Catalytic vs. Non-catalytic wood stoves

[Old and In the Way]

I'm in the market for a new wood stove. I think we're going to go with the DutchWest brand from Vermont Castings (we have a Consolidated DutchWest stove now and have been happy with it...we'll move that into the cellar and get a new one to heat the upstairs.

I've looked at the specs between the catalytic vs. non-catalytic and I cannot see any appreciable difference. Catalytics have a slightly better efficiency and slightly longer burn time (not an issue for me), but the non-catalytic have been fly ash/hr generation. The non-catalytic is also cheaper...so I'm leaning in that direction.

So what do my friends at DU have to say?

[jpak]

1. I'd go with an EPA certified non-catalytic stove

The catalysts have a finite life-span and often don't perform well...

http://chimneysweeponline.com/hocats.htm

http://www.customfireplacesandmore.com/hearth-articles/catalytic-non-catalytic.html

http://www.woodheat.org/planning/buyright.htm

[Possumpoint]

2. We Used

An Englander Catalytic woodstove from 1989 till 2004. Within 3 years after purchase we stopped using the catalytic converter and left the stove on bypass. If you didn't get a hot enough fire going the converter would plug up and need to be cleaned. I must have gotten too hot a fire on one or more occasions because the sliding flap that controlled the by-pass warped and became difficult to operate.

Switched out the wood stove for an Englander wood pellet stove. It produces less heat then a wood stove but has a much longer burn time then a wood stove. It is much cleaner then an wood stove, producing less creosote and much less ash. There are pellet stoves where you mix corn kernels with the wood pellets and get a hotter burn. I would think that corn might be getting a bit pricey now though.

Hope that helps.

[madokie]

3. our first pellet stove paid for itself in the first two heating seasons

that was way back in '92. That stove is still saving our son and his family money each winter as we passed it down to them when we upgraded to a new pellet stove a couple years ago. That stove too has paid for itself already in savings over our other choices, propane or electric resistance. The problem with a regular wood stove here is we have too big of a temperature swing by day. Idealy in this area one needs a stove that heats quickly and cools just as quick other wise there are a lot of time you are either too cool or way too hot. Wood pellets are made from a waste product too as a bonus.

[appal_jack]

4. another vote for non-catalytic

My parents have a Vermont Castings Encore, and it is a good stove. But one really does have to get it hot first by running it on bypass for > 1 hour before engaging the catalyst, and cleaning-out the catalyst (~2x per year, with the stove being used as supplemental heater) is a bit of a pain. That said, the durability of the catalyst has been good so far (4 years).

I supplement the oil heat of my home (and by next year I might have to make wood the primary heat...) with an older-style non-catalytic stove, and it is simple and efficient. If one does not pay attention to one's fire, one may send some pollutants up the stack with a non-cat stove, but by tinkering with draft and flue, I can burn super-cleanly. And I like tinkering and playing with fire...

One essential feature I would recommend is an integrated blower. Stoves without blowers (like my folks' VC) give nice radiant heat, but having the option of turning on a blower means that you have the potential to heat a whole house in a short period of time. Better efficiency too. My blower is a little noisy, so there are times I keep it off, but the difference in heat output with it on vs. off is incredible. I also have a silent thermo-electric fan (the kind sold by Real Goods, etc.) on top of my stove (as do my folks), but they do not move near the amount of heat that the built-in blower on my stove can.

-app