- Mar 4, 2007Ken, Click on Files. Compare the inflation or escalation of milk and
gas with corn. Then think about the calculations referenced.
Truthfully the 80% efficient wood stove used for the calculations
does not exist. Neither does the 65% efficient corn stove used for
the calculations exist. The corn stove is obsolete. The solid fuel or
coal fuel stove above 50% efficiency does not exist. Read why.
Modern corn stove combustion is 98% efficient as tested at the EPA
solid fuel approved test facility at Virginia Tech. Coal is 40%-60%
combustion efficient in the most efficient of fossil power plants as
tested by the owners, TVA, AEP, Georgia Power. Home combustion of
wood is not nearly as efficient as the professional, full time,
highly trained operators employed three shifts daily at AEP, TVA, and
The Southern Company.
No home wood stove or wood fireplace can reach 50% efficiency. 80%
total wood stove efficiency was erraneously used for the
calculations. With no consideration for heat exchange efficiency, the
combustion efficiency alone for wood is only 50% at best. Virginia
Tech has actual test data for the solid fuel stoves submitted for
testing. The test data by Virginia Tech for 98% combustion efficiency
of a corn stove takes no consideration for heat exchange efficiency
for either corn stoves, wood stoves, or solid fuel stoves.
But wait. Heat transfer efficiency may exceed 100% for wood
combustion in a fireplace as defined by the heat that escapes up the
chimney. When the wood fire dies down, there is a negative transfer
of heat out the chimney that rapidly cools the entire facility. When
the wood heated facility is smoke filled from a down draft, there
will be a negative transfer of heat while purging the entire facility
of smoke. The accumulation of cresote in a wood chimney is testimony
of combustion efficiency loss that accumulates to present continuous
future fire hazard.
The 40-60% coal combustion efficiency transfers electricity across
grid to the customer at only 24% total efficiency.
The largest electric customer/consumer of any power plant is the
power plant itself. Half the electricity produced at a fossil power
plant is used to produce the electricity on site. There are
additonal grid losses plus administrative and home office consumption
NOTE: Over half the electricity produced by AEP at AEP is consumed at
AEP by AEP power plants and grid loss transmitters. TVA and The
Southern Company have similiar statistics. Half the 50% combustion
efficiency is reduced to 25% efficiency by on-site consumption.
25% total efficiency is a goal to be proud of at AEP, TVA, & The
Southern Co. Each individual electric customer represents 35-60 tons
pollution annually. Tennessee's Ali Gore recently published
consumption represents 1000 tons pollution annually at the Al Gore
Mansion in Tennessee. TVA's AG and GAO audits chastised TVA for
selling twice the amount of annual "green credits" to consumers like
Al Gore, than the green hydro credits TVA actually produced by green
Heat exchange efficiency is equally important to combustion
efficiency. Patiently corn stove owners traded the older and lower
efficient corn stoves to obtain the newer more efficient corn
stoves. Newer corn stoves have improved heat exchanger efficiency
over the earlier corn stoves that tested at the lower heat exchange
efficiency. Do not confuse combustion efficiency with heat exchanger
Technically speaking the agricultural economics used fictious figures
to compare wood and coal combustion. There was no technical basis for
the numbers. Note the same calculations used 100% efficiency for
electricity and 80% for gas! Give us a break. Nothing is 100%
efficiency. Ask any consumer North of Nashville if the home heat
pump is 1000% efficienct (10EER rating) as advertised. Hog wash. As
shown above, electricity is 25% efficient at best. Wood and coal are
25-50% efficient at best. To my knowledge, the 98% efficient
combustion of a corn stove has NEVER BEEN TESTED for heat exchanger
efficiency. The heat exchange efficiency of each corn stove model is
unique and different. Neither have any of the other solid fuel stoves.
Please correct me if you have access to actual test data results from
Virginia Tech or any unabiased EPA approved testing facility for
actual heat exchange efficiency into the room or HVAC system.
EPA - PLEEESE don't submit ON THIS FORUM that an electric vehicle can
get more mpg standing still in heavy traffic than on the open
highway. Is the EPA intentionally biased, incompetent or
intentionally technically flawed by releasing greater mileage for
electric vehicles in heavy traffic than on the open highway? Is
there bias when 100% is used for electricity, 80% for gas, coal or
The question is raised to explain to corn stove customers that the
only numbers that really count are the total bills at the end of the
month compared to the cost of other options, personal health, comfort
and convenience factors.
If there is plenty of money, the inconvenience of removing ash and
loading corn in the corn stove may outweigh the comfort of the steady
corn stove heat and stable relative humidity. Stable room relative
humidity is an exclusive feature of the steady corn stove heat.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Ken <ken.meinken@...> wrote:
> Cornstoves wrote:
> > No heating fuel cost less than whole kernel shelled corn.
> From the calculators that I have seen, firewood and coal cost less.
> They are just not as convenient or clean.
> > Pepsi & Coke are made from corn syrup and cost less than bottled
> > water.
> That is strictly a marketing issue.
> > Gasoline made from corn ethanol cost less than $2/gallon petro
> > the ground.
> Gasoline would cost a lot less if it were not for the taxes. Corn
> ethanol is subsidized while gasoline is heavily taxed. It's pork
> politics at it's worst. The government makes many times more
> per gallon of gasoline than Exxon does.
> I am not against corn by any means. But the current market is
> by self serving politicians and corporations.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>