Posted by Joe Brophy on November 20, 2005, 12:22 pm
Can anyone describe the differences between a corn fed stove and a wood =
pellet stove? I'd
like to try and modify my wood pellet stove to use corn but I am unsure =
of how the two
technologies are different.
The only thing I have seen/read in my research thus far is that the corn =
stove seems to
require a hotter firebox temp, but I can't see any other significant =
differences.
Appreciate any and all insights on operational differences and how to go =
about the
modifications. Thanks, Joe.
Joe Brophy
CountryTech Computer
email: pcfixr@spiretech.com
Posted by AJH on November 20, 2005, 3:56 pm
wrote:
>Can anyone describe the differences between a corn fed stove and a wood pellet
stove? I'd
>like to try and modify my wood pellet stove to use corn but I am unsure of how
the two
>technologies are different.
I've never seen a corn burning stove but my wood pellet stoves works
ok with 50:50 wood pellets and wheat. Barley is more problemsome. The
thing is these grains (no corn here I am in UK) have higher ash and
higher proportions of potassium and phosphorus (hence they burn with a
bluish tinge) this can cause problems with ash adhering to heat
exchange surfaces.
The grains have the tendency to char together and not burn thoroughly
so gradually fill the burn pot if left alone. Also the ash slags and
forms a delicate foamed clinker that again gradually fouls the burn
pot, requiring more regular attention.
AJH
Posted by JoeSP on November 22, 2005, 9:55 am
> wrote:
>>Can anyone describe the differences between a corn fed stove and a wood
>>pellet stove? I'd
>>like to try and modify my wood pellet stove to use corn but I am unsure of
>>how the two
>>technologies are different.
> I've never seen a corn burning stove but my wood pellet stoves works
> ok with 50:50 wood pellets and wheat. Barley is more problemsome. The
> thing is these grains (no corn here I am in UK) have higher ash and
> higher proportions of potassium and phosphorus (hence they burn with a
> bluish tinge) this can cause problems with ash adhering to heat
> exchange surfaces.
> The grains have the tendency to char together and not burn thoroughly
> so gradually fill the burn pot if left alone. Also the ash slags and
> forms a delicate foamed clinker that again gradually fouls the burn
> pot, requiring more regular attention.
> AJH
Has it come to this? Have feedgrains become so cheap under government
subsidies that they are being burned as fuel? Why couldn't some of that
subsidy money be reattributed to the straw or to waste oils, or to other
fuels? Something is clearly out of whack.
Posted by ronwagn on November 22, 2005, 5:21 pm
I know there is a subsidy, but if the subsidy can contribute to
individuals saving money on something as basic as keeping their home
warm in the winter, maybe it is not so bad. True it might be better to
grow switchgrass or something on marginal land, or use corn stover,
which is the rest of the plant. I agree with your point , but biomass
is still the way to go, as I see it. It can be used for heat,
electrical generation, hydrogen production et all.
There are many sources for biomass. Peat, grasses, trash, sewage,
grains, crop residue like corn stover , algae, etc. All we need to do
is use it . Nature has provided it for us to use . It is solar power in
material form.
Take away the subsidy and corn might still be the most competitive
product because it is already a good pellet size. No expensive pellet
machine or extra handling. They can't even make waste wood pellets as
cheap. I am proud of supporting the farmers, who can barely make it as
it is.
All the best,
Ron Wagner
Posted by JoeSP on November 22, 2005, 10:14 pm
>I know there is a subsidy, but if the subsidy can contribute to
> individuals saving money on something as basic as keeping their home
> warm in the winter, maybe it is not so bad. True it might be better to
> grow switchgrass or something on marginal land, or use corn stover,
> which is the rest of the plant. I agree with your point , but biomass
> is still the way to go, as I see it. It can be used for heat,
> electrical generation, hydrogen production et all.
So it doesn't matter if it comes from the taxpayer's pockets, as long as it
benefits you, it's OK? No wonder society is in decline.
How do you propose that such a subsidy is sustainable?
> There are many sources for biomass. Peat, grasses, trash, sewage,
> grains, crop residue like corn stover , algae, etc. All we need to do
> is use it . Nature has provided it for us to use . It is solar power in
> material form.
> Take away the subsidy and corn might still be the most competitive
> product because it is already a good pellet size. No expensive pellet
> machine or extra handling. They can't even make waste wood pellets as
> cheap. I am proud of supporting the farmers, who can barely make it as
> it is.
> All the best,
> Ron Wagner
No argument there, but there's no cheap way to produce, process and market
biofuels in comparison to the cheap fossil fuels we're used to.
XML site map