Well, look at it this way, how many people in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont use wood stoves or fireplace inserts for a lot of their heat? They are already burning about twice as much wood as they would with a gasifier. Obviously these things are more money than a wood stove etc…, but you see my point in sustainability.

Seriously simple when you understand how hydronic heat works, just a different fuel. We are someday planning on adding a garage with a room above. We bought the EKO 60 instead of the EKO 40 for that reason. But with storage, the 60 should be fine and not too big. Not too big in the BTU sense, bt this thing is a beast.

I’m so glad you did. Thanks!

> Local wood supply could even come from
> shipments from Canada on trucks.

Or, if push comes to shove, we can supply it ourselves. We can’t manufacture our own pellets, and this was a deciding factor for me.

> I think everyone in Maine could have a
> gasifier and we would still have no issue
> with deforestation.

Maybe yes, maybe no. I would like to see more analysis. And I would /really/ like to see that analysis include not just numbers of homes and acres of forest, but also methods of sustainable forestry.

> with the wood boiler, you just add a zone
> circulator and some pipe.

Good point. My wife’s studio is in an attached barn, currently heated by propane. When the $$$ permit, we’d like to extend a zone there.

> If something goes wrong with my boiler, I
> am sure I can fix it or at the very least
> diagnose it.

The good news is that the tech is admirably uncomplicated. The bad news is that, while they are still unfamiliar, we early adopters are somewhat vulnerable on this front.

In regards to the deforestation concern, outdoor wood boilers, wood stoves, fireplaces and even indoor wood boilers that aren’t gasifiers could cause deforestation if EVERYONE had them. This just highlights the lack of knowledge about the wood gasifiers. They burn about half as much wood as a regular indoor wood boiler, and probably, from what I have read, about a third as much as an outdoor wood boiler. They are carbon neutral as long as forests are forested responsibly, meaning that the carbon taken out is replaced by the oxygen recieved from new tree growth. It is certainly sustainable, especially in more wooded areas like Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. I think everyone in Maine could have a gasifier and we would still have no issue with deforestation. Local wood supply could even come from shipments from Canada on trucks. Right now they ship to papermills at rock bottom prices. In fact when I ask around for wood prices they often quote what they can get for it from the papermill. I would guess as paper becomes less and less used as electronic devices replace it you will actually see wood prices stay at or with the rate of inflation. Geothermal uses lots of electricity, where do you see electricity prices in say 10 years? Solar panels are not cost effective at this point and will be a long time before they are, especially in the north where I live where sunlight days are limited. Battery technology has a long way to go in the storage of that energy. The best batteries are still the same 1000 pound batteries found on forklifs. Wind turbines really are only effective when the blade is about 20 feet in diameter and above the treeline and get constant winds. The energy generated goes up exponentially after about 20 feet. The average electricity generated they quote for those home turbines assumes ridiculous wind speeds on average. The government could certainly step in and create wind farms and solar arrays, but I guarentee you your electric bill would go up considerably if those sources were used instead of the cheaper coal or natural gas. I say lets use the cheap sources until they are no longer cheap and let the private sector look for ways to make money and do the research into effective uses of solar and wind. They already are. Jon your right, we are responsible for the in between ourselves. My payback period I estimate at about 10 years with the wood boiler. Probably a lot less if oil goes where I think it will. The government is trying to get consumers and businesses to go green, but inevitably it is up to us. I shied away from geothermal for a few reasons, (1) large electricity demand(which I had no control over) (2) domestic hot water which geothermal systems lack an ability to provide (causing more electricity use), (3) the forced transition to forced hot air, which sucks in comparison to forced hot water, (4) greater cost (about $10,000 more), (5) lack of understanding and ability to fix it if it were to break. I love the articles on geothermal that state how easy it is to maintain and then state if something goes wrong with it to call a geothermal technician. :) If something goes wrong with my boiler, I am sure I can fix it or at the very least diagnose it. Most of the time it is a circulator pump, ($70), which is an easy fix. Everything is right in the open and simple. and finally (6) easy addition of an extra zone in the case of an addition to the house. We were planning on adding a garage with room above at some point, and with the wood boiler, you just add a zone circulator and some pipe. With a geothermal, they size them to the house. You could size it bigger than you need, but that means more $ up front for an addition that may take many years.

Geothermal does have its advantages, I can only think of three. (1) less space in my basement, (2) not having to worry about cutting and splitting and (3) AC in the summer, but here in Maine, that is like maybe 20 days if we are lucky.

Dunno about wood chips, but Pellergy (http://www.pellergy.com/) will mate a pellet burner to your existing oil-fired boiler.

The one caveat is that, although you can convert back and forth, you don’t have simultaneous use of oil and pellets.

This solution wasn’t yet available when I made my purchase last year.

I’m in the midst of resolving this, hope to have answers soon. It has turned into a complicated story that really needs to be told.

And so would I rather see those solutions, believe me. Had we heeded the warning bell back in 1970, and had we been ramping up toward those and other solutions ever since, we might be within shouting distance now.

But we didn’t, and we’re not, and we need a bridge solution. Home heating isn’t a comfort issue in New England, it’s a survival issue.
Wood and wood products are a big part of that bridge solution for now. Drive around Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine and you will see impressive piles of stacked cordwood and rows of plastic-wrapped one-ton pallets of wood pellets.

You’re absolutely right about deforestation. We did it before to New England, and we might again. Or, if we’re careful to use the biomass resource efficiently, and manage it for sustainability, things might turn out differently.

Whatever the outcome, it’s happening, and technologies for clean/safe/efficient/effective use of the resource have to be part of the equation.

The other part, by the way, needs to be a WPA-like (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration) program to retrofit New England’s ill-adapted housing stock. Helping homeowners defray the high cost of those retrofits, and creating non-outsourceable jobs in the bargain, would be a better use of tax dollars than further adventuring in the Persia Gulf, and a great way to advance the triple goals of energy independence, economic growth, and geopolitical stability.

It may be that I’ll have to unwind this deal and wait a year or more for the regulatory environment to catch up.

But, insurance companies should be delighted to see people moving in this direction, and away from conventional wood stoves. These devices produce vastly less creosote and operate at much lower stack temperatures, thus they eliminate the major risk associated with wood stoves which, having been phased out by many people in favor of oil, are now being phased in again in a major way.

If there is any concern about boiler integrity, by the way, a wood gasifier can be operated as an open unpressurized system through a heat exchanger.