Print

[MaverickM23]

Alright been trying to figure out what size boiler I need to be looking for. Talked with some people who told me to do a heat loss on the house I did that and came up with all kind of different numbers, didn't seem real accurate. So instead I have been keeping track of my exact oil usage. I figure my oil at 140,000 BTU's a gallon, boiler running at 82.3 efficeincy so I am netting 115,220 BTU per gallon. From October to December 67 days I used 223 gallons which works out to 15,978 BTU's per hour. Now when it was colder in January I used 26,671 BTU's an hour. Now I am keeping the house colder, 58 degrees with one zone coming up and down when Im there. My question is, is my line of thinking right that I need a boiler that will meet my BTU's per hour. I talked with an Empyre Dealer and he told me I would need the 200 not the 100. I do have another building that I would probably be heating in the future, it is built the same as my house just not quite as big and I would not be running the heat all the time, just maybe on the weekends. Let me know what you guys think.

[Scott7m]

The 200 is the unit you would need if your going to add a building at some point.  I'm running the 100 now and like it really well.  The 200 is better thought because of the bigger firebox

[Scott7m]

The 200 is the unit you would need if your going to add a building at some point.  I'm running the 100 now and like it really well.  The 200 is better thought because of the bigger firebox

Also realize most btu are max ratings which are useless, empyre is the only one I know that breaks it down for you on a per hour basis.  They do that so you can actually use heat loss calculations to size your boiler.

[woodman]

I would recommend cranking that thermostat up to 74 for a week or so to see how much oil you burn and use those numbers. 58 is freezing!! I am suprised you use that much with your house that cold.

[Scott7m]

I would recommend cranking that thermostat up to 74 for a week or so to see how much oil you burn and use those numbers. 58 is freezing!! I am suprised you use that much with your house that cold.

According to my calculations it would cost him 48% more btu/energy to keep his home at 74 vs 58 degrees

[hoardac]

Better to have it with more heat than you need than have a smaller boiler that can't do the job.

[MaverickM23]

Oh trust me I was surprised too. The house was built in 2003 and was well done. However it sits on top of a hill right in front of a huge open field and the wind just blows right over it. Behind it is a creek but it literally sits on top of a hill. This summer it took my large gas grill completely off the porch which is about 15 feet long

[Scott7m]

Maverick, according to what I'm thinking your going to need to produce about 40,000 btu/hr in the coldest times...  That's not all the time, but just on those coldest days

[MaverickM23]

Thats what I was thinking too, so why wouldn't the Empyre 100 work? Im not opposed to going bigger just curious. The other building I talked about heating is about 1500 sq feet, Ill measure tonite for sure, and it is insulated. But like I said it will not be heated all the time just when I want to work in it.

[Scott7m]

Well, in a perfect world the 100 makes about 45kbtu/hr..  That's perfect conditions, and without heating any water or your additional garage, you are close to the limits of what perfect could do.

The 200 on the other hand can produce up to 70kbtu/hr, that allows you to do the hot water and your extra space, worry free, and still get those 12 hour burn times we want to achieve.

The ease of loading the larger firebox of the 200 is also a key factor for me..  It's much easier to load and that means a lot

[willieG]

Well, in a perfect world the 100 makes about 45kbtu/hr..  That's perfect conditions, and without heating any water or your additional garage, you are close to the limits of what perfect could do.

The 200 on the other hand can produce up to 70kbtu/hr, that allows you to do the hot water and your extra space, worry free, and still get those 12 hour burn times we want to achieve.

The ease of loading the larger firebox of the 200 is also a key factor for me..  It's much easier to load and that means a lot

on a cold night if you require the 40,000 per hour (scotts figure and i concur) that would be about 13 pounds of wood an hour (non gasser stove) 12 hour burn wanted = 156 pounds of wood (plus insurance 170 pounds of wood)

and you need a fire box big enough to get this in and still have lots of area to collect this heat...this case....bigger is better

[Scott7m]

Yea your right Willie

On these gasification models we've found that getting the sizing close is important, in conventionals you can go double the size with no issues, with gasifiers we've found that doing a proper heat loss calculation, and sizing it close results in a cleaner and easier to maintain stove.    However, using the optimum numbers are still slightly misleading, as we don't live in a perfect world