benefit it really brings to store the heat after a few hours for the night in a well-insulated house where I’m in the bedroom anyway and the house doesn’t really cool down. The question is also whether the heat storage even receives enough heat after 2-3 hours.
Additionally, it’s often said that a solid new build also stores heat, which should apply to both options, right?
Of course, we would open the window if it gets too hot, so sitting together in front of the open fireplace would not only have the effect of watching the fire but also allow some heat regulation (significantly less heat released into the room).
What do you think? I’d appreciate your opinions and experiences, and please, no “that’s just how it’s done.” What everyone does isn’t always suitable or sensible for every situation.
H
HilfeHilfe9 Nov 2017 07:23Yes, only those fireplaces with storage stones integrated into the heating system pay off after about 100 years. You need fuel anyway.
So once again, it’s just for the atmosphere and nothing to do with saving money. At least I haven’t noticed any savings nor have I ever adjusted the heating system myself. Too complex for me.
So once again, it’s just for the atmosphere and nothing to do with saving money. At least I haven’t noticed any savings nor have I ever adjusted the heating system myself. Too complex for me.
Well, you can definitely ease the load on your heating system. For example, we have additional thermostatic valves in each room that allow us to give the heating system a bit of a boost. If you regularly use the stove, you can lower the average temperature setting on the heating system and set all the valves in the house to 1. However, you need to be consistent with using the stove for this to work.
Evolith schrieb:
Well, you can actually ease the load on your heating system. For example, we have additional thermostatic valves in every room that allow us to boost the heating a bit. If you regularly fire up the stove, you can lower the average temperature setting on the heating system and set all valves in the house to level 1. But you have to be consistent with using the stove.That is complete nonsense. This doesn’t reduce the load on the heating system; instead, it gives it false feedback because there is no return flow anymore. It would actually make more sense to open all the valves fully and use the heating system to transport the heat whenever the air temperature is higher than the flow temperature.
Musketier schrieb:
That's complete nonsense. This doesn’t relieve the heating system; instead, it deceives it because there is no return flow anymore. Why heat unnecessarily high? I’m simply telling it that my room temperature should be lower; it still heats, just not as strongly as when it is 3 degrees Celsius (37°F) warmer. Or is there something about the technology I don’t understand?
Similar topics