Jump to content

Cheapest heating in the long run for liveaboards.


Caprifool

Featured Posts

Manually, perfectly satisfactory if done correctly.

 

Not really. If it were perfectly satisfactory, people in houses wouldn't use thermostats. You are trying to make a virtue out of a necessity.

 

I don't agree about the "extremely inefficient" or the lack of control. Solid fuel stoves are very different from open fires because they limit the air to just what is needed for combustion. However if you have some good quality unbiased scientific data on comparative efficiency I would love to see it.

 

Of course the stove doesn't have a thermostat or an automatic fuel feed or the ability to start itself on the command of a timer. But these are problems of convenience rather than efficiency.

 

Common sense is all you need to see that a solid fuel stove is neither very efficient nor capable of proper control. And dirty too. If it were not all these things, people in houses would not be using gas or oil - or even electricity - for heating. And please don't ask for scientific proof of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really. If it were perfectly satisfactory, people in houses wouldn't use thermostats. You are trying to make a virtue out of a necessity.

 

 

Common sense is all you need to see that a solid fuel stove is neither very efficient nor capable of proper control. And dirty too. If it were not all these things, people in houses would not be using gas or oil - or even electricity - for heating. And please don't ask for scientific proof of that.

 

Depends what efficiency means, in a boat environment it can be quite efficient to have more than one source of heating i.e. solid and diesel in case one gives up for some reason.

You are trying to make out thermostats are perfectly satisfactory. They are no more perfect than manual adjusters, in fact they are less reliable.

 

 

 

Solid fuel costs about the same to run as diesel, taking into account of course temporary price fluctuations.

Common sense tells me that solid fuel stoves are simpler and more reliable.

Edited by nb Innisfree
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Solid fuel costs about the same to run as diesel, taking into account of course temporary price fluctuations.

 

Common sense tells me that solid fuel stoves are simpler and more reliable.

 

Great thing, common sense. <_< I wouldn't disagree for one moment that solid fuel is simpler and more reliable, though some diesel heaters do operate reliably for years. The problem with solid fuel is the mess. For me, that is sufficient reason to seek an alternative, but each to his own.

 

I have to say that I am a little disenchanted with solid fuel at the moment, having been advised to give ordinary house coal a try this last winter. Never again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great thing, common sense. <_< I wouldn't disagree for one moment that solid fuel is simpler and more reliable, though some diesel heaters do operate reliably for years. The problem with solid fuel is the mess. For me, that is sufficient reason to seek an alternative, but each to his own.

 

I have to say that I am a little disenchanted with solid fuel at the moment, having been advised to give ordinary house coal a try this last winter. Never again.

 

We have tried nearly all types of SF and find a mix of anthracite (large nuts) and Excel is perfect, 100% Excel at the beginning and end of cold weather with varying mixes between, 100% anthracite in the coldest weather. Excel is very controllable but dirty (minimum ash though) and anthracite isn't very controllable but is very clean and bangs out the heat.

Edited by nb Innisfree
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really. If it were perfectly satisfactory, people in houses wouldn't use thermostats. You are trying to make a virtue out of a necessity.

 

 

 

Common sense is all you need to see that a solid fuel stove is neither very efficient nor capable of proper control. And dirty too. If it were not all these things, people in houses would not be using gas or oil - or even electricity - for heating. And please don't ask for scientific proof of that.

 

Just because people in houses do it does not make it common sense - why do they buy Range Rovers, huge TVs, TVs in every room, new kitchens every few years? People buy gas and oil fired heating mainly because slick salesmen tell them it's a "must have". Of course gas or oil fired central heating is comfortable and convenient but it is not cheap to buy or to run.

 

Great thing, common sense. <_< I wouldn't disagree for one moment that solid fuel is simpler and more reliable, though some diesel heaters do operate reliably for years. The problem with solid fuel is the mess. For me, that is sufficient reason to seek an alternative, but each to his own.

 

I have to say that I am a little disenchanted with solid fuel at the moment, having been advised to give ordinary house coal a try this last winter. Never again.

 

I agree about the house coal. I had to use it for some weeks this past winter and it made everything filthy inside and out. Eventually got a supplier of excel and problem sorted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did the search and understand there will be different opinions about this. But, If living on board all year round and at home on the boat 24/7. What is the most economical heating? Coal, gas, wood, diesel......? Or any other suggestions? If you would choose to install new heating today, what would it be?

 

I'm choosing the Lockgate Refleks when I finally get to that stage of refitting the boat. It's nothing to do with cost of running (although I think they will be similar, with SF been a tad cheaper). For me it's the ease of use, reliability, lack of lugging coal, cleaning ash out and dust. I do prefer a real fire though, but for me the Refleks has more benefits for me. Choose the right stove for you, weigh the plusses and negatives for each then choose!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm choosing the Lockgate Refleks when I finally get to that stage of refitting the boat. It's nothing to do with cost of running (although I think they will be similar, with SF been a tad cheaper). For me it's the ease of use, reliability, lack of lugging coal, cleaning ash out and dust. I do prefer a real fire though, but for me the Refleks has more benefits for me. Choose the right stove for you, weigh the plusses and negatives for each then choose!

 

We chose the Lockgate Refleks for our cabin heating and still think it was the best decision we could have made - mainly the clean burn and lack of ash / dust and not having to store sacks of solid fuel - I also had a separate front fuel tank installed to run it, together with the Webasto heater with a pipe running the length of the boat, so both could run off the main fuel tank if necessary, although not needed so far - we run through choice the Lockgate and the Webasto off home-heating oil ( Kerosene / 28 second) for the cleaner burn and cheaper prices than red - still on our 45p/litre batch at the moment and not had to service either yet.... Now I have just had made a small "day" (week) tank which I intend to run the engine from and use white diesel with its fast ( fresh) turnover and avoid the potential biodiesel problems - even in the slow winter months I can keep full to avoid condensation, and turn it over periodically by removing and burning in the car and replacing with fresh white diesel if we don't burn it before a change would be desirable...

 

Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really. If it were perfectly satisfactory, people in houses wouldn't use thermostats. You are trying to make a virtue out of a necessity.

 

 

 

Common sense is all you need to see that a solid fuel stove is neither very efficient nor capable of proper control. And dirty too. If it were not all these things, people in houses would not be using gas or oil - or even electricity - for heating. And please don't ask for scientific proof of that.

There are a fair few things that are different between boats and houses, the main one being availability of fuel. Gas and electricity are both massively expensive for boats compared to houses, and diesel heaters use over a litre an hour, IME which is enormous compared to £18 on coal for 24/7 heating for a week. And if you get iced in, your fuel tank will run out very quickly.

 

We spent our first winter on a boat with eberspacher only. It drank diesel, ate our batteries, and we froze because we couldn't afford to keep it on long enough to keep the place bearable.

 

I'd never spend a winter on a boat without a stove ever again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a fair few things that are different between boats and houses, the main one being availability of fuel. Gas and electricity are both massively expensive for boats compared to houses, and diesel heaters use over a litre an hour, IME which is enormous compared to £18 on coal for 24/7 heating for a week. And if you get iced in, your fuel tank will run out very quickly.

 

We spent our first winter on a boat with eberspacher only. It drank diesel, ate our batteries, and we froze because we couldn't afford to keep it on long enough to keep the place bearable.

 

I'd never spend a winter on a boat without a stove ever again.

 

This doesn't seem to stack up. £18.00 a week for coal equates to less than two bags, which is not a lot. A diesel heater consuming 1 litre an hour would seem to be overkill for your boat. There are models available that use a fraction of that amount, and which would perhaps be more appropriate to your circumstances.

 

I agree that gas and electricity are very expensive on the water, but a properly specc'd diesel heater, plus a large tank so that you can buy household fuel oil economically, are a different matter.

 

But I appreciate that a large tank is not always practicable on a narrow-boat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a fair few things that are different between boats and houses, the main one being availability of fuel. Gas and electricity are both massively expensive for boats compared to houses, and diesel heaters use over a litre an hour, IME which is enormous compared to £18 on coal for 24/7 heating for a week. And if you get iced in, your fuel tank will run out very quickly.

 

We spent our first winter on a boat with eberspacher only. It drank diesel, ate our batteries, and we froze because we couldn't afford to keep it on long enough to keep the place bearable.

 

I'd never spend a winter on a boat without a stove ever again.

 

My experience was exactly the same with a webasto. When my engine broke it was even worse cos I didn't have the leccy to run the heating. Doh.

 

Stove all the way!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This doesn't seem to stack up. £18.00 a week for coal equates to less than two bags, which is not a lot. A diesel heater consuming 1 litre an hour would seem to be overkill for your boat. There are models available that use a fraction of that amount, and which would perhaps be more appropriate to your circumstances.

 

I agree that gas and electricity are very expensive on the water, but a properly specc'd diesel heater, plus a large tank so that you can buy household fuel oil economically, are a different matter.

 

But I appreciate that a large tank is not always practicable on a narrow-boat.

We buy from fuel boats. £18 = 50kg of coal, which is plenty for a 65'boat, especially if the engine also heats the water. We pay a 10/90 split normally, and had 100% red that winter, from a fuel boat charging 70p a litre (2008/9). I don't think private consumers can buy it cheaper.

 

The eberspacher used 1.25 litres per hour excluding what it took from the batteries.

 

If you don't use your boat in the winter, a stove is a waste of space. If you do, a solid-fuel stove is essential, especially if you don't have a leccy hook-up, unless you are made of money and half your ballast consists of batteries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The heating value of diesel is about twice that of coal per Kg, so a 25Kg bag is around 12litres of diesel. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heating_value Unless someone point's a flaw in my very rough calculation, they should be the same price in usage and really depending on the efficiency of the device.

 

The eberspacher used 1.25 litres per hour excluding what it took from the batteries.

 

The 4.2Kw Eberspacher should use just over half a litre an hour which is roughly the same as the Lockgate Refleks.

Edited by Robbo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget you have to power the bloody thing too, and they're sensitive to low voltage (meaning some mornings you can't start the bugger). Plus the heat is dispersed over more of the boat meaning there's no one spot that's toasty warm, just a whole boat slightly above freezing.

 

They're just not good for heating whole boats all winter unless you have shorepower

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50kg of coal will heat the place for a week with a few logs chucked on in the evenings. Equivalent to 25 litres of diesel? The diesel stove would need to be on at least 100 hours a week to provide comparable comfort. Even at half a litre an hour= 50 litres, without accounting for the electricity (= more diesel burnt) that they use for running.

 

A diesel stove that was that efficient would be worth considering though. It is easier to control, doesn't often have to be on 24/7, and it is a lot cleaner. As long as you have a lovely large diesel tank to supply it. Ours is smaller than we'd like for cruising, so we'll stick with a different fuel source and making full use of the roof storage space. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget you have to power the bloody thing too, and they're sensitive to low voltage (meaning some mornings you can't start the bugger). Plus the heat is dispersed over more of the boat meaning there's no one spot that's toasty warm, just a whole boat slightly above freezing.

 

They're just not good for heating whole boats all winter unless you have shorepower

 

I agree, the pre-heaters are more of a secondary heating method rather than primary, mainly because they can't get down to a low KW usage per hour so are your forced to cycle. But diesel vs coal in a stove is very similar in running costs, and me personally have moved from the idea of Hurricane (primary when at work) and SF Stove with to a Lockgate with coil and my current Mikuni MX60 as "backup".

 

50kg of coal will heat the place for a week with a few logs chucked on in the evenings. Equivalent to 25 litres of diesel? The diesel stove would need to be on at least 100 hours a week to provide comparable comfort. Even at half a litre an hour= 50 litres, without accounting for the electricity (= more diesel burnt) that they use for running.

 

I presume you don't run your stove at full whack all the time unless you like it really hot. The lockgate min is 0.18 litres an hour for 0.9 Kw. The minimum setting of a stove is just as important as the max, may be even more so!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once when we ran our Mikuni MX60 on the room thermostat in very cold weather, it ran for 40 mins each hour and used about 1 pint per hour, so if used 24/7 that would equate to 2 gall/9lt per day, realistically about 1.5gall/7lt if turned low overnight. 25kg of solid fuel in those same weather conditions would last us 2 to 3 days. Drip feed boiler would use same amount of diesel but non for replacing power used so about equal fuel cost I would think.

Edited by nb Innisfree
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once when we ran our Mikuni MX60 on the room thermostat in very cold weather, it ran for 40 mins each hour and used about 1 pint per hour, so if used 24/7 that would equate to 2 gall/9lt per day, realistically about 1.5gall/7lt if turned low overnight. 25kg of solid fuel in those same weather conditions would last us 2 to 3 days. Drip feed boiler would use same amount of diesel but non for replacing power used so about equal fuel cost I would think.

 

The MX60 is a 7Kw beast, it's a tad large even for a wide beam, MX40 would have been suitable and better mainly due to it wouldn't need to be cycled off/on as much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all very interesting. Thank you all!

 

A nother question that might be a teeny bit OT, but relevant is. What temp do you try to keep your living space during winter?

 

Those burning more, might just keeping their boats warmer than those argueing they burn less. Ok, I am in a house and in a different country/climate. But I get the same discussions about what is more economical from a technical point of view too. But when asking them how warm there houses are. You normaly see why it's more expencive for some. The ones paying more are the ones keeping their house a toasty 25C. We are comfortable at 15C, wearing a sweater. Our bedroom is 9C, sometimes it has been down to 3C. But we sleep well under a duve with just our noses sticking out :-) We pay the equivalent of 500GBP for our wood per year and that lasts for all the summers cooking too. But I know those who burn three-four times that much just for the winter months, with houses hot like ovens.

 

Anyway, you have been a great help. I think I know what to go for when it's my turn.

Edited by Caprifool
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The heating value of diesel is about twice that of coal per Kg, so a 25Kg bag is around 12litres of diesel. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heating_value Unless someone point's a flaw in my very rough calculation, they should be the same price in usage and really depending on the efficiency of the device.

 

 

 

The 4.2Kw Eberspacher should use just over half a litre an hour which is roughly the same as the Lockgate Refleks.

 

 

I think the problem is that 4kw is too much heat, most of the time, so the device has to do a lot of stopping and starting. This can be a problem for boats with batteries in poor condition, or an inadequate number of them.

 

A small drip feed heater is a better choice for many people. Some of these are 0.1 litres per hour, and they probably don't need to be on all day. At present fuel prices, that's still a bit more expensive than 2 bags of coal (a number which I suspect rises during cold spells!). However, the difference in cost is (IMO) a small price to pay for having a clean boat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once when we ran our Mikuni MX60 on the room thermostat in very cold weather, it ran for 40 mins each hour and used about 1 pint per hour, so if used 24/7 that would equate to 2 gall/9lt per day, realistically about 1.5gall/7lt if turned low overnight. 25kg of solid fuel in those same weather conditions would last us 2 to 3 days. Drip feed boiler would use same amount of diesel but non for replacing power used so about equal fuel cost I would think.

7 litres at ~90p for red at the moment is £6.30.

 

Half a bag of coal is £4.50.

 

I think you can make it stack up on other benefits, but not on running costs. I'm mulling over a diesel-range/gas generator set up as a result of this thread. It would give us enough space for a second bedroom/dining room if we could get rid of the stove, and the endless cleaning over winter would be nice to avoid. Fuel storage problems solved by using our gas to generate electricity instead of for cooking, with solar panels to provide the bulk of it.

 

When that big invoice gets paid ... <dreams>

Edited by ymu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.